Alt-WWII - German-Soviet alliance

[Paul Spring]

In OTL, there was never a significant chance of the German-Soviet friendly neutrality of 1939-41 turning into an outright alliance, because Hitler's #1 goal was ultimately the invasion and conquest of at least the European part of the Soviet Union.

However, what if Germany had been controlled by an ultra-nationalist, expansionist, but non-National Socialist government? Say that this government has no particular interest in lebensraum in the east, but is mainly interested in dominating central and western Europe while also recovering overseas colonies or colonial influence for Germany. Could such a government establish a direct alliance with the Soviet Union? How would such an alliance fare against the UK and France and possibly the USA later in the war? In this scenario, would Japan and Italy most likely be on the side of the German-Soviet alliance, or on the side of the western democracies?

 

[The Red]

This has been done a few times.

In my opinion, such an Axis would probably go on to dominate the world or Eurasia at least.

 

[Eurofed]

Here is a TL of mine, with a lasting German-Soviet alliance. PoD is death of Hitler in the Burgenbraukeller bombing, and the Entente bombing Baku and intervening in the Winter War. The German-Soviet-Italian Axis rips Britain a new one, overruns western Eurasia and northern Africa, and conquers China, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance is back.

 

[Paul Spring]

Here is a TL of mine, with a lasting German-Soviet alliance. PoD is death of Hitler in the Burgenbraukeller bombing, and the Entente bombing Baku and intervening in the Winter War. The German-Soviet-Italian Axis rips Britain a new one, overruns western Eurasia and northern Africa, and conquers China, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance is back.

Interesting - I just posted there.

 

[David Floyd]

These scenarios are only interesting if you can butterfly away the Manhattan Project. There is just absolutely no way that given the POD described here that the US can be beaten to the atomic bomb. Additionally, there is no way, absent ASBs, to prevent the Pacific War. The US WILL be in the war. The US public WILL support the use of atomic weapons to end the war, no matter how many German, Russian, Japanese, Italian, or other casualties the devices may cause.

WW2 was essentially an America-wank in OTL. Changing the conditions of the war doesn't change the fact that the United States was the epitome of an unstoppable juggernaut in that time frame.

 

[Eurofed]

These scenarios are only interesting if you can butterfly away the Manhattan Project. There is just absolutely no way that given the POD described here that the US can be beaten to the atomic bomb. Additionally, there is no way, absent ASBs, to prevent the Pacific War. The US WILL be in the war. The US public WILL support the use of atomic weapons to end the war, no matter how many German, Russian, Japanese, Italian, or other casualties the devices may cause.

WW2 was essentially an America-wank in OTL. Changing the conditions of the war doesn't change the fact that the United States was the epitome of an unstoppable juggernaut in that time frame.

The US cannot in all likelihood be beaten to the atomic bomb, at least not without an earlier PoD that keeps the German and Italian atomic scientists home, but there are several ways that they can be prevented from winning by nuking western Eurasia at large. And that's more or less the only really viable way the Allies can win ITTL, Alliedwank claims of all-conquering naval powers notwithstanding. And by the way, in this scenario, there is a quite plausible way that the Pacific War as we know it can be prevented. Namely, after the German-Soviet-Italian Axis rips Britain a new one in the Middle East, Stalin may quite easily decide to expand his booty by invading Manchuria and China. Britain and Japan are forced in an alliance of convenience, no PH and no easy way to bring America in the war.

In my TL, that's what happens, and although I do make America join the war in 1943 through political butterflies to make the story more interesting (however the purpose of the exercise is NOT to be an Alliedwank, so nukina ex machina won't save the day for the Allies in the end), but it could easily have gone the other way.

 

[David Floyd]

The US cannot in all likelihood be beaten to the atomic bomb, at least not without an earlier PoD that keeps the German and Italian atomic scientists home, but there are several ways that they can be prevented from winning by nuking western Eurasia at large. And that's more or less the only really viable way the Allies can win ITTL, Alliedwank claims of all-conquering naval powers notwithstanding.

I agree.

However, it's also beyond the realm of possibility that given the POD, any German-Soviet alliance can actually invade Britain. Additionally, should the US/Britain wish, they can dominate the North African theater, simply from a logistics standpoint, nibble their way through the Med, including Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Aegean islands, and present a very credible threat to Norway.

And by the way, in this scenario, there is a quite plausible way that the Pacific War as we know it can be prevented. Namely, after the German-Soviet-Italian Axis rips Britain a new one in the Middle East, Stalin may quite easily decide to expand his booty by invading Manchuria and China. Britain and Japan are forced in an alliance of convenience, no PH and no easy way to bring America in the war.

You're forgetting logistics. The Red Army simply didn't have the logistical ability to launch a massive invasion of Manchuria, much less China, in your time frame. They only managed IOTL due to massive US Lend Lease. Stalin was perfectly content to maintain forces adequate to prevent a Japanese invasion of Siberia, which wasn't really a serious threat in any case.

Additionally, don't forget that the United States was NOT going to give Japan a free pass on their war in China, regardless of other factors. The Congressional China lobby was too big - it would be akin to the current US Congress selling out Israel. Not gonna happen. Japan and the United States were irrevocably headed for war, due to irreconcilable political systems and worldviews. I can't see any way around that.

In my TL, that's what happens, and although I do make America join the war in 1943 through political butterflies to make the story more interesting (however the purpose of the exercise is NOT to be an Alliedwank, so nukina ex machina won't save the day for the Allies in the end), but it could easily have gone the other way.

Simply put, no way. Not only did Germany have no chance of winning WW2, but a German-Soviet alliance STILL had no chance of winning WW2. The ONLY way for that outcome to to completely erase American involvement in the war. I don't see how that's even remotely likely.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The ONLY way for that outcome to to completely erase American involvement in the war. I don't see how that's even remotely likely.

Two words:
Bob Taft.

 

[xchen08]

Eurofed, you don't get to brush away all the ways the Western Allies could beat a continental hegemony without using nukes under the contemptuous heading of "all conquering naval powers." Especially since you were unable to contest the actual points made in the previous threads discussing this except point out the obvious fact that the Allies aren't certain to win without nukes.

As for a Soviet invasion of China, I think the actual logistics of August Storm pretty clearly demonstrates its impractibility under most circumstances. Notably, the Soviets reequipped several divisions with Lend-Lease equipment that had piled up at Vladivostok so to avoid having to ship their regular equipment, including armored divisions with Shermans so they could use Lend Lease gasoline and ammunition. And even so, as of August 9, their fuel stocks were critical, the Transbaikal front was the only one with even a week's worth of fuel. The 1st and 2nd Far Eastern fronts averaged less than 2 refuels for their vehicles in all fuel types. During the actual offensive, units were running out of fuel by day 2, with the offensive only sustained by airdrops from...Lend-Lease transports. Even so, offensive operations could not have been sustained for more than a week, and that's just a 1.5 million man campaign with a 5 month buildup. Against the Guangdong Army at full strength and without air superiority, the Soviets would have gotten nowhere before running out of supplies. Take away Lend-Lease as well...

Fact is, China is way out logistically for the Soviet Union in the 1940s. They can either spend years of obvious buildup so they could replicate August Storm without American aide and against an enemy that hadn't been hollowed out already, or get bogged down in a long war with just what they could sustain, one with a good chance of failing.

 

[Eurofed]

I agree.

However, it's also beyond the realm of possibility that given the POD, any German-Soviet alliance can actually invade Britain.

That critically depends on America joining the war. Otherwise, by massing the industrial and shipbuilding resources of continental Europe and Russia, the *Axis can slowly but surely outbuild the RN and the RAF (the latter much sooner than the former).

Additionally, should the US/Britain wish, they can dominate the North African theater, simply from a logistics standpoint, nibble their way through the Med, including Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Aegean islands, and present a very credible threat to Norway.

Agreed about Norway, but getting it won't give much of an game-changing advantage to the Allies. It is much less plausible that the Western Allies can force open the Med when the *Axis controls Spain, western North Africa, Egypt, and the Middle East, as they shall inevitably do ITTL. The Med is a closed sea, if you control its entry points and you can mass air power to guard the gates, even the strongest Navy in the world won't have an easy task forcing its way in.

You're forgetting logistics. The Red Army simply didn't have the logistical ability to launch a massive invasion of Manchuria, much less China, in your time frame. They only managed IOTL due to massive US Lend Lease.

You forget that ITTL the Soviet industry is intact and has the backing of the German one, throughout the war. Crash-building the Baikal-Amur Mainline is wholly possible in these conditions.

Stalin was perfectly content to maintain forces adequate to prevent a Japanese invasion of Siberia, which wasn't really a serious threat in any case.

Wholly irrelevant here. ITTL Stalin purposefully invades Manchuria and makes an open bid to seize China because he feels strong enough to do so, with Britain cornered to the Home Islands and India, he wants to expand his booty, supremacy in the Far East is an old Russian aspiration, and Germany is a reliable ally.

Additionally, don't forget that the United States was NOT going to give Japan a free pass on their war in China, regardless of other factors. The Congressional China lobby was too big - it would be akin to the current US Congress selling out Israel. Not gonna happen. Japan and the United States were irrevocably headed for war, due to irreconcilable political systems and worldviews. I can't see any way around that.

Again, irrelevant here. Japan shall start to lose the war badly against the *Axis very soon, and shall be forced to make a compromise with Britain and Nationalist China or lose everything, even Korea. Britain is likewise desperate for help, and shall be eager to broker a compromise.

A plausible one, which I used in my TL, may be: Japan ends its occupation of central and southern China. Japan and China sign a peace treaty. Nationalist China provides an amnesty to the collaborationist forces of China-Nanjing, and integrates them in the KMT administration and army. China recognizes the independence of Manchukuo and guarantees Japan a privileged share of its own resources and markets. Britain and China powers recognize and guarantee Japanese ownership of Korea and occupation of Indochina, and its sphere of influence in Manchukuo and Siam. Britain ends the embargo against Japan, and the Anglo-Japanese alliance is restored. Anglo-Japanese forces occupy French Pacific territories and the Dutch East Indies. The latter are partitioned, with Sumatra and Borneo occupied by Britain, Java, Sulawesi, and Moluccas by Japan, and New Guinea by Australia, with Japan getting free access to Indonesian commodities.

 

[Eurofed]

Especially since you were unable to contest the actual points made in the previous threads discussing this except point out the obvious fact that the Allies aren't certain to win without nukes.

Oh, I've contested them all the way. But in the end I tired out of arguing reason and doubt against all the obnoxious Anglo navalwank that was thrown around. It might be honestly argued that some people might experience serious allergic reactions when hinting the RN and USN did not in fact create the universe by simply being awesome.

As for a Soviet invasion of China, I think the actual logistics of August Storm pretty clearly demonstrates its impractibility under most circumstances. Notably, the Soviets reequipped several divisions with Lend-Lease equipment that had piled up at Vladivostok so to avoid having to ship their regular equipment, including armored divisions with Shermans so they could use Lend Lease gasoline and ammunition. And even so, as of August 9, their fuel stocks were critical, the Transbaikal front was the only one with even a week's worth of fuel. The 1st and 2nd Far Eastern fronts averaged less than 2 refuels for their vehicles in all fuel types. During the actual offensive, units were running out of fuel by day 2, with the offensive only sustained by airdrops from...Lend-Lease transports. Even so, offensive operations could not have been sustained for more than a week, and that's just a 1.5 million man campaign with a 5 month buildup. Against the Guangdong Army at full strength and without air superiority, the Soviets would have gotten nowhere before running out of supplies. Take away Lend-Lease as well...

Please, you can't ever compare a post-WWII USSR gutted and exhausted by Barbarossa and held together by Land-Lease with an intact one that is backed by continental Europe and has no other major fronts open.

 

[Sean Mulligan]

The ultra nationalist government would most likely still be very anti-communist and would be unlikely to form a lasting alliance with the Soviet Union and why would the Soviet Union agree to such an alliance in the first place?

 

[Eurofed]

The ultra nationalist government would most likely still be very anti-communist and would be unlikely to form a lasting alliance with the Soviet Union and why would the Soviet Union agree to such an alliance in the first place?

Mutual convenience and common enemies. Adjusting ideology to highlight the similarities rather than the differences between communism and fascism is much less difficult than it may seem, if the political will is there. It is no mistake if both can be meaningfully grouped under the common category of totalitarianism, or as they say in my country, "opposites touch".

 

[Astrodragon]

So they are expansionist but...not interested in territory...

Just how do you get to this....interesting...conclusion?

 

[machine3589]

So they are expansionist but...not interested in territory...

Just how do you get to this....interesting...conclusion?

Although it is completly possibble for an expansionist Germany to not be interested in lebensraum. Poland was their main goal, not Kiev.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

These scenarios are only interesting if you can butterfly away the Manhattan Project.

Soviet spies bomb Los Alamos?

Additionally, there is no way, absent ASBs, to prevent the Pacific War. The US WILL be in the war.

Soviets sell Japanese oil, maybe an isolationist comes to power because Zangara doesn't miss or FDR's health declines?

 

[Adam]

Soviets sell Japanese oil, maybe an isolationist comes to power because Zangara doesn't miss or FDR's health declines?

Soviet-Nazi Juggernaut is massively threatening enough to Anglo-American interests in the Far East, and Tokyo realizes it can get a much better deal with the West than Moscow/Berlin. End result: massive lend-lease to Imperial Japan instead of USSR, possibly enough tech exchanges to get the Americans going in carrier doctrine and the Japanese on some of their non-sensible carrier ideas, a combined US-Japanese atomic bomb program etc.

Hmmm...

 

[I Blame Communism]

Now, what bothers me about scenarios where the Germans and Russians Take Over Ze Vurld is that it takes two mass-murdering lunatics to tango. Remove the Slavophobic madman from Berlin, and the chap in Moscow is still paranoid and fairly certain that absolutely everybody would destroy him if he gives them the chance.

A Germany that was uninterested in invading Russia could, by not going to Finland and by conceding Russia the right to primary influence in Bulgaria, make an alliance against Britain in the Near East look rather attractive - especially is us Brits manage to alienate the Soviets ourselves. The Soviets can then invade Iran - this is logistically quite a reach, but the Iranian army amounts to little and Britain is stretched. I still expect the campaign to be more than a walk-in. After that, they may continue to Iraq: logistically riskier and riskier, but the locals have no love for Britain.

India via Afghanistan is completely out. Next to no infrastructure through Afghanistan to sustain a Soviet army over the Hindu Kush facing the BIA right in front of the railheads and the port of Karachi. The prospect of the Indian revolt is sometimes raised, but remember that Bose recruited his divisions from Indian settlers in SE Asia. The Soviets have no settlers to call on: in fact, they happen to be in the Muslim recruiting heartland of the BIA. A Soviet attempt to go to India would be an embarrasing failure, and I really doubt they'd try it.

So, by the time we would have had Barbarossa, let's say Iran's gone, Iraq's going, Japan may be moving towards Britain (that's only one possibility: access to Soviet and through them German resources improves the Japanese logistical situation, and a Japanese strike south would be useful to the Axis in bringing Britain to negotiate), the Soviets have brought Bulgaria thoroughly within their sphere and now, with troops at both its ends, their twisting Turkey's arm over the straits. Finland is Finlandised.

On the other hand, Gib hasn't fallen, India hasn't fallen, I see no real reason why Egypt or Malta have fallen. Britain is still receiving Lend-Lease. We still have the capacity to be a general nuisance.

Stalin's now got what he can get from co-operating with Germany. He's still building up a ginormous army. He's still one devious SOB. And we know that, even when he was negotiating with them about possible Axis membership, he believed the Germans would betray him eventually (assuming he didn't betray them first, of course): why should a paranoiac think that another German government won't, just because it may be true?

And then if Japan has launched its attack on the Southern Resource Area, it's got very little capacity to defend Manchuria. Suppose Stalin, by 1942, thinks this alliance isn't such a good idea. He's got a lot of forces - in Besserabia and Bulgaria - right near the Ploesti oilfields. And of course as soon as Russia turns on Germany, Tito's on the loose - again, right next to Bulgaria.

1942 would be a premature moment for Russia to cut off the supply of resources and confront Germany, but Stalin didn't always do the most sensible things.

 

[DrakonFin]

Finland is Finlandised.

Wouldn't it rather be blockaded, invaded and annexed? There was a deal about this between Germany and the USSR. Now, when Berlin is keeping its end of the bargain, the USSR can and will take over what it considers its own by rights.

 

[Eurofed]

On the other hand, Gib hasn't fallen, India hasn't fallen, I see no real reason why Egypt or Malta have fallen. Britain is still receiving Lend-Lease. We still have the capacity to be a general nuisance.

There is a huge reason why Egypt and Malta have fallen ITTL. With Russia in the Axis since early 1940, the by far most rational strategic choice for Germany and Italy is to skip the BoB and focus on the Mediterranean Strategy from the start. They can trap the British in the Middle East in a huge strategic vise, the Italo-Germans from Libya and the Russians from Iran.

Stalin's now got what he can get from co-operating with Germany. He's still building up a ginormous army. He's still one devious SOB. And we know that, even when he was negotiating with them about possible Axis membership, he believed the Germans would betray him eventually (assuming he didn't betray them first, of course): why should a paranoiac think that another German government won't, just because it may be true?

In my TL, it is assumed that Germany and Russia grant each other inspection rights of border regions to identify military build-ups and hence make surprise backstab attacks impossible. This makes a betrayal much less feasible and appealing. OTOH, Japan is not that much of a useful ally to a German-Soviet alliance, it picks a unnecessary fight with America (which both Goring and Stalin would go out of their way to avoid), it is definitely weaker than the USSR, and it holds Manchuria and China as a tantalizing fruit. Since as you point out, India is not that logistically feasible to invade for the Axis from Baluchistan and Afghanistan (understatement), the Far East is a good place to put that ginormous Red Army to good use. Of course, this forces the British and the Japanese in the same bed, and the Axis gets a common enemy in the Anglo-Japanese alliance that it shall take some time to subdue, giving them added reason to stick together longer.