What if the USSR was a Nazi ally during WW2?

[Sidewinder]

Assume the US, for whatever reason, declares war against Nazi Germany in spring of 1940. Hitler, realizing he needs all the soldiers he has to counter a British-American alliance, cancels Operation Barbarossa and makes diplomatic overtures to keep Stalin on his side. (Assume the Nazis destroyed all relevant data on planning for Operation Barbarossa, so Stalin never receives hard evidence that Hitler intended to violate the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.) How does World War 2 progress from then on?

[Sean Mulligan]

Most of Germany's casualties during the war were suffered on the Eastern Front with the Soviet Union actively on Germany's side Britain would be finished. It would then be extremely difficult for America to liberate Europe.

[Mobird53]

would of advanced like usual till us had nuke used it on berlin and than the axis would start to fall apart. Oh and they would have started the manhatten proj. earlier as they would have been in war earlier. The japs would fall out, the italians would over throw Mussolini. and if none of the happens, everyone hates us cause we make alot of Europe and most of russia not habbitable. Oh and britain gets captured first, and hitler takes over the neutral countries. And if none of that happens, russian and germany clash in the end anyways, just look at Hitler and Stalin they both wanted the world and power but had different ideologies. Once they took over europe and asia they would clash, as stalin would wants communism and hitler wouldn't. a clash between the two is inevitable.

[Superman]

The USA builds another atomic bomb?

How about if Japan defeated the US pacific fleet? Since the Russians have had a history of conflict with the Japanese, would they have gone on to attack them? Surely they would have viewed their taking of the pacific as a threat.

[Mobird53]

To add to my first

Not another atomic bomb. he said 1940 pearl harbor was 1941 (december 7, 1941 to be exact) so they wouldn't have used it against the jap's. and the fleet wouldn't all be sitting there the US would most likely of diverted some of it to fight german fleet. as they didn't know of any pacific threat yet.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I have a problem with Mobirds nuke theory, the Soviet Union had so heavily entrenched spys into the US, Stalin already knew of the bombs before they were anounced to the rest of the Allied Leaders. Now, let's take that information, and then see what happens when the Soviet Spies are not only gathering information, but actively sabotaging our efforts.

[PeZook]

I have a problem with Mobirds nuke theory, the Soviet Union had so heavily entrenched spys into the US, Stalin already knew of the bombs before they were anounced to the rest of the Allied Leaders. Now, let's take that information, and then see what happens when the Soviet Spies are not only gathering information, but actively sabotaging our efforts.

It would've led to delays, but security measures taken would improve vastly if the Russian spy network started doing anything that obviously important. Furthermore, Russians would have to start using illegal spy networks, which are always less effective because intelligence officers can't pose as diplomats and get diplomatic immunity if there is no embassy within the country.

In addition, the Red Army in 1940 wasn't in very good condition to help Germany much. Sea Lion is still a pipe dream, and the Battle Of Britain goes as it did historically. Since the US is on the bandwagon earlier, American aid to Britain is much more significant than OTL.

Now - the Russians have to develop their army, but since it isn't destroyed in 1941 to be rebuilt afterwards, it remains an incredibly powerful fighting force, especially if the officer corps recovers from Stalin's purges.

With American help, Britain remains unassailable. The U-Boat war still fails to accomplish anything, the air campaign against Germany is still started, but it's harder to pull through without an Eastern front sucking up German resources (especially fighters and pilots). At some point in the future, Stalin inevitably backstabs Hitler and rolls over Europe in a gigantic Red tide, "liberating" country after country.

Any invasion of the continent that's planned by the Allies after that (even if for some magickal reason Stalin doesn't pull something like the above) is much, much more bloody than OTL, but the Allies would probably still enjoy air dominance and a materiel advantage with thanks to their superior industry.

All in all, the possible outcomes are:

1) Europe becomes Red and stays Red. We get a communist super-block which of course falls inevitably somewhere by the end of the XXth century and the world is much, much worse off than today. Possibly, a nuclear war erupts somewhere by the end of the 1940s.

2) Europe gets partitioned and stays Nazi-communist. Outcome similar to the above.

3) The War ends during the second half the 1940s with a liberated Europe and broken Soviet Union. Casualties are about as high as OTL, but Americans have to endure a lot more death compared to other powers. Nukes are likely to be used on one or more major Soviet cities. Overall, the world is somewhat better off than in OTL due to less communist influence.

[K. A. Pital]

(Assume the Nazis destroyed all relevant data on planning for Operation Barbarossa, so Stalin never receives hard evidence that Hitler intended to violate the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.)

You think Stalin hasn't read "Mein Kampf"? Or that Stalin was totally unaware of Hitler's planning to attack the USSR, as opposed to being unaware of the terms and plans of Hitler's attack, and thus failing to counter it?

How does World War 2 progress from then on?

Britain bombs Soviet oil plants. US nukes everyone into submission in a few years.

Simple, Hitlerite Germany doesn't stand a chance against Anglo-American bloc, with the USSR or without it. It would hold Europe, sure, no doubt about it. Anything more? No.

Neither Germany, nor (the even more pathetic) USSR have naval abilities to threaten Anglo-American union. Not even combined.

Shortly thereafter, the two countries are bombed by strategic aviation (which they both lack) and, well, by 1945 are nuked - that is, if the USSR doesn't realize this is a no-no affair and either attacks Germany or simply defects from the doomed alliance.

Quite simple, the Axis had no chance of winning.

And, well, basically the countries' union can endure only until 1945. Germany and the USSR were extremely antagonistic. The alliance was forced by the failure of Franco-Soviet-British political attmpts at a union, not because the USSR wanted Germany as an ally in an _unwinnable_ war.

[K. A. Pital]

Now - the Russians have to develop their army, but since it isn't destroyed in 1941 to be rebuilt afterwards, it remains an incredibly powerful fighting force, especially if the officer corps recovers from Stalin's purges.

The purges were rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

At some point in the future, Stalin inevitably backstabs Hitler and rolls over Europe in a gigantic Red tide

I see Nazi propaganda has worked well. The strategic plans of the USSR never extended anywhere beyond crushing the German armoured group in Poland, not to mention the lack of military capability for a such a war.

If the USSR manages to crush the German military, it might take over the Reich, but certainly not over it's conquered territories - not to mention that the action would be, both politically and militarily, a suicide.

I doubt the USSR had incentives for such reckless actions; unlike Imperial Japan which was held in a tight resource blockade, the USSR was by the time recognized in all the world and enjoying fast economic development. The USSR's political relations were driven by rationalism and calculation, unlike the Axis which was willing to engage in suicidal avanturism.

[weemadando]

A land passage between the Pacific and Atlantic? No second front for Germany? Oil, resources and manpower?

It really doesn't look good for the Allies.

The Pacific is probably a stalemate. But Europe is fucked.

[K. A. Pital]

It really doesn't look good for the Allies.

France. The rest of the Allies are A-OK.

The Pacific is probably a stalemate.

Nyah. Japan is fucked either way. They had serious problems containing China even. And doing something really damaging to the US? Not in hell; PH was their best try. Once US is pumped up in total war, Japan is screwed.

[PeZook]

The purges were rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Hence why the "especially"

At some point in the future, Stalin inevitably backstabs Hitler and rolls over Europe in a gigantic Red tide

I see Nazi propaganda has worked well. The strategic plans of the USSR never extended anywhere beyond crushing the German armoured group in Poland, not to mention the lack of military capability for a such a war.

In the OTL, sure, but in 1940, should Stalin go to war with Germany anyways (an almost certain possibility) it's possible the Soviets would "liberate" France as well. And I'm not talking about conquering and annexing Europe into the USSR - it would be impossible, if only because of nightmarish guerilla warfare that would follow. Soviets always preferred establishing puppet regimens in "liberated" countries, after all, and it seems likely they will take the opportunity to do so.

Though now that I think about it, the likely possibility would be that Stalin would cooperate with the Allies in such a case, thus the results would be very similar to OTL, maybe with entire Germany turning into the DDR instead of just one half. Depends on too many factors.

If the USSR manages to crush the German military, it might take over the Reich, but certainly not over it's conquered territories - not to mention that the action would be, both politically and militarily, a suicide.

Why? Annexation would be suicidal, but Soviets don't need to annex a country to make it one of their satellite states, now do they?

I doubt the USSR had incentives for such reckless actions; unlike Imperial Japan which was held in a tight resource blockade, the USSR was by the time recognized in all the world and enjoying fast economic development. The USSR's political relations were driven by rationalism and calculation, unlike the Axis which was willing to engage in suicidal avanturism.

Well, they did take the opportunity and install a puppet regime in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary. Should they have to liberate, say, the Benelux, we could expect a similar thing (eg. not a USSR stretching from ocean to ocean, but a larger Warsaw Pact for the future)

[K. A. Pital]

Soviets always preferred establishing puppet regimens in "liberated" countries, after all, and it seems likely they will take the opportunity to do so.

Well, "puppet regimes" in Eastern Europe were only strong and successful because of USSR's enormous post-war prestige. Take that away, and I don't see much left.

Though now that I think about it, the likely possibility would be that Stalin would cooperate with the Allies in such a case, thus the results would be very similar to OTL, maybe with entire Germany turning into the DDR instead of just one half.

A quite possible scenario. If Germany is reckless enough to cause the ire of the United States so quickly, the Soviet administration would definetely think again about the benefits and costs of the ongoing cooperation with Germany.

Annexation would be suicidal, but Soviets don't need to annex a country to make it one of their satellite states, now do they?

We didn't have much trouble in OTL because of our Allied prestige. In our alternative, hardly so...

Well, they did take the opportunity and install a puppet regime in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary.

Certainly, but they aren't exactly all similar to one another. For example, Poland was overrun and the regime there was installed forcibly (there was a lot of bad blood between the USSR and Poland already, so it's not like the USSR didn't need to occupy the country). In Czechoslovakia, a different situation - gradually, a populist communist party came to power (not without popular support), and it heavily depended on USSR's immediate post war influence. Romania's regime was also initially installed through Soviet dominance and post-war influence, when this was waning the Romanian government clearly has shown a will to act versus official Moscow line.

In short, without the Soviet authoriative stance as an Allied winner in 1945, attempts to install stalinism in Europe would fail miserably, and provoke possible military conflicts with the USSR. Even if hte USSR installs several "puppet" regimes, those "puppets" might find the Soviet authority lacking and go their own way. Without the victors' influence and prestige, the USSR will have serious problems exerting even marginal influence over such a large and diverse territory as Europe. Just IMHO, of course.

[PeZook]

This is a very good point - I didn't take into account the fact the Allies were falling all over themselves in praise of Stalin and the heroic Red Army, and they wouldn't do that in this alt-1940.

I suppose that without the whole "Uncle Joe" schtick, they would be much less inclined to humor Stalin in several key points. I can see how installing a puppet regime in a country like France would be staunchly opposed, possibly even the question of Polish borders would be negotiated much more tensely than in OTL.

Overall, tough, I think we both agree the possible changes will be pretty minor. A different regime in Germany at most, or perhaps an end to the war somewhat sooner (thanks to US comitting a full year and a half earlier).

You know what? About the spy angle - it's possible that without such relatively nice and peaceful relations with the USSR after the war, the USSR would actually get the A-Bomb much later. Think about it - all agents in the program worked either due to ideological convictions (scientists) or for money (technicians, low-level personnell) and were recruited mostly by "legal" residents.

So what happens when Manhattan project scientists don't wanna talk to you, because your country is allied with an enemy? And you can't even reach them easily, because your spies are from an "illegal" network? I'd wager milking them for information and data would be a tad bit harder.

[K. A. Pital]

This is a very good point - I didn't take into account the fact the Allies were falling all over themselves in praise of Stalin and the heroic Red Army, and they wouldn't do that in this alt-1940.

Heh. Not just the Allies. The European governments, they would not have resistance movements which will eventually decide that Stalin is their foremost ally - because of the Great War, the USSR also gained prestige among the Resistance. If the Empires (Germany and Britain) continue duking it out but the USSR does nothing, it has little prestige.

About the spy angle - it's possible that without such relatively nice and peaceful relations with the USSR after the war, the USSR would actually get the A-Bomb much later. Think about it - all agents in the program worked either due to ideological convictions (scientists) or for money (technicians, low-level personnell) and were recruited mostly by "legal" residents.

What does this change? The Soviet nuclear program was fairly advanced to make it sooner or later. Or do you think that without a nuclear bomb, US would nuke the USSR and the Warsaw Pact? I certainly don't find such a turn of events comfortable, but neither is this realistic IMHO. Because the USSR, despite getting atomic bombs in 1949, severely lacked in any deployment abilities - it didn't have strategic bomber forces capable of retaliating against the US or Britain. A later A-bomb would change little in the general strategic landscape.

A different regime in Germany at most, or perhaps an end to the war somewhat sooner (thanks to US comitting a full year and a half earlier).

Strategic bombing of Germany which can kill it's military elite cadres and damage precious industries like the chemical industry, will certainly play in favour of a swift end to war. And, I think, if strategic bombers start flying in thousands over Germany, the USSR's Politbureau would be quick to pledge allegiance to the Allies and strike at Hitler while the former is occupied with a hopeless Atlantic debacle. Because the USSR _can_ tolerate the grinding of Germany to shit, but hardly it will love to see the same done to it's industries.

The USSR was very protective of it's industries, it even sacrificed the Army strength and deployability (which could've arguably hindered the German progress) to save the industry from German bombing (silly Germans failed to launch a timely bombing campaign, however, and failed to stop Soviet industrial relocation...). A fact: half of Soviet railway transportation volume was commited to relocating the industry in 1941 - at the same time when undeployed troops were aching for reinforcements.

The USSR, I must say, was far more rational than Nazi Germany in it's actions; it recognized that the destruction of an Army is not yet an end, but the destruction of industry and elite production cadres (lots of dead professional workers...) are a _very_ bad outcome and did what they could to stop that.

[PeZook]

What does this change? The Soviet nuclear program was fairly advanced to make it sooner or later. Or do you think that without a nuclear bomb, US would nuke the USSR and the Warsaw Pact? I certainly don't find such a turn of events comfortable, but neither is this realistic IMHO. Because the USSR, despite getting atomic bombs in 1949, severely lacked in any deployment abilities - it didn't have strategic bomber forces capable of retaliating against the US or Britain. A later A-bomb would change little in the general strategic landscape.

It was a response to General Schatten's post about soviet spies sabotaging US efforts. I know the US probably wouldn't nuke the USSR, they had the capability to easily win the nuclear war in OTL and didn't use it. I was just trying to say that soviet spies were agents recruited amongst the naive and the greedy in the Manhattan Project, and that those agents would not only not sabotage the program, most of them would not even want to speak to Soviet operatives. You could pay off someone here or there to do something, but sabotaging the entire program is out of the question, so the US gets their bomb as scheduled.

Strategic bombing of Germany which can kill it's military elite cadres and damage precious industries like the chemical industry, will certainly play in favour of a swift end to war. And, I think, if strategic bombers start flying in thousands over Germany, the USSR's Politbureau would be quick to pledge allegiance to the Allies and strike at Hitler while the former is occupied with a hopeless Atlantic debacle. Because the USSR _can_ tolerate the grinding of Germany to shit, but hardly it will love to see the same done to it's industries.

There's even precedent to that - Italy changed sides in WWI readily enough, and nobody gave them much flak for it. The situation's slightly different, but not by much.

The USSR, I must say, was far more rational than Nazi Germany in it's actions; it recognized that the destruction of an Army is not yet an end, but the destruction of industry and elite production cadres (lots of dead professional workers...) are a _very_ bad outcome and did what they could to stop that.

The USSR was much more rational, I'll give you that. Hitler relied on gambling to get his little war going, and he lost like he was bound to. The USSR was more careful, and managed their risks more, though they still made some dumb mistakes (like, say, not foreseeing Barbarossa. Though I guess hindsight's 20/20)

[K. A. Pital]

The USSR was more careful, and managed their risks more, though they still made some dumb mistakes (like, say, not foreseeing Barbarossa. Though I guess hindsight's 20/20)

Actually, they foresaw an attack by Hitler, somewhere in the future ever since he started the offensive in Europe with aquisition of Czechoslovakia, as documents show. The problem was:
a) strategic initiative of the Germans - they were mobilizing faster than the uSSR, the USSR's railway network was incapable of running up to their pace
b) the failure of Soviet intelligence to uncover correct plans of German offensive. A more or less close-to-truth report only got to the Stavka on 11 June, and even then they did not know if this weren't another "deza" (desinformation) sent out by the British agenture or whatnot.

The USSR was unable to deploy it's forces and was caught pants down. If you gave it several more weeks, it could've held the German offensive off much better than in OTL and probably retaliate in a meaningful fashion.

The problem was, Germans were running a covert and very fast build-up, the USSR was not prepared for such speed. Basically the whole attacking force for Barbarossa was brought up to strength and deployed in the course of several weeks - the USSR thought that it monitors German movements quite close and that Germans would require months to drive their troops up to necessary attack levels. The Germans were faster.

Tough luck.

[PeZook]

Tough luck.

This entire war was something like that

[K. A. Pital]

This entire war was something like that

Well, definetely. Though, Europe, especially Eastern terrtories got hit the hardest. US got off relatively easy. It's one thing when "tough luck" means that you have several hundred soldiers die in a war against an ocean-separate Axis enemy and another thing when you have several dozen millions of your citizens simply wiped out by the Axis in a "total annihilation" fashion and your entire countries ravaged by the war.

[Sidewinder]

I'm wondering what the Japanese would do in such a situation, with the US applying pressure to get them out of China, and their German allies kissing up to the guys who kicked their asses. Do you think the Japanese will continue supporting the Axis Powers, declare neutrality and cut their losses, or switch sides?

What do you think Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-Shek will do in this situation?

[K. A. Pital]

Do you think the Japanese will continue supporting the Axis Powers, declare neutrality and cut their losses, or switch sides?

They were already neutral towards USSR after we kicked off their measly attempts at border mischief. No need to change the stance. They were still acting udner the illusion that they could contain China. Most likely, with the USSR being neutral or cooperating with teh Axis, Japan would be a little more bold in it's Chinese operations.

[Sidewinder]

Do you think the Japanese will continue supporting the Axis Powers, declare neutrality and cut their losses, or switch sides?

They were already neutral towards USSR after we kicked off their measly attempts at border mischief. No need to change the stance. They were still acting udner the illusion that they could contain China. Most likely, with the USSR being neutral or cooperating with teh Axis, Japan would be a little more bold in it's Chinese operations.

Hopefully, this will result in China getting more aid and, with this aid, becoming more successful in its efforts against the Japanese invaders. But considering most of the Allies were willing to advance their own interests at the expense of the Chinese, my hopes aren't very high.

On the other hand, a more aggressive US might prevent the Japanese from ever launching the Attack on Pearl Harbor, or attacking the Phillipines. This means US military will be in a more advantageous position in the Pacific-- they wouldn't lose 75,000 soldiers and seamen as POWs.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I honestly don't think that America would have the bomb if Germany didn't fall. I just watched a special on it and many of the last minute advances that made the Manhattan project successful occured after germany fell. There was a literal rush between the soviets and the americans to nab german scientists before the other side got to them. Germany even had an almost working bomb, yet lacked a few inovations which the americans had to make it work. They were further along than the US, with soviet support I see a Nazi-Communist Europe till about the 1950's which results in a war between the commies and the nazis.

Also I think if early there was an alliance between Germany and Russia, the USA would not have had the problems it did with Japan. Japan was an agressor against communist russia and communist china. Chinese relations are shot to pieces because the US and the allies are going to do everything they can to get the powerful japanese military to crush the communists in the east. So there is no Pearl Harbor but there is a far eastern front opened up against the russians which I can not see the japanese turning down. Instead of going it alone against korea and china, they have active support in pushing even further into russia.

[K. A. Pital]

RIPP_n_WIPE
Lots of bullshit. The German nuclear project went WAAAY wrong, and didn't contribute to the Manhattan.

[MKSheppard]

Being a very smart ass; the OP of this story was correct....

The USSR was a Nazi Ally from 1939 to 1941 - Look at the joint invasion of Poland together.

I have a book somewhere here titled "The Deadly Embrace" on Nazi-Soviet relations during that period. I believe that the Soviets kept on sending trains full of crucial materials right across the border to the very last minute on 22 June 41.