1939 Alliance Of Evil Scenario

[LampCord]

I'm curious about this scenario. Sounds like Russia and Germany are on the same side from the start.

Is that alliance permanent?

Is Japan part of this alliance and if so, doesn't that tip the balance of power to the Axis?

Does this mean the US gets involved right away?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Lampcord,

Below is the full text from the Victory Conditions page and hopefully it paints a better picture of just what the campaign is all about

* * *

The world is poised on the edge of the abyss as the two most powerful dictators in history have formed an alliance to take over the globe. Top secret clauses in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 include plans for the division between Germany and the USSR not only of Poland, but also of Europe, Africa and the Far East. This Pact paves the way for Hitler to take control of central and western Europe while Stalin is free to impose his version of Communism throughout Asia.

So, just how did this unlikely alliance come about?

In the summer of 1939 Japan and China made peace, signing a friendship treaty whereby Japan retained control of Manchuria and annexed the cities of Tsingtao, Shanghai and Hainan in China. In return, Japan is paying China a sizeable subsidy to restore China's economy and infrastructure. This Sino-Japanese peace treaty was prompted by a military takeover in Japan by army officers seeking to avenge their defeat at the hands of the Red Army, and these officers have pulled the Japanese army out of China to send it straight into action against the USSR. Not everyone in China welcomed a peace treaty with the hated Japanese, most notably Mao's Communists who have greatly expanded in size and scope and are currently engaged in secret diplomacy with Stalin's agents. A Chinese civil war could break out at any moment, especially if Soviet forces approach Mao's stronghold in Yenan province.

With Japan and the USSR at war, Hitler instructed his foreign minister von Ribbentrop to sign a Pact with the USSR, the intention of which is to keep Stalin embroiled in conflicts in Asia for as long as possible, thus neutralising any threat from the east to Hitler's own plans to conquer Europe. As Hitler's Panzers drive into Poland and the Red Army looks poised to defeat the Japanese in Manchuria, is the free world doomed? One can only hope that the world's largest democracy, the United States of America, will wake up to the danger and save the day before it's too late.

[Brian the Dane]

Excellent!

I will definitely enjoy the hypotheticals (if I ever get to them - I might get wrapped up in the standard '39 Global for a year or so).

[Karhu]

Actually, such an alliance is not so unlikely.

Germany and the USSR were in effect allies from September 1939 until Barbarossa in June 1941. They carved up Poland between them and supported each other's aggression elsewhere.

[AZGungHo]

They did have their pact, but both Stalin and Hitler knew it couldn't last and both planned to end it, Hitler just beat him too it that's all. Historically both countries had a long history of distrust and dislike. However, if you postulate one of both of them dying, then maybe something like this could have happened. Either way, it's a great "What If" scenario to play with that's for sure. I know I'm looking forward to it!

[Darkstar One]

Is Japan allied with the US and Britain in this scenario? If not I don't see how you can balance this.

[JerseyJohn]

Very interesting topic. So far everything I would have said on both ends has already been said by other people.

We all know how much an agreement with either Hitler or Stalin was worth: Hitler broke his nonaggression pact with Russia, and Stalin broke the one he had with Japan.

[Bill101]

Is Japan allied with the US and Britain in this scenario? If not I don't see how you can balance this.

It certainly is, and the changed alliances make this a really different, challenging and fun scenario to play!

As we know, neither Hitler nor Stalin were trustworthy people, but this campaign follows the idea that they hoped to benefit more from co-operating than from fighting each other. This is our chance to test out that idea on the battlefield, and it does make for a great game!

[Snowstorm]

This "what-if" scenario does sound like alot of fun :cool:....however....I think I do share some concern with Lampcord about tipping too much in favor of the Axis. Are there Decision Events as well as tendencies built in to help bring Germany and Russia to possibly attack one another as the campaign wears on? Otherwise it seems too easy for the Axis player to just simply have Germany and Russia turn their backs to one another and have only one front each for them to worry about. :confused:

[LampCord]

Wow, this scenario sounds like a lot of fun. With Germany and Russia on the same team, it eliminates Germany's dreaded second front and would allow them to deploy the bulk of their forces in the West.

Sealion anyone? I'd be shaking in my boots if I were the UK.

OTOH, with the US and Japan on the same side, think how many MPP's the US can save by not having to fight the huge Pacific naval war.

This almost seems like a second game!

Can't wait. I might play this scenario first.

[AZGungHo]

Lampcord,

I was thinking the same thing about playing it first too! Imagine US Marines ALONGSIDE Japanese units invading the USSR's Far East! Or China aiding in the struggle against the USSR! Meanwhile, where can Germany be stopped in the East? Can they sweep the board, and then drive for India? Or invade the Western Hemisphere? The possibilities are nearly endless and I'm excited!!!

[JerseyJohn]

It's great to have this kind of flexibility. There were a lot of alliances that could have come into place with slightly different variations of what happened during the 1920s and 30s. What will be really interesting is I'm sure this game will be producing a lot of player mods turning things inside out and backwards from actual history. We started asking for that in the SC-1 days and instead of dismissing the requests, or just changing things a little, Hubert's found a way of doing what we've wanted for so many years. Really looking forward to playing it. :cool::)

[SeaMonkey]

Better be careful with that USSR invasion AZ, for as soon as you're out of carrier support range there will be hell to pay against land powers the likes of USSR and Germany. This will be the classic east vs west game with the West having toe holds on the East's perimeter. No doubt the West will be the perennial sea power and the east easily vanquishing land invasions into its territory and potentially controlling all of the eastern hemisphere. Do I need to remind the forum that historically USSR(post WW2) and Germany invested heavily in subs. You know what that sets up!:eek:

Lots of resources in the east and a lot of land to defend presents this to be a thoroughly engaging campaign. Can you imagine the battles on the edges of the east? Like I said before, this will more than likely eclipse the regular campaign as the one of choice for h to h contests.

[LampCord]

Since Sealion seems inevitable, it begs the question:

Will the UK relocate its capital to Cairo or India or will it the government fall with the home island?

Also, it seems that the battle of the Atlantic would become obsolete and instead the German Navy's primary task would be to repel a sea based invasion by the US.

Also, the US would likely become much more of a land based power and without the need to build a massive Pacific Fleet it should be able to create a huge land army. Think of all those production points cranking out armor and infantry!

[SeaMonkey]

I believe the decision events allow either Australia or Canada, the obvious choice yells out!

If I was the West, I'd want to protect those sea convoys that allows for power projection to the East and ensures a tough invasion of the Western hemisphere.

[AZGungHo]

I would think the US would also have to make even more air units, lots and lots of them to soften up if not kill out right all those Russians and Germans.

You are right SeaMonkey, I would think you'd have to be very careful about where to invade, with the first aim being grabbing as many MPP's as possible to help you build up and wear down the Russians and Germans.

And then there's nukes....?!?!

[JerseyJohn]

The sea convoys SeaMonkey mentioned will get particularly hairy when both sides are crossing each others paths, probably along the coast of West Africa and the Indian Ocean. It will be especially interesting to see how South America will fit into various situations.

It seems to me the United States will always need a large navy to protect both coasts and also to conduct operations in either ocean, but, as was Lampcord mentioned earlier, it will need to adjust its production mix if it doesn't have to worry about fighting the Japanese.

I agree with AZGungho that the U. S. would need to place even greater emphasis on air units than it did historically, which is mind boggling! SeaMonkey's reasoning about these new land campaigns might be near to impossible for the U. S. once it gets beyond naval air support, as SeaMonkey said earlier. So it will be necessary to move inland, establish a perimeter and build up land based air superiority. That's a variation on the U. S. approach to the Island campains of WWII. It was always work within a perimeter, building air fields and, when the range overlapped into the next perimeter it was time to move into it with landings.

Very interesting possibilities at every turn.

[arado234]

I can see where this game is headed.The Allies control the seas and the Axis control Eurasia.There is no hope of either side winning.The Axis will just build a horde of tanks and planes and the Allies will have no hope of doing anything.The Axis mpp base would be huge.

The Russians built 105.000 tanks and S.P.guns.Germany built about 47.000

America built about 88.000.I didnt mention England because they would probably be done.

Arty.Russia built about 500,000 Germany about 160,000 tubes.

America built about 258,000.

Aircraft.Russia built about158,00 Germany about 190,000

America built about 325,000.Japan about 76,000.

Since there would be noway to bomb or cause Germany or Russia to loose any real amount of these weapons you can only assume the Axis would have even more.

As far as the Atomic bomb goes who knows who would get it first.Lets not forget Germanys HUGE stockpile of chemical weapons(which Xwormwood mentioned earlier)that the Allies knew nothing about.The nerve gas they had was VERY nasty.

Im not saying this isnt going to be fun,because it is.Im just saying that the Axis are going to have a freakin MASSIVE land force compared to the Allies and with all the resources available to them,I cant see either side winning but im going to love trying.

[JerseyJohn]

It reminds me of the world George Orwell described in his novel 1984. Except there are two sides rather than three. So Orwell must have been thinking along the same lines, that progress would be made when one of the three powers changed its alliance to the other, then those gains lost when one of them shifted again; constant instability.

In this scenario I think the trick will be to combine actual military victory with diplomatic successes. If the allies can establish themselves in a large coastal region, and at the same time get a nearby large neutral to join them, and they can reinforce it quickly, then it might break what otherwise have been a stalemate.

A-bombs shouldn't be overly impressive as the thousand bomber raids were even more devastating. The old style A-bombs will take a lot of production time (after all the research required earlier) and will also require a great delivery system to be effective. The only advantage I can see is a devastating attack can be conducted on a city with just one key aircraft surrounded by a large number of escorts. It should have a high probability of success unless the other side's intercept tech and radar is very high, and they've actually got a force of those advanced interceptors stationed nearby.

[LampCord]

One thing we don't know, is how quickly the US would come into the war. I agree that if its the traditional Dec 1941 date, it would be very difficult to retake Europe. Of course that date makes no sense now since Pearl is off the table.

So if the US can get in quicker, say as soon as France falls, then its possible it could make a pre-emptive invasion in Spain (or get Spain as an ally) and gain a foot hold on the continent. Spain would be very defensible from land as the narrow strip between it and France is covered by mountains.

This COULD conceivably save the UK and make it much easier to move troops to Europe. With Spain, the UK and Gibraltar under Allied control, the Axis Navy would have a great deal of difficulty getting to the Atlantic and might have to rely on seizing the Suez and taking the long way around.

[AZGungHo]

I think the US would have to maintain a large Navy, but probably not anywhere near as many CV's as we had historically. That frees up lots of man power and material to build planes, tanks, and whatever else would be needed.

I completely agree with Jersey John, hit a strategic spot, establish a defensible perimeter, fill it up with Air Power, and then drive forward. I'm thinking of a kind of ink spot strategy, where the spots appear, grow slowly, finally merging into a larger front, etc.

Not easy against Russia and Germany, but it ought to be do able. Probably by a better player than me!!

Can't wait to see how this works out.

[JerseyJohn]

Except there was no way the United States was going to enter the war without having been attacked. We lost a gunboat in China that the Japanese deliberately attacked, and two destroyers on convoy duty in the Atlantic. FDR seemed to think that would get the American people in a sort of war fever of indignation. It didn't. Instead they asked why we had ships serving in a war we weren't a beligerant in.

Americans really did not want to get into the war.

[AZGungHo]

That's true - I was assuming US was in the war. I wonder if the US had been confronted by a combined German/Russia if the isolationist attitude would have weakened and changed? Plus if Russia takes on China, that would offend the very pro-China US. But I agree it probably would have taken something really bad to motivate most of the US population to become pro-war. Maybe threats by Hitler and/or Stalin? Perhaps that's how they justify US entry? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

[JerseyJohn]

This, in itself, is an interesting topic. About the only threat I can imagine Hitler and Stalin giving the U. S. is they'd be considered enemies if they gave aid to the non-Axis allies.

My guess is an Axis attempt to occupy a conquered country's territory in the Western Hemisphere would do the trick. Say, Iceland is declared independent after the conquest of Denmark and Germany sends a garrison to occupy it. The same would be true of various Dutch and French holdings in the Caribean.

[AZGungHo]

Oh, good point! I hadn't thought about Iceland but in this context that would be a real possibility. It would give the Germans a real chance to combat US control of the Atlantic, so it's reasonable to imagine they might have done it.

I think reaction would have been even stronger to them intruding in the Caribbean.

I'm thinking about a quasi WW1 situation where the Germans sink some US ships, maybe even civilians ships, and that gradually turns the tide of public opinion until they are demanding action be taken. US Navy defends against German Navy, Germany declares war, Russia also declares war as a good ally, we respond and the US is in it to win it!