James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 14, 2020 18:15:06 GMT
Let us say that Britain and the United States never struck a firm alliance with the Soviets during WW2. Imagine serious difficulties cropped up and there was no mood to give the USSR anything but limited help with each side firmly blaming the other for the dispute. Perhaps, an armed clash occurs to make this break complete.
Can the Soviets win the war on the Eastern Front on their own? Can the West do the same too? Or do they really need each other to win?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 15, 2020 14:16:45 GMT
Let us say that Britain and the United States never struck a firm alliance with the Soviets during WW2. Imagine serious difficulties cropped up and there was no mood to give the USSR anything but limited help with each side firmly blaming the other for the dispute. Perhaps, an armed clash occurs to make this break complete. Can the Soviets win the war on the Eastern Front on their own? Can the West do the same too? Or do they really need each other to win?
Well its definitely harder for all three powers. If there's no aid from either Britain or the US its going to be distinctly nastier for the Soviets in 41 and 42 but its going to take a lot to create this scenario. Especially in 41 when the US was still refusing to commit fully and the Soviets looked vulnerable. Britain needs the Soviets fighting to distract Hitler and also can't afford even the theoretical danger of the Nazis coming via the Caucasus. True this is highly unlikely but that's not clear at the time. Hence I can't really see Britain not sending what aid it can to Stalin. Roosevelt seemed to have preferred Moscow to London too often so its difficult to see L-L not being extended to Moscow by the US.
It could be more limited. I have toyed with a situation, as part of a larger TL, where when the Katyn massacre remains are discovered by the Germany in 43 they follow up by organising an independent investigation by neutral powers - thinking say Sweden, Switzerland and the Papal States - which demonstrates the Soviets are responsible. Britain has a different PM here and already some concerns and as a result of - Poles having called for such an investigation, Nazis following suit, and Stalin then claiming the Polish government in exile are Nazi tools and the west should end recognistion of them - all of which happened OTL Britain refuses and ends all aid to the Soviets. This includes providing shipping via Murmansk although they don't block US supplies through Iran, but don't give any support themselves. Possibly you could have something like this happening, or happening earlier.
If somehow there was no or even greatly reduced western aid to the Soviets then the Soviets are going to have a harder time but I don't see them defeated as the logistical challenge is too great for the Germans. However with no support at all Soviet losses are likely to be markedly larger, along probably with German ones ultimately and the Soviet counter attack from end 42 is going to be slower and bloodier. There is the risk that Stalin might seek terms with Hitler but not sure that the latter would accept anything that Stalin could stomach. If this happened then it would depend on what terms and when but unless nukes are obviously close then its going to look like a very long war for the western allies and very bad for those under Nazi occupation.
One other possible POD I can see although not sure how practical it might be. Britain knowing an attack on the latter is coming tries to presuade Stalin to withdraw from his Winter War annexations in return for Finnish neutrality. I could see the Finns accepting this but Stalin is very unlikely to so this could be a sore point. Britain didn't declare war on Finland until ~ Nov/Dec 41 because of sympathy for the Finns and it could be later here with Stalin getting very hostile about the issues. Plus possibly other matters such as the pretense that the west had agreed to a landing in France in 42. As a result Churchill refuses to declare war on the Finns and there's a break there. This is still unlikely to prevent US aid to the Soviets but this would have to come via the Pacific or Iran.
If there was the total split your suggesting, including the US refusing aid, then a lot again would depend on the details. When western and Soviet forces meet there could be some clashes, which might even escalate. If the Soviets have made peace then it probably ends with nuclear weapons in Europe and much higher US casualties which means their unlikely to want to give the Soviets anything so it might depend on what the Red Army can grab in the last weeks of the war when Germany is clearly collapsing. You could see the Iron Curtain being a lot further east here and the cold war being distinctly hotter.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 15, 2020 14:25:02 GMT
Let us say that Britain and the United States never struck a firm alliance with the Soviets during WW2. Imagine serious difficulties cropped up and there was no mood to give the USSR anything but limited help with each side firmly blaming the other for the dispute. Perhaps, an armed clash occurs to make this break complete. Hi James, I've explored something like this myself, even worked on an AH where the Allies see the Soviet invasion of Poland as complicity with the Nazis, so there is no Allied aid at all.
The obstacle is the Soviets had really penetrated the US, especially the State Department. They would have to be tamped down at least, or pursued and detained by the FBI.
In the East, I don't think there will be victory for either side, I think it will be a bloody stalemate Both the German and Soviet logistic experts knew where the Germans would outrun their supply lines. I think the big danger for the Soviets is food. A LOT of food went into Russia via the Murmansk runs. The Germans basically overran the Soviet bread basket, including Ukraine. Stalin might be toppled if starvation is rampant in Russia. It might not depose the communists, but deposing Stalin is a definite possibility. Let's also not forget the staggering amount of aid the Allies, especially the US provided, down to locomotives for Soviet railways and a lot of trucks to aid logistics. And there was an secure supply line between Seattle and Vladivostok that the Japanese ignored. In the West, I think the extra equipment would redound to the benefit of the US and UK. More tanks and planes means puts more pressure on the Germans in the west, everywhere; from Torch to Husky/Avalanche and Neptune/Overlord. Also, no Murmansk runs means more ships taking vital supplies and materials to the UK. Maybe Round-up goes off in 1943? I think the war might end with an East and West Poland, or East and West Belorussian divide. It will be an uneasy peace, at very least. My initial thoughts... Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 15, 2020 14:31:14 GMT
The obstacle is the Soviets had really penetrated the US, especially the State Department. They would have to be tamped down at least, or pursued and detained by the FBI.
No problem, just let Hoover lose and he will run as a bull true whatever department he feels is full of communist. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 15, 2020 14:43:00 GMT
Let us say that Britain and the United States never struck a firm alliance with the Soviets during WW2. Imagine serious difficulties cropped up and there was no mood to give the USSR anything but limited help with each side firmly blaming the other for the dispute. Perhaps, an armed clash occurs to make this break complete. Hi James, I've explored something like this myself, even worked on an AH where the Allies see the Soviet invasion of Poland as complicity with the Nazis, so there is no Allied aid at all.
The obstacle is the Soviets had really penetrated the US, especially the State Department. They would have to be tamped down at least, or pursued and detained by the FBI.
In the East, I don't think there will be victory for either side, I think it will be a bloody stalemate Both the German and Soviet logistic experts knew where the Germans would outrun their supply lines. I think the big danger for the Soviets is food. A LOT of food went into Russia via the Murmansk runs. The Germans basically overran the Soviet bread basket, including Ukraine. Stalin might be toppled if starvation is rampant in Russia. It might not depose the communists, but deposing Stalin is a definite possibility. Let's also not forget the staggering amount of aid the Allies, especially the US provided, down to locomotives for Soviet railways and a lot of trucks to aid logistics. And there was an secure supply line between Seattle and Vladivostok that the Japanese ignored. In the West, I think the extra equipment would redound to the benefit of the US and UK. More tanks and planes means puts more pressure on the Germans in the west, everywhere; from Torch to Husky/Avalanche and Neptune/Overlord. Also, no Murmansk runs means more ships taking vital supplies and materials to the UK. Maybe Round-up goes off in 1943?I think the war might end with an East and West Poland, or East and West Belorussian divide. It will be an uneasy peace, at very least. My initial thoughts... Regards,
A stalemate in the east, if it doesn't lead to some sort of ceasefire, is likely but could change when Germany starts to fold under western pressure.
Not sending any supplies to the Soviets would free up a lot for the west but would say that would only be to the benefit in the short term. It means we're going to have to do a lot more fighting against a probably more powerful Nazi Germany and allies. Start the liberation of NE Europe in 43 and if it succeeds its still likely to see at least another 6-9 month of fighting compared to OTL and probably against proportionally more German forces. You might end up with substantially more British losses and say double the US OTL casualties in western Europe.
The big issue with the idea of a partition line in Poland or Belarus is it assumes that the Germans are going to be fighting the Soviets that far east while letting Germany itself fall to the western powers. Unless the Soviets are simply too weak to benefit from German force changes their going to make big gains as the Germans withdraw forces to fight the advancing western allies. We might end up with all of Germany in western hands and a bit of Poland say but I doubt much further west, unless the Soviets have pretty much collapsed.
Definitely going to be an uneasy peace and probably a lot of sympathy for the Soviet people in the western populations.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 15, 2020 15:18:09 GMT
No problem, just let Hoover lose and he will run as a bull true whatever department he feels is full of communist.
When the subject of interning Japanese Americans in concentration camps came up in the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the only person in the room to speak up against it was J. Edgar Hoover. He's not quite the villain Gentry and others have made him out to be. Don't get me wrong, he's hardly a saint, but he's also a very complex individual, like most.
At the time, interwar and World War Two, US Intelligence was divided into three pieces. ONI, the Office of Naval Intelligence, was responsible for East Asia and the Pacific. G2, Army intelligence, was responsible for Europe, and by colonial extension, Africa. The FBI was responsible for North and South America. So the FBI would have responsibility for any counter intelligence operations in the US.
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 15, 2020 15:24:11 GMT
A stalemate in the east, if it doesn't lead to some sort of ceasefire, is likely but could change when Germany starts to fold under western pressure.
Not sending any supplies to the Soviets would free up a lot for the west but would say that would only be to the benefit in the short term. It means we're going to have to do a lot more fighting against a probably more powerful Nazi Germany and allies. Start the liberation of NE Europe in 43 and if it succeeds its still likely to see at least another 6-9 month of fighting compared to OTL and probably against proportionally more German forces. You might end up with substantially more British losses and say double the US OTL casualties in western Europe.
The big issue with the idea of a partition line in Poland or Belarus is it assumes that the Germans are going to be fighting the Soviets that far east while letting Germany itself fall to the western powers. Unless the Soviets are simply too weak to benefit from German force changes their going to make big gains as the Germans withdraw forces to fight the advancing western allies. We might end up with all of Germany in western hands and a bit of Poland say but I doubt much further west, unless the Soviets have pretty much collapsed.
Definitely going to be an uneasy peace and probably a lot of sympathy for the Soviet people in the western populations.
Steve
Steve,
I think the Soviets would still move the industrial base west of the Urals, and would be fighting. But with increased Allied air power in Europe, I have my doubts about the German Army being able to stage a fighting withdrawal from the Soviet front to confront the Allies in the West.
With a "Germany First" strategy absent aid to the Soviets, I don't think it will just be a short-term benefit. I think overall, there will be more available not only against Continental Europe but Japan as well. Ships are a different story, but add a couple more squadrons Singapore (say with some British Army tanks as well) or to the Cactus Air Force at Guadalcanal in 1942 and the Japanese could be in trouble.
My thoughts,
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Sept 15, 2020 15:45:42 GMT
A stalemate in the east, if it doesn't lead to some sort of ceasefire, is likely but could change when Germany starts to fold under western pressure.
Not sending any supplies to the Soviets would free up a lot for the west but would say that would only be to the benefit in the short term. It means we're going to have to do a lot more fighting against a probably more powerful Nazi Germany and allies. Start the liberation of NE Europe in 43 and if it succeeds its still likely to see at least another 6-9 month of fighting compared to OTL and probably against proportionally more German forces. You might end up with substantially more British losses and say double the US OTL casualties in western Europe.
The big issue with the idea of a partition line in Poland or Belarus is it assumes that the Germans are going to be fighting the Soviets that far east while letting Germany itself fall to the western powers. Unless the Soviets are simply too weak to benefit from German force changes their going to make big gains as the Germans withdraw forces to fight the advancing western allies. We might end up with all of Germany in western hands and a bit of Poland say but I doubt much further west, unless the Soviets have pretty much collapsed.
Definitely going to be an uneasy peace and probably a lot of sympathy for the Soviet people in the western populations.
Steve
Steve,
I think the Soviets would still move the industrial base west of the Urals, and would be fighting. But with increased Allied air power in Europe, I have my doubts about the German Army being able to stage a fighting withdrawal from the Soviet front to confront the Allies in the West.
With a "Germany First" strategy absent aid to the Soviets, I don't think it will just be a short-term benefit. I think overall, there will be more available not only against Continental Europe but Japan as well. Ships are a different story, but add a couple more squadrons Singapore (say with some British Army tanks as well) or to the Cactus Air Force at Guadalcanal in 1942 and the Japanese could be in trouble.
My thoughts,
I'm not thinking of a fighting withdrawal but if the Soviets are a lot weaker - as you say the lack of food supplies could bring regime change in itself which might change the western stance on aid - but that the Soviets are somewhere nearer their 1918 version, too weak to really press the Germans, even if strong enough to prevent a full conquest. As such there will still be substantial forces holding ground in the east but their likely to be smaller with other forces pulled back, possibly from 43 onward if the allies manage to land safely in N France. As such while the allies will still have a substantial air superiority they won't be able to prevent forces being withdrawn from the east to the west. Nor will they be able to prevent equipment produced in Germany than OTL went east re-equipping those stronger forces in the west.
As such the western powers will pay more in blood simply because they will be engaging more German forces for longer. The entire blood bill for the war is likely to be larger as a markedly weaker Red Army is going to be put through the mill even more. This could be even more so if 43 France is in place of 43 Sicily/Italy as that not only keeps Italy in the Axis and garrisoning areas, freeing up German forces but means the western powers gain less experience in the fighting there. The war in Europe might end earlier but not a year earlier and with bad relations with what's left of the Soviet Union there's going to be tension there plus almost certainly no Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Plus how much quicker could the US moblise and train the men needed for such a conflict?
Malaya could be saved with some diversion of resources but under the circumstances I think its unlikely. It would need London realising that the additional forces were required in time to send them there and have them acclimatised. Plus as have been said in another place training and organisation is as least as important as numbers and equipment. [While I don't totally agree with his stance ChrisPat has some valid points over on the naval site]. However without having to send aid to Russia that could speed up the situation in places such as Guadalcanal.
Steve
|
|
