futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 23, 2016 6:37:04 GMT
While this is probably *extremely* unlikely, here goes: What if some misunderstanding and/or miscommunication results in war between the Anglo-Americans and the Soviet Union shortly after the defeat both Germany and Japan in World War II? To elaborate on this, while the Soviet Union would initially perform very well in such a war and advance to the Rhine River (if not beyond), logistical overreach would prevent the Soviet Union from conquering all of Western Europe and give the Anglo-Americans the necessary time to bring additional forces to France in order to launch a successful counterattack against the Soviet forces in Western Europe.
After this successful counterattack, the Anglo-Americans (along with their French and Italian allies) slowly begin pushing Soviet forces further and further east. Eventually the Soviet Union's *extremely* massive bleeding (starting from 1941; after all, the Soviet Union certainly bled itself dry during World War II, and now it has to fight a new war with the Anglo-Americans) causes the Soviet Union to begin cracking and weakening due to severe manpower shortages in the military and on the home front (as in, in factories which are necessary for the Soviet Union's war effort). (After all, a country which formerly had 200 million people and which loses 30+ million people within a time-frame of less than 10 years certainly *can't* sustain *much* more losses before it begins cracking and weakening.) Anyway, this Soviet cracking and implosion eventually results in some members of Stalin's inner circle successfully overthrowing and killing Stalin. Unfortunately for the Soviet Union, though, these Soviet coup plotters begin fighting for power among themselves afterwards. In turn, this results in the Soviet Union descending into total chaos.
As a result of the Soviet military and Soviet home front both cracking and weakening due to severe manpower shortages, and as a result of the fight for power among the Soviet coup plotters (who previously overthrew and killed Stalin), the war goes *extremely* favorably for the Anglo-Americans (along with their French, Italian, German, et cetera Allies). Eventually, the Anglo-Americans and their allies win this war with the Soviet Union by having their forces liberate all of Eastern Europe from Communist rule and push very deep within the Soviet Union itself.
Anyway, what kind of peace would the victorious Anglo-Americans and their allies impose on the Soviet Union (or on the Soviet Union's successor state) in this TL?
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 23, 2016 12:58:41 GMT
This seems plausible. The USSR is going to be occupied for a long time coming, and likely see a restoration of either the Tsar or a Kerensky-esque government, either one friendly to the West. They would be forced to pay massive reparations to Eastern Europe (Baltics, Poland, etc.).
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 23, 2016 16:41:09 GMT
This seems plausible. The USSR is going to be occupied for a long time coming, and likely see a restoration of either the Tsar or a Kerensky-esque government, either one friendly to the West. They would be forced to pay massive reparations to Eastern Europe (Baltics, Poland, etc.). Considering that the U.S. (and France, and Italy, et cetera) was a republic, a restoration of the Tsar is certainly extremely unlikely. However, the creation of a Kerensky-era-style democracy in Russia in this scenario appears to be extremely likely. Also, I certainly completely agree with you about the massive reparations to Eastern Europe part. In addition to this, though, do you think that the victorious Western powers will try to reduce Russia to its Great Russian core while giving independence to most of the other ethnic groups (Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Georgians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, et cetera) in the territory of the former Soviet Union? Or do you think that they will want to keep Russia intact in this scenario? Any thoughts on this? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 23, 2016 16:57:59 GMT
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 23, 2016 17:02:10 GMT
1. Agreed. 2. Agreed. Also, though, do you think that the victorious Western powers will try pushing Russia back to its OTL 1991 borders in this scenario? Or do you think that the victorious Western powers' post-war aims will be somewhat more limited than that? 3. Completely agreed. 4. Why exactly would this be the case, though? After all, even if Mao Zedong still wins the Chinese Civil War in this scenario, chances are that China will be very friendly to the West after it sees what the West did to the Soviet Union. 5. Agreed. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 23, 2016 19:20:50 GMT
If there was a Soviet v West war in the late 40's by this time the Soviets were already heavily engaged in supporting Mao and he mightb already have most of China under his control. As such I can't see a war between western democracies and communism not including China. Furthermore with Korea partitioned and the north under a pro-Soviet faction I definitely can see a Korean war as well and very likely Mao would get drawn into that if it started going pear-shaped for the communists.
Given Mao's contempt for nuclear weapons and belief in guerilla warfare I can't see the western monopoly in nukes detering him from getting involved, especially as he would probably be active while the Soviets are still on the offensive. Plus given American support for the KMT he might not have a choice as the US could well decide all communists are enemies, or Chiang could ask for support against them.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 24, 2016 1:11:18 GMT
This seems plausible. The USSR is going to be occupied for a long time coming, and likely see a restoration of either the Tsar or a Kerensky-esque government, either one friendly to the West. They would be forced to pay massive reparations to Eastern Europe (Baltics, Poland, etc.). Considering that the U.S. (and France, and Italy, et cetera) was a republic, a restoration of the Tsar is certainly extremely unlikely. However, the creation of a Kerensky-era-style democracy in Russia in this scenario appears to be extremely likely. Also, I certainly completely agree with you about the massive reparations to Eastern Europe part. In addition to this, though, do you think that the victorious Western powers will try to reduce Russia to its Great Russian core while giving independence to most of the other ethnic groups (Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Georgians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, et cetera) in the territory of the former Soviet Union? Or do you think that they will want to keep Russia intact in this scenario? Any thoughts on this? They would be giving independence to all the Republics, to prevent Russia from having those resources. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 2, 2016 7:34:40 GMT
Considering that the U.S. (and France, and Italy, et cetera) was a republic, a restoration of the Tsar is certainly extremely unlikely. However, the creation of a Kerensky-era-style democracy in Russia in this scenario appears to be extremely likely. Also, I certainly completely agree with you about the massive reparations to Eastern Europe part. In addition to this, though, do you think that the victorious Western powers will try to reduce Russia to its Great Russian core while giving independence to most of the other ethnic groups (Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Georgians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, et cetera) in the territory of the former Soviet Union? Or do you think that they will want to keep Russia intact in this scenario? Any thoughts on this? They would be giving independence to all the Republics, to prevent Russia from having those resources. But not to Chechnya, Tatarstan, et cetera, correct? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2016 8:09:59 GMT
They would be giving independence to all the Republics, to prevent Russia from having those resources. But not to Chechnya, Tatarstan, et cetera, correct? Why not, Chechnya would try to gain Independence with a uprising. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 2, 2016 19:48:12 GMT
But not to Chechnya, Tatarstan, et cetera, correct? Why not, Chechnya would try to gain Independence with a uprising. I think this is plausible; the western allies may even attempt to create an independent Turkic state. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 6, 2016 2:51:09 GMT
But not to Chechnya, Tatarstan, et cetera, correct? Why not, Chechnya would try to gain Independence with a uprising. Because they aren't SSRs? |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 6, 2016 2:51:46 GMT
Why not, Chechnya would try to gain Independence with a uprising. I think this is plausible; the western allies may even attempt to create an independent Turkic state. Wouldn't many Central Asians have opposed the creation of an independent Turkic state, though? After all, wouldn't such an independent Turkic state have been Uzbek-dominated? |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 6, 2016 16:53:45 GMT
I think this is plausible; the western allies may even attempt to create an independent Turkic state. Wouldn't many Central Asians have opposed the creation of an independent Turkic state, though? After all, wouldn't such an independent Turkic state have been Uzbek-dominated? I meant more so Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Mari El, Chuvashia, Mordovia, and Udmurtia, and maybe another in Chechny and Dagestan (the general north Caucasus). The Central Asian republics would each become their own states. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 4:38:22 GMT
Wouldn't many Central Asians have opposed the creation of an independent Turkic state, though? After all, wouldn't such an independent Turkic state have been Uzbek-dominated? I meant more so Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Mari El, Chuvashia, Mordovia, and Udmurtia, and maybe another in Chechny and Dagestan (the general north Caucasus). The Central Asian republics would each become their own states. OK; understood. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 13, 2017 23:11:39 GMT
It would make things a bit easier if the point of divergence were a bit more precise, possibly based around one of the historical periods of high tension such as the Berlin Blockade, the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, the Korean War, etc. Keep in mind that even Strategic Air Command and the Atomic Energy Commission weren't seeing much funding during the 1940s. Early nuclear weapons were very difficult to keep operational, and it would take quite some time to prepare nuclear weapons at Sandia Base (more about that here). In fact, the Strategic Air Command bombers would have to fly to Sandia to be armed. The B-29 also lacked the capability to strike targets in the Soviet Union and return to the United States, so bombers would have to be armed at Sandia and flown to friendly bases in Europe and Asia or be armed by forward deployed assembly teams and stockpiled weapons. The first B-36 intercontinental bombers entered service in June 1948 with the 7th Bombardment Wing, but there were only five of them and the aircraft had teething problems, so they would probably not factor into any early strike operations around that time. With a crisis breaking out in mid-1948 it seems unlikely the B-36 would be taking part until late 1948 or early 1949. A crisis breaking out in mid-1948 could see all four ships of the Iowa class in service or swiftly reactivated, as they were all in service for at least part of June, although New Jersey and Wisconsin both decommissioned by July ( source). No other battleships, or at least none of the fast battleships, would have been in service at that time. There may or may not be more surplus equipment and munitions stored, but the general consensus at the time (it's likely the vast majority of Republicans Democrats would have done the same, not just President Truman and Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson) was to aggressively cut defense costs. There are probably going to still be units armed with equipment that was on static display at Aberdeen Proving Grounds a few weeks ago. |
|
