Help Winner develop his alternate history mini-project

[RedRalph]

I think there is a distinct possibility that in TTL, Stalin would decide to boycott the UN. I have not yet thought about the ramifications, but it is likely that such UN would be seen as a Western diplomatic tool and many countries would stay out of it.

This in turn would mean a much more dangerous Cold War, as the relations between the two block would be icier than in OTL.

Well, in some ways it would, but there are less flashpoints here. No Berlin, no DMZ...

You could make the nonaligned movement a tool of the reds and the UN a tool of the $s

 

[Winner]

Well, in some ways it would, but there are less flashpoints here. No Berlin, no DMZ...

You could make the nonaligned movement a tool of the reds and the UN a tool of the $s

There would be different flashpoints - Japan, Greece, former Czechoslovakia (I am thinking about a Bratislava spring movement in commie Slovakia ), Scandinavia...

 

[Winner]

BTW, it would be interesting to project how the Cold War nuclear deterrence would evolve in this timeline. I think that due to the lack of captured rocket technology, the Soviets would have to rely on a bomber force - something they were never really good at. This would put them at severe disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO for a period of at least 20 years.

Anyway, how much did the Soviets rely on captured German nuclear knowledge/equipment when they were developing their own A-bomb? It is well known they obtained a lot of useful information from the espionage, but did the German knowledge play any part in their nuclear programme? If the answer is yes, it would mean that it would take longer for the Soviets to produce their own A-bomb.

 

[RedRalph]

Winner, the USSR was at a very big disadvantage IOTL, in this one its huge. I'm not even sure there would be a cold war as we knew it.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Winner, the USSR was at a very big disadvantage IOTL, in this one its huge. I'm not even sure there would be a cold war as we knew it.

That could also mean the Warsaw Pact could collapse much earlier, like in the 80's.

 

[Verbose]

Had a bit of a think about Scandinavia in this. Pretty speculative, but still.

Finland weathers the first Soviet offensive in the summer of 1944 as per history. This time the Soviets decide to go for broke, amps up the effort and overrun the Finnish defenses, fair enough.

As per history and then some we will be seeing Soviet troops pushing into northern Norway in pursuit of retreating German forces. The real question might be why they should leave, and if they are focusing on this front, why not push hard and fast at least to somewhere useful, like Trondheim to perhaps secure a port directly on the North Atlantic?

As per history, Soviet units will perhaps also make it to the Danish island of Bornholm - and maybe then some. If the Soviets focus on this front, Denmark is an achievable objective, depending on the rapidity of the British advance. There might be a race for Denmark? Again the prospect of direct access to the Atlantic is a Soviet strategic objective.

If Finland goes down in the Autumn of 1944, this brings Soviet troops directly to the Swedish border along Torne river in the north. That is guaranteed to make the Swedes nervous. It also brings up the question whether the Soviets would break for Sweden here, or just keep pushing their offensive? There were some serious considerations about forcing Sweden to enter the war against Germany towards the end of the historical WWII. Had the 200 000 German troops in Norway not surrendered in 1945, it is possible Sweden would have committed to fighting these. Churchill pushed for such a move.

At least the Soviets would be looking at picking up the Swedish island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic, especially if they are racing towards Denmark and can use it as a stepping stone, whether that would be a permanent arrangement or not.

I guess it is possible that Sweden might actually enter WWII as a belligerent on the Allied side, and take a fight with the German troops in Norway in 1944, as a way of preempting some kind of hostile move by the Soviet Union having hove very much into view in Sweden.

As per Winner's map for this scenario, it might be that Sweden enters the war alongside the Allies in 1944, to preempt possible Soviet designs on both Sweden, northern Norway and Denmark, while the British successfully race from the west and south to beat the Soviets to these areas. (Thus I get to make my native land enter WWII to eventually do what was after all the right thing in that war.)

Finland ends up as a Soviet satellite, a People's Republic of Finland, headed by the leader of the Finnish Communist Party founded in Moscow in 1918, Otto Ville Kuusinen, whose Finnish puppet government was initially set up at Terijoki already during the Winter War in 1939. Curiously the situation would mean the vindication of Finnish Fieldmarshall Mannerheim's idea of sending 70 000 Finnish children to grow up in Sweden, as was done in 1939-1945, as a means of ensuring a generation of Finns would grow up in freedom, to possibly return to liberate Finland at some later point in time. Not counting the potentially large number of direct refugees from Finland to Sweden beginning in 1944. Considering how historically 30 000 refugees made it to Sweden from the Baltic States at the Soviet occupation of their lands, we can assume they turn up, complemented with at least a similar number of Finns.

While Finland is lost, that sets Sweden, Denmark and Norway up as western allied democracies in the post-war era. The post-war idea of a Nordic defensive alliance of these three countries might be viable, but considering all three nations were belligerents on the side of the Allies eventually, NATO membership for all three is more likely.

Historically in the immediate post-war period Sweden were doing all kinds of things in cahoots with especially the UK, in the form of surveillance photography of Soviet military installations along the Baltic, and the introduction of numerous spies and agents into the Baltic states — an utter failure, since the British intelligence community was riddled with Soviet double-agents (Kim Philby et al.) All it would take would be a formalisation of this actual cooperation.

A bit dramatically, if the Swedes would be more immediately worried about being a direct frontline state in a possible showdown with the Soviet Union, it might mean that independent nuclear deterrence capability would get a higher priority, and the Swedish nuclear weapons program would not be scrapped in the early 1970's. With NATO resources at its back, Sweden might decide that their invasion defense would be large enough at maybe 600 000 men or so (instead of 900 000 in the late 1980's), and thus find the money for the nukes as well?

 

[Verbose]

BTW, it would be interesting to project how the Cold War nuclear deterrence would evolve in this timeline. I think that due to the lack of captured rocket technology, the Soviets would have to rely on a bomber force - something they were never really good at. This would put them at severe disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO for a period of at least 20 years.

I always thought the 7000 km ranged, Mach 2, Tu-22 "Backfire", which entered service in 1962, was a pretty awesome machine?

 

[Winner]

Winner, the USSR was at a very big disadvantage IOTL, in this one its huge. I'm not even sure there would be a cold war as we knew it.

Of course there would be a Cold War. Soviets are royally pissed by the result of WW2 and they want more power in the world, which means Cold War is going to happen.

They would be less dangerous with regard to their nuclear/rocket arsenals but it would be a huge mistake to underestimate their capability to make life difficult to the West by other means.

They don't control most of Central Europe in this timeline, but they penetrated deeper in Asia and their grip over the Balkans is much firmer than in OTL. They also have better access to the Middle East thanks to their alliance with commie Greece and annexed parts of Northern Iran, so we can expect more trouble in this region. For example, I don't think they would support Israel in its war of independence in this timeline, maybe they'd rather support the Arabs.

I'd say that this Cold War would be even more dangerous than the OTL one. Soviets in TTL are more assertive and more angry at the West, and the lack of early nuclear deterrence could mean that the Soviets would build even bigger conventional military, and also invest in the Navy and Air Force. At the same time, the West would probably rely more on nuclear weapons than it did in OTL, which would leave it weaker by the time the Soviets will have caught up with them in the nuclear race.

There is a distinct possibility that WW3 might start in the 1970s. Or the Soviet empire will collapse under the weight of the costs of maintaining such a huge military without developed satellite states in Central Europe to share the costs...


Link to video.

 

[RedRalph]

It still seems pretty one-sided to me. Maybe the conflict would have a different character, but I think the USSR is significantly weaker here, northern Iran and Greece doesn't compensate for the DDR and Poland. You may want to give them some other victory to even things up a little bit, mabe a successful UAR which goes socialist, or a southern Japan which becomes neutral? Don't get me wrong it is interesting, but mismatched IMO.

I really think theres potential for India to play a big pqart. I'm not up to speed at all on my Indian history, but I think the ingredients are there for that to be a huge part of this TL.

UK dosent want to let it go because of large communist elements in India
UK cant really hold it down because of post war austerity
US gets involved?

 

[Winner]

Had a bit of a think about Scandinavia in this. Pretty speculative, but still.

Finland weathers the first Soviet offensive in the summer of 1944 as per history. This time the Soviets decide to go for broke, amps up the effort and overrun the Finnish defenses, fair enough.

As per history and then some we will be seeing Soviet troops pushing into northern Norway in pursuit of retreating German forces. The real question might be why they should leave, and if they are focusing on this front, why not push hard and fast at least to somewhere useful, like Trondheim to perhaps secure a port directly on the North Atlantic?

As per history, Soviet units will perhaps also make it to the Danish island of Bornholm - and maybe then some. If the Soviets focus on this front, Denmark is an achievable objective, depending on the rapidity of the British advance. There might be a race for Denmark? Again the prospect of direct access to the Atlantic is a Soviet strategic objective.

If Finland goes down in the Autumn of 1944, this brings Soviet troops directly to the Swedish border along Torne river in the north. That is guaranteed to make the Swedes nervous. It also brings up the question whether the Soviets would break for Sweden here, or just keep pushing their offensive? There were some serious considerations about forcing Sweden to enter the war against Germany towards the end of the historical WWII. Had the 200 000 German troops in Norway not surrendered in 1945, it is possible Sweden would have committed to fighting these. Churchill pushed for such a move.

At least the Soviets would be looking at picking up the Swedish island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic, especially if they are racing towards Denmark and can use it as a stepping stone, whether that would be a permanent arrangement or not.

I guess it is possible that Sweden might actually enter WWII as a belligerent on the Allied side, and take a fight with the German troops in Norway in 1944, as a way of preempting some kind of hostile move by the Soviet Union having hove very much into view in Sweden.

As per Winner's map for this scenario, it might be that Sweden enters the war alongside the Allies in 1944, to preempt possible Soviet designs on both Sweden, northern Norway and Denmark, while the British successfully race from the west and south to beat the Soviets to these areas. (Thus I get to make my native land enter WWII to eventually do what was after all the right thing in that war.)

Finland ends up as a Soviet satellite, a People's Republic of Finland, headed by the leader of the Finnish Communist Party founded in Moscow in 1918, Otto Ville Kuusinen, whose Finnish puppet government was initially set up at Terijoki already during the Winter War in 1939. Curiously the situation would mean the vindication of Finnish Fieldmarshall Mannerheim's idea of sending 70 000 Finnish children to grow up in Sweden, as was done in 1939-1945, as a means of ensuring a generation of Finns would grow up in freedom, to possibly return to liberate Finland at some later point in time. Not counting the potentially large number of direct refugees from Finland to Sweden beginning in 1944. Considering how historically 30 000 refugees made it to Sweden from the Baltic States at the Soviet occupation of their lands, we can assume they turn up, complemented with at least a similar number of Finns.

While Finland is lost, that sets Sweden, Denmark and Norway up as western allied democracies in the post-war era. The post-war idea of a Nordic defensive alliance of these three countries might be viable, but considering all three nations were belligerents on the side of the Allies eventually, NATO membership for all three is more likely.

Historically in the immediate post-war period Sweden were doing all kinds of things in cahoots with especially the UK, in the form of surveillance photography of Soviet military installations along the Baltic, and the introduction of numerous spies and agents into the Baltic states — an utter failure, since the British intelligence community was riddled with Soviet double-agents (Kim Philby et al.) All it would take would be a formalisation of this actual cooperation.

A bit dramatically, if the Swedes would be more immediately worried about being a direct frontline state in a possible showdown with the Soviet Union, it might mean that independent nuclear deterrence capability would get a higher priority, and the Swedish nuclear weapons program would not be scrapped in the early 1970's. With NATO resources at its back, Sweden might decide that their invasion defense would be large enough at maybe 600 000 men or so (instead of 900 000 in the late 1980's), and thus find the money for the nukes as well?

Excellent ideas

To sum it up:

- Sweden entered WW2 in Autumn 1944 to pre-empt the Soviets from going for Norway and Denmark
- the Germans didn't really fight and quicky surrendered to Swedes, ensuring all of Norway and Denmark remains in Allied hands
- Finland was lost, but a large number of refugees fled to Sweden, where they help organizing resistance against Soviet rule in Finland
- Sweden, Norway, Denmark formed a defensive sub-group inside NATO, but all three countries remain faithful to Western Alliance.

About Swedish nuclear programme - I admit that despite this area (nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy) is my hobby, I don't know much about the Swedish plans. I've heard about it, but that's it.

However, in this timeline it might be a bit different as the Soviet nuclear threat against the continental US isn't acute for the first 20 years of the Cold War. Historically, Britain and France wanted independent nuclear arsenals (aside from the prestige reasons) also to ensure that the US would commit itself to their defense if the Soviets attacked. There were fears that instead of risking nuclear destruction of the US mainland, the Americans would simply leave Europe to the Soviets or try to limit the nuclear exchange to Europe (you can imagine how comfortable such a thought was ). In this timeline, the European allies have fewer reasons to have doubts about the American commitment.

BTW, after the end of historical WW2, it was believed that many states would soon develop nuclear power. Czechoslovakia was rated among the few who had industrial capacities, basic know-how and natural resources (uranium) to build an A-bomb. Also, Soviets in OTL forced Czechoslovakia to supply it with thousands of tons of uranium ore which significantly helped the early Soviet nuclear program.

What if in this timeline the Czechs choose to "never again repeat the mistake of 1938" and build their own nukes? After all, the Czechs were bitterly disappointed by the "help" they received from their trusted Allies before WW2, so they might very well be tempted to seek an "insurance" that their new Allies won't do the same in the future. Maybe there will be a secret nuclear cooperation between the Czechs and Israel?

I always thought the 7000 km ranged, Mach 2, Tu-22 "Backfire", which entered service in 1962, was a pretty awesome machine?

It was Tu-22M, the original Tu-22 was a big disappointment.
The thing is that Tu-22M was an excellent theater bomber, but it was ill-suited for a strategic nuclear bombing role against the US. Basically, any attempts to use Tu-22M to drop nukes on the US would be a suicidal one-way mission due to the not-big-enough range of the plane and its lack of defensive capabilities. The few which would get through the North American air defenses would have no chance to return. It is believed that the Soviets designed them for operation over Europe and northern Atlantic (against US convoys and navy).

 

[Winner]

It still seems pretty one-sided to me. Maybe the conflict would have a different character, but I think the USSR is significantly weaker here, northern Iran and Greece doesn't compensate for the DDR and Poland. You may want to give them some other victory to even things up a little bit, mabe a successful UAR which goes socialist, or a southern Japan which becomes neutral? Don't get me wrong it is interesting, but mismatched IMO.

Uhm, but I am not trying to make it "even", I am just exploring how the Cold War might have looked like if the Western Allies were bit more clever and resolute in 1944. As you can sea, the Central European nations (Germans, Austrians, Czechs, a lot of Poles) would be spared of a lot of suffering, while others (Finns, Greeks, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) would perhaps pay the price.

I really think theres potential for India to play a big pqart. I'm not up to speed at all on my Indian history, but I think the ingredients are there for that to be a huge part of this TL.

UK doesn't want to let it go because of large communist elements in India
UK cant really hold it down because of post war austerity
US gets involved?

Well, since Indian history is really not one of my strongest suits, I'll leave it to others. If someone has a good and plausible idea for some "interesting" alternate development in British India, please share it with others

(I really need to advertise this thread more - I understand why you put your future timeline in the OT forum instead of World History)

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, fair enough, I suppose you dont have to even it out. But I reckon in this timeline there really isnt going to be much of a contest if you dont, at least somewhat... How are Austrians going to be spared a lot of suffering? Not much happened to them IOTL...

FWIW, I don't see much change in the status of Ireland here, maybe we would have gotten in the UN a bit earlier if the USSR wasn't in it, but other than that I think we'd be pretty much as we are. Having said that, it depends on who becomes pope in 1978...

 

[Winner]

Yeah, fair enough, I suppose you dont have to even it out. But I reckon in this timeline there really isnt going to be much of a contest if you dont, at least somewhat... How are Austrians going to be spared a lot of suffering? Not much happened to them IOTL...

Vienna and parts of Eastern Austria got their share of war damage and Soviet occupation.

When you look at the real-world Cold War, barring a nuclear war the result was never in doubt. The Communist bloc was lagging behind in most areas since the day one and once the communist ideology became largely discredited by the Soviet imperialism in Central Europe and Asia, it was just a matter of time before it would collapse. The only real question was if it would be with a "bang" or without it. Fortunately, we were lucky.

In this timeline, Cold War will probably end sooner, I haven't decided yet.

FWIW, I don't see much change in the status of Ireland here, maybe we would have gotten in the UN a bit earlier if the USSR wasn't in it, but other than that I think we'd be pretty much as we are. Having said that, it depends on who becomes pope in 1978...

Hm, in which part of Poland would Karol Wojtyla live by the time he was elected in OTL?

 

[RedRalph]

apparently he was in Kracow at the end of the war

 

[TheLastOne36]

Hm, in which part of Poland would Karol Wojtyla live by the time he was elected in OTL?

He was the bishop of Krakow.

Also, I wonder how Poles in general would react to the country being split in half? I mean we are a pretty noisy people under oppression, and with the country split and the eastern half dreaming of joining Western Poland, i`m sure Poland is going to be harder to control in this cold war than in real life.

 

[Winner]

He was the bishop of Krakow.

Also, I wonder how Poles in general would react to the country being split in half? I mean we are a pretty noisy people under oppression, and with the country split and the eastern half dreaming of joining Western Poland, i`m sure Poland is going to be harder to control in this cold war than in real life.

Definitely - it would look just like the previous partitions of Poland. There would be heavy resistance in Eastern Poland, but I guess the commie regime would also utilize the dream of re-unification to its advantage, blaming the evil imperialists (and Germans ) for the division.

 

[sophie]

Hmm, Interesting AH. I'm really interested in seeing how Europe would turn out once the USSR collapses. As you were suggesting, we'd see a much more industrialized, powerful Czech nation. And Germany would definitely be a lot stronger considering they retain a good portion of their Prussian holdings. How would East Asia (such as Japan and Korea) turn out?

Would would be the result of a Communist China who was more closely connected with Russia when the USSR collapses? Interesting propositions. And, of course, this is all assuming that the Cold War ends peacefully as it did IRL, what if it ends in WW3?

Another interesting point: Since Eisenhower dies and is replaced by a more aggressive general? Does he end up winning the presidential race in Eisenhower's place? Since he is more aggressive than Eisenhower, would he press more for proxy wars, or perhaps even a direct conflict with Soviet Russia.

You could also argue that, since Korea is unified under the Communists, there will be no Korean War for Truman, nor a ruination McArther's career. How will that affect The US?

 

[Winner]

Hmm, Interesting AH. I'm really interested in seeing how Europe would turn out once the USSR collapses. As you were suggesting, we'd see a much more industrialized, powerful Czech nation. And Germany would definitely be a lot stronger considering they retain a good portion of their Prussian holdings. How would East Asia (such as Japan and Korea) turn out?

Germany would definitely be stronger, though not necessarily more influential as other European countries would try to limit its influence. Czech Rep. would probably be one of the richest states in Europe, given that it suffered almost no war damage and once it solved the internal ethnic tensions, it enjoyed pretty stable political environment.

It would be interesting how the post-Cold war Europe would look like. There would be calls for re-unification of Czechoslovakia, though I doubt many Czechs would want that at this point, after decades of separate development. Sudeten Germans would oppose it out of fears it would upset the status quo by re-establishing a clear Slavic majority in the country. And just like in our timeline, people would generally not want to pay for the reconstruction of the East Even though I think Slovakia would receive a lot of support.

Western Poland would definitely have to pay the costs if it wanted to re-unite with Eastern Poland. By the time the Cold war ends in this timeline, Western Poland should be reasonably rich to afford that (let's say on par with South Korea in OTL).

Expansion of the EU wouldn't be such an issue as in OTL since the number of states entering it would be lower (Slovakia, Hungary and later the Balkan states and Baltic states), and their populations would be as big. Maybe I'll make a map of post-Cold war Europe too

(On the dark side, I think there would be a potential for a nationalistic motivated ethnic civil war between Slovaks and Hungarians.)

About East Asia - I don't know. I admit I am focusing on Europe. Few guidelines about Asia:

China is united and Communist, and there was no early Sino-Soviet split in this timeline.
Korea is united and Communist, balancing between China and the USSR.
Japan is split between the southern democratic part and northern Communist puppet republic controlled by the USSR. I thing that there would be a lot of tension there as both superpowers kept their military forces on the home islands.
Vietnam conflict happened in this timeline too and it was longer and more violent.

India - I don't know. Ralph wants it to turn Communist, but I don't know enough to come up with a realistic way to do it. I leave it to others if anybody's interested.

Would would be the result of a Communist China who was more closely connected with Russia when the USSR collapses? Interesting propositions. And, of course, this is all assuming that the Cold War ends peacefully as it did IRL, what if it ends in WW3?

Then the world is pretty screwed I think that outcome would be more possible in this timeline since the Eastern bloc is likely to began collapsing earlier and who knows what would have happened if there were no people like Gorbachov at the help when it happened. Maybe the Soviets would decide that they don't have anything to lose and invade Western Europe to neutralize the Western Alliance, or at least paralyze it and reach some favourable peace conclusion.

This is basically the backstory for Hackett's Third World War.

Another interesting point: Since Eisenhower dies and is replaced by a more aggressive general? Does he end up winning the presidential race in Eisenhower's place? Since he is more aggressive than Eisenhower, would he press more for proxy wars, or perhaps even a direct conflict with Soviet Russia.

Eisenhower is in my opinion most to blame for the broad front strategy which prolonged the war for a year, despite the chance to end it in 1944. His successor (don't know who - Omar Bradley, perhaps? Or would Montgomery take over?) was bolder as he actually had some real field command experience (unlike Ike) and chose to advance quickly along the cost, secure vital ports and then push deep into Germany before the Germans could re-establish their defensive front. Germany then collapsed like a house of cards in the West, but maintained a fanatical defense in the East to keep the Russians out (this is reasonably plausible, though I admit I put Manstein in charge mainly because I think he was the only one who could have pulled it out, with luck).

I don't think that Ike's successor would run for President. Ike was a political animal, his successor was more of a soldier. Perhaps MacArthur would have become President in this timeline

You could also argue that, since Korea is unified under the Communists, there will be no Korean War for Truman, nor a ruination McArther's career. How will that affect The US?

See above Anyway, I'll leave it to the Americans to imagine how the US would evolve.

 

[sophie]

RE: China: I was suggesting that perhaps a Russia with more vested interest in China (thanks to Eastern Europe being significantly less Red) would perhaps become more dependent on Russia during their industrialization period. If this were to happen, I was thinking what if China ended up collapsing with Russia, much like the Eastern Bloc did in OTL.

But a Russia and China of one mind in the Cold War indeed would be terribly scary, especially if Russia played an active role in China's industrialization/modernization.

It sounds to me like Japan ends up becoming the replacement for Germany, so we trade one unified 1st world US-friendly nation for another :S.

Re: MacArthur. That's exactly the kind of President I'm talking about. If MacArthur's actions in Korea are anything to go by, I think we would definitely see more or bigger proxy wars, or even an outright conflict.

Oh, and one question about China: Is it still Mao who ends up creating Communist China, or are the Russians more involved?

 

[RedRalph]

The point about other European countries wanting to limit German strenght is important. They would be incredibly wary of letting a unified Germany rearm here, maybe to the point where they retainted some degree of control over the entire of Germany.