Red Europe (RAR!)

[Zor]

For whatever reason, during the second world war, the United States, while remaining democratic, does not get involved in the Second World War. In Europe, Britain is not invaded, but can't do anything besides naval action against the germans, Bombing german cities and possibly fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa. Meanwhile, the Nazis face the same problems they did in OTL when they invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and get bogged down, overextend their supply train, have there Spearhead stopped at Stalingrad and then face a vast and well armed army of the Soviet Union decends on Europe, takes Berlin and causes Hitler to shot himself in the head. However, instead of stopping with East Germany, Stalin pushes further westards and by 1947, Europe, from poland to portugal is divided up into new communist states.

What happens?

Zor

[Pollux]

Ingsoc?

[Gandalf]

I imagine that under this wacky scenario, the Allies might start WW3 to get their Europe back.

EDIT: I misjudged the scenario. Assuming that this means that war has already started, TBO occurs with some modifications.

Ingsoc?

Actually, they had Neo-Bolshevism. Oceania had Ingsoc.

[Guardsman Bass]

Are we assuming that the Allies never open a second front in France? Because it would be rather difficult for the Soviets to spread west across Continental Europe without ramming straight into the rest of the Allied Forces moving east.

I presume that in this kind of scenario, the Soviets would probably end up taking a nuclear hit or two; even in our reality, they didn't test a bomb until 1949, and that was with good espionage.

[Androsphinx]

Possibly less than in OTL. The immediate flashpoints and grounds for suspicion/agression are removed. There is no US presence in W. Europe, and no "special relationship" between the US and UK. There's no NATO, no Berlin airlift, and no Soviet take-over contrary to previous agreements. The focus of US trade and strategic interests move to the Pacific rim. There will probably be the same situations in Korea and China as OTL, except with more US involvement, which could change things for the better. There will probably still be a Red Scare, etc.

There is no real possibility of non-nuclear war, as there is no place where huge numbers of US and Soviet troops can engage (until the Soviets reach into the American sphere of East Asia). Until the 1960s there's no possibility of nuclear war either - and without British leaks of US nuclear secrets, the Soviet nuclear programme is slower.

[Androsphinx]

I misjudged the scenario. Assuming that this means that war has already started, TBO occurs with some modifications.

So having stayed out of a war they had every reason to fight in (WW2), the US then decide to pick a fight with the Soviet Union? If the US doesn't get involved in WW2 for whatever reason, that's a clear isolationist stance - or at least one of not getting involved in European wars. Why would they then involve themselves in another one with less cause, from a position of weakness?

[Androsphinx]

Edit: And without US involvement in WW2, there's hardly the OTL impetus for the huge nuclear programme that would have produced TBO.

[K. A. Pital]

However, instead of stopping with East Germany, Stalin pushes further westards and by 1947, Europe, from poland to portugal is divided up into new communist states.

Extremely unlikely, since there's no legal cause for the USSR to go beyond the territory of the Reich. If the Americano-Japanese war proceeds as it did, by 1945 the USSR will know America has the atomic bomb.

Attacking places outside the Reich, or at least it's fascist satellites and auxillaries, will immediately provoke a new large conflict with the US and the British Empire.

But let's assume the USSR takes over all fascist states. Would the US really risk now losing the strained, but existing alliance with the only remaining continental power in Europe?

"WWIII"? More likely just shitloads of international commissions where the US and Britain are reduced to a position of observer.

And it's hardly possible to install communist states everywhere at the same time, but still the massively industrialized Europe would be of great help to the Soviet Union which is ravaged by the war, but now has reached a superpower status. The introduction of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe was part of the plan for creating a buffer zone, but without any continental threats, I'd say Stalin would concentrate on industrial reparations and loose (Finland-like) alliances, to give him resources for Navy-building.

[Androsphinx]

Attacking places outside the Reich, or at least it's fascist satellites and auxillaries, will immediately provoke a new large conflict with the US and the British Empire.

But who is left in Europe who isn't a fascist ally? Occupied BeNeLux? Vichy? Franco? Mussolini? Salazar?

[K. A. Pital]

But who is left in Europe who isn't a fascist ally? Occupied BeNeLux? Vichy? Franco? Mussolini? Salazar?

Salazar is technically a lot more neutral than Franco. And crushing Franco could very much be possible under a joint operation - something like that was discussed post-war by the anti-Hitler coalition but the idea never materialized.

In a world where the USSR comes crushing the whole Europe which turned into a Nazi sphere of influence, throwing the Anglo-American allies a "bone" like taking part in the post-war re-arrangements in Europe could foster support for joint anti-Franco and anti-Salazar operations.

Alternatively, Britain and US can take a strong pro-Franco and pro-Salazar stance, and then I doubt the USSR can risk invading formally neutral, even if fascist countries.

[Sea Skimmer]

I very highly doubt the Soviet war machine would be in any state to go so far was invading Iberia, no matter what the policy desires Soviet leadership might have. It’s another 750 miles from the historical limit of the Soviet advance just to reach the Spanish boarder, followed by some very steep mountains and generally bad terrain. Moscow to Poland is a shorter trip. Meanwhile without the US in the war, Soviet losses and deprivations will have been significantly heavier just to get to Germany; I just don’t see it happening.

Even just invading Italy would be very difficult, though I would expect Italy to surrender before that happened. Most axis troops in Western Europe would surrender to whatever passes for local government once Germany is occupied and Hitler dead, and it’s possible that the Soviet occupation would not even extend into all of France.

[Androsphinx]

Salazar is technically a lot more neutral than Franco. And crushing Franco could very much be possible under a joint operation - something like that was discussed post-war by the anti-Hitler coalition but the idea never materialized.

In a world where the USSR comes crushing the whole Europe which turned into a Nazi sphere of influence, throwing the Anglo-American allies a "bone" like taking part in the post-war re-arrangements in Europe could foster support for joint anti-Franco and anti-Salazar operations.

Alternatively, Britain and US can take a strong pro-Franco and pro-Salazar stance, and then I doubt the USSR can risk invading formally neutral, even if fascist countries.

Yes, but in OTL there was a large standing US army in Europe. From where would they mount an invasion of Spain? Especially when Stalin could protray his invasion as "Civil War take 2" (the communists had always been more popular than the fascists in that one, anyway).

But why would Stalin want their involvement? It's his "bone" to offer, and he'll have a huge standing army with industrial resources he never dreamed of possessing. Why let the capitalist pigdogs participate in the first place.

And as for taking a pro-Franco stance - again, if the US sat out WW2, where a bunch of neutrals were occupied by the Nazis, why should they suddenly care when Nazi-affiliated Europe gets rolled up by the USSR?

[K. A. Pital]

Most axis troops in Western Europe would surrender to whatever passes for local government once Germany is occupied and Hitler dead, and it’s possible that the Soviet occupation would not even extend into all of France.

The Soviet government had treaties with Britain and France already, didn't it? I don't think they'd oppose putting De Gaulle in charge of whatever remains of France if they manage to take the German-occupied territory with the most heavily industrialized assets.

It's his "bone" to offer, and he'll have a huge standing army with industrial resources he never dreamed of possessing.

The USSR's dominance in Europe, even if questionable and, taking lots of years to secure, will lead the British to provide generous diplomatic offers to the Soviet Union, since Britain's own position is pretty bad.

A gesture of good will towards an ailing ally, maintaning a pretense of "alliance" and "multi-centered decisions"in the anti-Hitler coalition, whilst clearly showing who's boss and undermining the British ability for independent acting without the Soviets - that's not an uncommon tactic for the USSR.

Many satellites have been incorporated into Soviet influence by at first allowing them participation in decisions, then slowly showing how really dependent they are.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don’t expect they’d oppose his rule, but they might well insist on taking control of all German POWs and on overseeing the destruction of German military equipment. The Soviets would certainly be aware of the massive level of collaboration that went on in France.

Edit: Also since De Gaulle has in this timeline not led a French Army back into France, his own ability to take power will be greatly hampered. Plenty of people in France simply hated him, and Free French forces probably don’t amount to much. It might be necessary for him to assume power at the head of a parade of Soviet tanks; though I really don’t know much about what he thought of the Soviet Union in general.

[Androsphinx]

The Soviet government had treaties with Britain and France already, didn't it?

Some minor stuff, but it all went out the window after Molotov-Ribbentrop. It was very clear at that point that the Soviets had chosen Germany over Britain (and France), who almost got involved in the Winter War on the Finnish side (occupying some Swedish iron ore on the way...).

And it's entirely possible that independent German elements would fight on after Hitler's death, especially if there's no Western Front. This might even provide the motivation/justification for Soviet invasions of Spain or Italy. Let's not forget that in OTL there were very strong communist parties in both countries anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

German POWs, yes, they could demand that as the de-facto single victor over Germany, even if formally maintaining the anti-Hitler coalition. Though I doubt they'd just throw away the collegial body - afte rall, the UN was useful to the USSR later on as a collegial body.

Actually, gaining the industrial assets of Europe will greatly help the Soviet economy. It might be so that ultimately the USSR becomes much more strong after that and makes it through the economic stagnation in the 80's.

Some minor stuff, but it all went out the window after Molotov-Ribbentrop. It was very clear at that point that the Soviets had chosen Germany over Britain (and France), who almost got involved in the Winter War on the Finnish side (occupying some Swedish iron ore on the way...).

No, I mean post-1941. The Anti-Hitler coalition.

And it's entirely possible that independent German elements would fight on after Hitler's death, especially if there's no Western Front. This might even provide the motivation/justification for Soviet invasions of Spain or Italy. Let's not forget that in OTL there were very strong communist parties in both countries anyway.

Italy and Spain had socialist and communist rebels still fighting, but could those become a backbone for invasion and help it to succeed? Italy, quite probably, Il Duce was a target of the soviet government too. But Franco... that's unclear. It's a very hard operation. I'd say the USSR would try to secure Europe first, then in a few years try to launch a join operation against Franco, just picking on some minor provocations in Franco Spain.

[Sea Skimmer]

The USSR gains a vast amount of industry true; but it would not gain control of all the raw materials needed to supply that industry, which is likely to cause serious long term problems. The German economy was very dependent on overseas trade, despite what the Germans might have liked to think, and only kept going in WW2 via starving and impoverishing the rest of Europe. I suspect a lot of the industry would be dismantled anyway, and shipped back to Russia to replace stuff destroyed during the war.

[K. A. Pital]

I suspect a lot of the industry would be dismantled anyway, and shipped back to Russia to replace stuff destroyed during the war.

Quite so, but this also means USSR is going to become a post-war economic powerhouse of Europe - after all, the USSR has natural resources, but industrialization in it was lacking behind Germany. Just getting hands over the entier German steelcutting machinry park would mean great things for the Soviet Union. For example, it will become easier to mass-produce automobiles and consumer goods - something that the crash industrialization in the USSR was lacking, and especially badly in the post-war times. The pre-war industrialization and the war itself seriously skewed Soviet industries towards heavy machinery for decades to come.

[K. A. Pital]

About De Gaulle - the crushing of Germany and it's rapid de-industrializatin were De Gaulle's goals in the war and he was not pleased when the Western allies started re-arming Germany and lifted the weight of repeations from it. If the USSR does not restore an industrial Germany, shipping the industry off into Russia instead, I think that will sound well with De Gaulle.

[Androsphinx]

No, I mean post-1941. The Anti-Hitler coalition.

Doesn't exist in this timeline because the US does not get involved in WW2. Maybe with the British, but they're not really in a position to do anything about a Soviet takeover of France.

Italy and Spain had socialist and communist rebels still fighting, but could those become a backbone for invasion and help it to succeed? Italy, quite probably, Il Duce was a target of the soviet government too. But Franco... that's unclear. It's a very hard operation. I'd say the USSR would try to secure Europe first, then in a few years try to launch a join operation against Franco, just picking on some minor provocations in Franco Spain.

The invasion of Spain seems like a good idea.
(1) who is going to stop you?
(2) who wants fascists (especially ones who brutally defeated communists) on your doorstep
(3) it might be nice to cement naval control of the Med.

But as for the "joint" nature (I assume you mean with the US/UK) - where, why and why?
Specifically - how and where will the US forces deploy and invade? Why do you need their help? Why would they want to help?

[Straha]

Extremely unlikely, since there's no legal cause for the USSR to go beyond the territory of the Reich. If the Americano-Japanese war proceeds as it did, by 1945 the USSR will know America has the atomic bomb.

Assuming the OP means that the US doesn't enter into the war in Europe and not all of the Second World War what would prevent the US from merely throwing everything it had at Japan? No European front means no "Europe first" strategy which means success in the Pacific far earlier than 1945 and thus no atomic bomb, with both a nationalist China and a 'democratic' Korea probably following.

[Androsphinx]

Extremely unlikely, since there's no legal cause for the USSR to go beyond the territory of the Reich. If the Americano-Japanese war proceeds as it did, by 1945 the USSR will know America has the atomic bomb.

Assuming the OP means that the US doesn't enter into the war in Europe and not all of the Second World War what would prevent the US from merely throwing everything it had at Japan? No European front means no "Europe first" strategy which means success in the Pacific far earlier than 1945 and thus no atomic bomb, with both a nationalist China and a 'democratic' Korea probably following.

Probably still an atomic programme, although perhaps with less haste (and less German exiles via England). Nationalist China would be a bone of contention for the USSR, but with less direct US involvement another global war seems less likely.

Oh, and as I'm sure Stuart would say - because there's no nuclear standoff in the 50s, there's no arms race, no missile gap, no JFK and no MacNamara. Thus the US sticks with manned bombers, and the world is an even safer place.

[K. A. Pital]

Doesn't exist in this timeline because the US does not get involved in WW2.

It exists, just doesn't include the United States - Britain, Free French, etc. still are part of the Alliance. And the Allies are still economically superior to Germany and able to kick the shit out of it.

The invasion of Spain seems like a good idea.

Overstretching forces into a mountainous terrain.

(1) who is going to stop you?

It's better to coordinate with the French, a huge territory of whom will server as a base for your operations. Causing discontent among the French is unwise. Thus a joing Free-French and Soviet operation is necessary.

(2) who wants fascists (especially ones who brutally defeated communists) on your doorstep

The French will assist, but you must give them privileges.

(3) it might be nice to cement naval control of the Med.

Yes. After all, I just said it should be a joint operation. French and British might be disempowered, but France is the backbone of this operation, the main supply platzdarm. Giving them a role is important, thus a joint operation as I said. Foistering the French with some military victories of their own might also be important for post-war stability. The USSR formed auxillary armies out of Easter Europeans for joint operations, to ensure a support base in Eastern Europe.

[Androsphinx]

Oh, I see. The OP does seem to imply that France just gets rolled over like the rest of Wester Europe, but if you want to make them part of the Soviet "sphere of influence" instead, that seems reasonable.

Then what?

[K. A. Pital]

The OP does seem to imply that France just gets rolled over like the rest of Wester Europe

That's not going to sit well with the French, you know. The French Resistance had a large number of communists, but I doubt the French would look keen at attempt to impose Soviet dominance - Tito and Yugoslavia did not like it, for once.

Now, France is the most important platzdarm for any offensives into Spain. It's also crucial to maintaining stability in occupied Germany as a provider of foods to the ravaged country, and yet more important as France would be spared the ravage of mass bombings.

What next? The USSR becomes the strongest state in Eurasia, a superpower far more great and resourceful. Incursions into the Soviet zone, I belive, would be swiftly put down.

In fact, with Europe under military administrations or even in the influence zone, the Soviet government has untied it's hand for operatins in the Middle East and crushing it's second most vaunted rival - the British Empire. It will be slowly falling apart and as the US is so isolationist, I doubt they could do much against the anti-colonial movement once the USSR takes full control of it and boosts up assistance to anti-British rebellins and governments everywhere, like Greece, Middle East, Philippines, Egypt, India and so on and so forth.

The Soviet dominance in Eurasia is assured for a rather long time, especialy with the Reich's industrial resources taken away into Russia as reparations. I doubt Rssia would be keen on letting Europe militarize as it did in reality, so Europe would become hopelessly dependent on Russia's military and industrial strength for at least several coming decades.

To put it simply, this is just a huge bonus to the USSR with little downsides. If the US stays out of WWII PERIOD, I don't even know if they have their nuclear monopoly in 1945. If US crushes Japan with atomic bombings as it did, and tries to level demands at the Soviet Union, it won't be long before the USSR uses the full strength of industries in europe and at home to create jet interceptors, rocketry and long-range bombers to counter the USAF threat.

Hell, a situation not unlike Soviet Superman comics would arise, with the US isolated while the USSR gaining shitloads of resources, plentiful mild-climate agricultural lands as opposed to Russia's cold and harsh spaces and one of the greatest possible propaganda boosts... the SOLE strong liberator of Europe (auxillaries, even if paid token respect, would clearly be understood as auxillaries but everyone would know who did most of the job).

And _IF_ the US decides to bomb Europe or Russia with nuclear devices in 1947-to-1949, until the USSR gained it's own... that's a doomspell. It will be the most clear propaganda victory the USSR could ever hope for, a capitalist country using super-powerful weapons for mass-killings without retaliation. That will cement the Soviet rule, no matter it's real achievments, stronger than ever.