Another Idea - 5% USSR Attacks Allies after Axis Defeated

[xwormwood]

Mmh, what i haven't read here after all:

germany would have fought with the allies against the russians.

I have read many interviews, letters or diaries from former german wehrmacht-soldiers who stated that they were once and for all through with war in may 1945. With one exception: if the allies would have fought against the USSR: in this case they would have joined the allies.

And i am sure that there would have been pro-allied german partisans as well if the allies would have fought back the red army in 1945.

[JerseyJohn]

Xwormwood returns to help the beleaguered defenders of Festung S. C. !! Great to see you again.

-- And it would have helped that so many units surrendered intact and deliberately moved west to surrender to the Americans and British.

All in all, as I said earlier, I think Stalin understood all of these things. Anyway, he was never looking to conquer all of Europe. His main goal was to set up a suitable buffer zone.

He wanted Poland, Chechozlovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugosavia (giving Russia direct access to the Mediteranean and warm water ports) and also Austria. He failed to get Austria, Greece and Yugoslavia (which was always independent of both sides), but had everything else he wanted.

As the European war ended he was particularly brutal in his handling of the Poles and Hungarians and dictated a forced expulsion of all Germans from Poland, Chechozlovakia and Hungary.

There's no doubt in my mind that the U. S. and Britain would have been able to muster hundreds of thousands of surrendered Germans to fight the Communists and there would also have been widespread partisan activity in all parts of Eastern Europe.

Such a war would have had a very profound effect upon history. No Cold War for one thing. For another thing, the West would have been forced to not treat Germany as a defeated enemy. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone on with the War Crimes Trials, and it doesn't mean they'd have reinstalled a nazi regime, but it does mean Germany would have been able to move more seamlessly into the post war period. Assuming, of course, that the Soviets would have been pushed back into the USSR.

[SeaMonkey]

You guys, this is one of the best hypothetical continuations of WW2 ever contemplated. But instead of a continuation, I believe it should be addressed in a scenario all its own.

Think about it, we have the data from the end of WW2, configurations of deployments and technical levels of all sides. Not much disparity there, the facts are the facts. Ok, we can discuss the usual opinions of all belligerent's dispositions, but there's not much deviation as the historical facts are common knowledge, perhaps minimal spin, we can listen to any hypothesis.

Main problem IMO, is the atomic bomb, we have somewhat discussed the idiosyncracies of its deployment. Do we choose to disregard it for a viable scenario? Truly, I am not sure of the implications.

This is a most compelling question. The overwhelming Allied airpower dictates that it should be a parameter in the continuation of the hostilities. Everyone's opinions have been duly noted.

In the essence of fair play and a balanced scenario, a viable "what if", we need some strict confirmation of the impact of its use. How do we model this? I'm open to reasonable suggestions and I've heard the possabilities put forth, but I'm still a bit uncomfortable that the SC2 editor will be able to accomplish the effects. Maybe we need some comments from the developers/testers to guide us along this unknown road to some conclusion?

I, for one, agree this proposal could lead us into a classic custom campaign for SC2, and I standby to contribute, its just tough elaborating on it until we are familiar with the SC2 editor.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Very interesting premise!

Does the scenario start in mid-May 1945? Germany has just surrendered, American units are east of the cutoff line and everyone is reeling, exhausted and revelling in Triumph. Or, more likely it starts a couple of weeks later. Stalin hasn't begun transferring troops to invade Manchuria yet and the U. S., Britain are starting to move their units west to conform with the line that had been agreed upon. I don't think a much later starting date makes too much sense, though

I'm sure Stalin could have had a much larger advantage if he'd planned on doing it a year later, massing along the Iron Curtain line after both the United States and UK had demobilized much, if not most of the divisions they originally had in Central Europe.

So, hypothetically, I'd say May 1st 1946 might have been a good projection. The United States probably had three A-bombs ready for use; I think two were used in 1947 (?) for the Bikini Atoll tests, so the U. S. was probably making three or four a year.

As we all lear from von Mannerheim in his Cuban Missle Crisis scenario, we can simulate this situation in SC1 through the back door.

-- Germany is Russia! Start a new scenario, USSR surrenders to Germany and take it from there.

Naturally, if Berlin is captured it means Russia (Germany) loses, but as the initial situation would have a Soviet steamroller pushing west to the Rhine, it would make sense that if the UK-USA-FRANCE is able to stabilize and launch their own offensive back to taking Berlin it can be safely assumed that the Soviet attempt to conquer Western Europe has failed.

-- Of course the same premise can also be applied to the campaign being launched at an earlier time, such as right after VE Day.

[SeaMonkey]

At first glimpse, I'd say you have a good handle on the situation JJ. Still I need to contemplate it more. I'm kind of thinking on the lines of the Allies DoWing USSR, like prompted from a "Berlin Crisis" type situation. I like your timeline better, as 48 seems way to late. Then again the Korean 'Police Action" heats up in 49, possibly another trigger for the European continuation, but again to late.

It seems to me this scenario is a foregone conclusion to maintain an uninterrupted pace from the cessation of hostilities with the Axis, just a shuffling of forces. A small breather would seem appropriate, at least until we can contrive some catalytic circumstances.

Heck, I don't know, its more than I can invent with the current SC editor, I've got to get my hands on that SC2 editor, what a beaut. it will be.

[Blashy]

I say right after, like the Allied Generals wanted to do.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy, only one Allied general wanted that and I think he lost touch with reality.

The Allies might have stood a chance defending and later counteratting after they'd consolidated and gotten their overwhelming air superiority into the action, but no chance at all if they'd initiated the action.

Anyway, as usual, what Patton didn't consider was the political and moral aspects of what he was saying, and the long term view.

-- Even if the west had won in Central Europe, which I'm not that certain of, could they really have conquered European Russia? And why?

American and British morale would have dropped to zero and the German prisoners -- what would have been their great incentive to refight the nightmares they'd just finished?

Another of his brilliant suggestions was that all the plundered wealth the U. S. Army stumbled upon ought to be taken back to the United States and hidden to be used as a special U. S. military fund.

I'm not a big fan of Patton's and to me his remarks were worse than idiotic, they were reckless and dangerous. They were both absurd ideas and it's possible the secret service killed him behind the scenes for talking that way and instigating trouble.

He hated those Commie bastards -- so what? The war wasn't being fought to accomodate Georgie's personal likes and dislikes. The more he voiced those thoughts the fewer generals in either the United States or British armies stood by him. In the end even his best lifelong friends, Omar Bradley and Dwight Eisenhower, had to admit he was too much of a liability and a loose cannon.

-- I'd like to see a quote from any of American or British general that wanted to try destroying the Red Army in 1945. I don't think anyone will find any. This was strictly Patton's dellussion.

[ June 12, 2005, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Xwormwood returns to help the beleaguered defenders of Festung S. C. !! Great to see you again.

Thank you, Mylord. Great picture, as always!

Always my joy to join the ranks of the high king of the SC-Forum, JerseyJohn the 1st, true defender of history.

[JerseyJohn]

Many Thanks Noble Grandmaster, Champion of the Teutonic Realm and Keeper of the Truth, Xwormwood! The privelege is ours.

[jon_j_rambo]

Hubert, we going to have a post-Berlin fall scenario? Will the editor allow for it & the other game functions?

[xwormwood]

Lol.

But you are right:

it is time to watch Aleksandr Nevsky once again.

Even though grandgrandgrandgrandgrand...grandfather will die & drown in the frozen seas ...

[JerseyJohn]

I image searched Alexander Nevsky first, trying to get one of those great stills of the three grandmasters. I really like the way they made them up. But the only stills they had were of the ice either breaking or about to, and I said to myself, "Self, I don't think he'd like that scene."

Anyway, up till that point they had the better looking armor by far and the better music, and they enjoyed themselves right up till hearing that ominous cracking sound under their feet.

I'd like to watch that movie right now!

[kozmeister]

The west Germans should fight alongside the west, but the Soviets should benefit economically for east Germany.

Has anyone considered the nuclear-age paradigm as a option for R&D in SC2 as it is in Tactics II? If nukes were provided, these alone might force realistic closure to any chance of further conflict; i.e., anyone in their right mind (especially a pragmatist like Stalin) would stop before they could be used (or at least before planes that would have the range to deliver them could be produced).

KOZMEISTER

[JerseyJohn]

Stalin knew more about the A-bomb than Truman and knew it before the American president even knew the Manhattan Project existed.

He reasoned that the German invasion had been the equivalent of 25 A-bombs. He also knew that the United States only built 3 in 1945. He didn't think they'd be a problem for a long time and was more concerned with developing a Soviet bomber capable of delivering them when he finally had his own. This was accomplished by reverse engineering confiscated American B-29s that emergency landed on Soviet territory late in the Pacific War.

[JerseyJohn]

The Soviet TU 4 Bomber. Also known as the B-29.