What if: Japan/Italy China/Russia alignment reversal

[KilroywasNOTHere]

What it says on the tin. I'm wondering what would have happened if Russia and China sided with the nazis and Japan and italy had sided with the allied powers. I know for a brief time Russia did have a treaty with germany but I'm wondering what the short term and long term implications would be if WWII had essentially turned into a Imperial nationalist-socialist-nationalist war. Would it have deeply affected the nature of the war? What would be the state of the world be like post war? admitidly I don't know anything about the subject so I'm mainly trying to pick brains here.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Discounting all the ideological differences, if Soviets and Germans somehow got together, it means you most likely got a continental power block that would be very difficult to defeat. Italy would be crushed eventually, but Brits could still bottle up Germans and Soviets in Mediterran, while Japan and USA would be involved in grinding warfare in China and Soviet Far East. I think the war would end with stalemate, rather than a clear victory for either side.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Discounting all the ideological differences, if Soviets and Germans somehow got together, it means you most likely got a continental power block that would be very difficult to defeat. Italy would be crushed eventually, but Brits could still bottle up Germans and Soviets in Mediterran, while Japan and USA would be involved in grinding warfare in China and Soviet Far East. I think the war would end with stalemate, rather than a clear victory for either side.

Ok, how do you think the socio-political climate would be affected afterwards?

 

[S'task]

Bear in mind if you hewed WW2 into an ideological conflict like this, China itself wasn't unified, as it was divided between the Nationalists and Communists. Assuming these divisions, there's no way the Chinese Nationalists side with the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists, so really you have the Nationalist Chinese + Japan + US fighting the Communists Chinese + Soviet Union in the East.

We know how that war in miniature played out more or less, as those were more or less the sides of the conflicts in the Korean War in the 1950s. Oh, except that unlike the 1950s, the US wouldn't be fighting with the kid gloves on.

As such, you'd see very bloody and nasty fighting in China, but the combined weight of the US+Imperial Japan+Nationalist Chinese would likely see the Communist Chinese crushed there. The Soviet Union didn't have a good way to deploy troops into the region, the overland routes are harsh and not good for mass deployment, and using the trans-Siberian railroad puts the forces within range of the Pacific ocean, which the combined US+Japanese navy own completely. You'd see the western coast of the Soviet Union under Japanese and American occupation very quickly, what would bog them down more is pinning down and destroying the Chinese Communists, who were notable gurrilla fighters. However, with the US acting as a moral leash on the Japanese, you're not going to see events like the Rape of Nanking, thus the Chinese Nationalists would be much more amenable to working with them and the Chinese people wouldn't have as much sympathy towards the Communists as they did.

Long story short, the Pacific theater of the war is pretty much a lopsided "Imperialist" victory. Neither the Soviet Union nor Communist Chinese have the infrastructure or military power to be able to oppose the combined weight of the US+Japan, especially when they're siding with the Nationalist Chinese. Manpower, industry, and logistics all heavily favor the Pacific Imperialist powers, and you likely see some sort of division of the Pacific into allied sphere of influence with the Japanese claiming Korea and the western Soviet Union, while China keeps Taiwan and much of the South China Sea region under their influence. The US keeps the Philippines, obviously, and would insist on open seas for themselves, which in this scenario I think both Japan and China would willingly give.

That said, the European front is much, MUCH uglier. Without the Soviet/German front of WW2 that means both sides have a LOT more resources to throw at England and the Middle East. Given Soviet losses in the west, the Soviet Union is going to be desperate for warm water ports not under threat by the Imperial powers. England will be hard pressed to defend itself; however, if will be able to bring more of its navy into the Atlantic as unlike in the OTL WW2 it need not worry about protecting it's Pacific holdings, as the Pacific Imperial Powers have that covered and then some. This means that German submarine warfare is that much less effective, due to the higher concentration of British naval assets in the Atlantic (and also US naval assets as they don't need as much in the Pacific due to neither the Communist Chinese nor Soviet Union being major naval powers). This means that the British Isles are turned into a veritable fortress and any attempts to stage and invasion of them is going to be exceedingly difficult due to the sheer naval dominance of the combined British+US+Japanese navies give the Imperial side (seriously, those are the three most powerful navies of the period all on one side... they basically own the oceans and there's nothing the Continental Powers can really do to contest them).

This means you're going to see some spectacular air battles over the North Sea and English Channel. The critical point of contention that will see how well the Continental Powers can do is actually going to be... Spain.

You see, so long as the Imperial Powers hold Gibraltar they can freely move their fleets into the Mediterranean and keep supply lines open to North Africa and the Middle East. This is the major ground front of the war, as trying to fight on Continental Europe isn't feasible. For as much as the Imperial Powers own the seas, the land of Europe is the Continental Powers. They have the manpower and logistics to be able to contain and bottle up any landing the Imperial powers try and make in Europe.

North Africa, however, is a different matter. The land route supply lines to the Middle East and North Africa are crap even today, and in the 1940s even worse. As such, the Continental Powers would be hard pressed to keep supply lines open to them, they basically have to ship troops and supplies across the Med. However, as I noted, the sheer naval power disparity between the two groups means that such supply lines are risky and weak. However, unlike the oceans, the Med has a major choke point for entry from the Atlantic. This means that a major concern for the Continental Powers will be to seize Gibraltar in order to try and cut the Imperial powers from the Med. This means they need access to it... which means they need to go through Spain and Portugal to get there. The thing is, invading Spain from Europe isn't actually that easy, as there's a major mountain range right on the border between France and Spain. Further, the Imperials can get supplies to Spain via the Atlantic.

So you have bloody fighting in Spain, North Africa and in China/Siberia. It's anyone's game in Europe, and would greatly depend on the generals and events. Meanwhile, I don't see the Continental Powers doing well in East Asia. They just don't have the advantages necessary to pull it off, which means China rapidly is out of the Continental Power bloc and instead supporting the Imperial powers. This means that in the long term you have the Imperial Powers building up for a long march from the East into the heartland of the Soviet Union, while those powers are focused on trying to secure their African supply lines by securing the Med in a conflict mainly fought in Spain.

 

[Husky_Khan]

If France and Italy are on the same side against the Soviet Union and Germany, then that means in spite of Italy being fascist, all of the anti-fascist and anti-communist factions and countries would be quivering in fear at this new alliance. The Soviets-Germans would be busy invading countries like Poland, and Czechoslovakia first instead of treatying it all out like in the latter case, and probably followup with invasions of other intransient countries like Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Finland etc since none of them are all hot on the whole Fascism-Soviet style Communism ruling over them.

Then after fighting through all of those countries, they'll still have to deal with Britain, France and Italy and I'm assuming the Low Countries and the like as well. I have no doubts that the Russians-Germans could conquer Eastern Europe and the Balkans, with the Germans being more competent and the Russians stumbling over themselves as fair bit as they do so and countries like Hungary and Bulgaria being opportunistic as fuck in the process.

But after swallowing those countries up, you still have to deal with France and Italy. However the Adriatic Sea, the Alps, and the Maginot Line as a fairly formidable barrier to westward expansion. Say what you want about the Italian military, the Alps have been fortified just in case of German aggression since they weren't perfect friends in the leadup to WW2 and the Italian Navy is pretty thick and this time has oil and support of the British and French. And they also have a cause to fight for, which is to not being conquered by a bunch of vicious and oppressive foreigners.

Continental domination is not a forlorn conclusion, at least early in the War as per OTL. And just because there was a Fall of France in OTL, doesn't mean that the odds are going to perpetually be in the Russian-Germans favor this time around. They likely could overrun France and Italy, especially if they can do so before the United States gets involved... buuuuut if they don't do it before then, I feel the situation in continental Europe would actually be a lot more contested.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Bear in mind if you hewed WW2 into an ideological conflict like this, China itself wasn't unified, as it was divided between the Nationalists and Communists. Assuming these divisions, there's no way the Chinese Nationalists side with the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists, so really you have the Nationalist Chinese + Japan + US fighting the Communists Chinese + Soviet Union in the East.

We know how that war in miniature played out more or less, as those were more or less the sides of the conflicts in the Korean War in the 1950s. Oh, except that unlike the 1950s, the US wouldn't be fighting with the kid gloves on.

As such, you'd see very bloody and nasty fighting in China, but the combined weight of the US+Imperial Japan+Nationalist Chinese would likely see the Communist Chinese crushed there. The Soviet Union didn't have a good way to deploy troops into the region, the overland routes are harsh and not good for mass deployment, and using the trans-Siberian railroad puts the forces within range of the Pacific ocean, which the combined US+Japanese navy own completely. You'd see the western coast of the Soviet Union under Japanese and American occupation very quickly, what would bog them down more is pinning down and destroying the Chinese Communists, who were notable gurrilla fighters. However, with the US acting as a moral leash on the Japanese, you're not going to see events like the Rape of Nanking, thus the Chinese Nationalists would be much more amenable to working with them and the Chinese people wouldn't have as much sympathy towards the Communists as they did.

Long story short, the Pacific theater of the war is pretty much a lopsided "Imperialist" victory. Neither the Soviet Union nor Communist Chinese have the infrastructure or military power to be able to oppose the combined weight of the US+Japan, especially when they're siding with the Nationalist Chinese. Manpower, industry, and logistics all heavily favor the Pacific Imperialist powers, and you likely see some sort of division of the Pacific into allied sphere of influence with the Japanese claiming Korea and the western Soviet Union, while China keeps Taiwan and much of the South China Sea region under their influence. The US keeps the Philippines, obviously, and would insist on open seas for themselves, which in this scenario I think both Japan and China would willingly give.

That said, the European front is much, MUCH uglier. Without the Soviet/German front of WW2 that means both sides have a LOT more resources to throw at England and the Middle East. Given Soviet losses in the west, the Soviet Union is going to be desperate for warm water ports not under threat by the Imperial powers. England will be hard pressed to defend itself; however, if will be able to bring more of its navy into the Atlantic as unlike in the OTL WW2 it need not worry about protecting it's Pacific holdings, as the Pacific Imperial Powers have that covered and then some. This means that German submarine warfare is that much less effective, due to the higher concentration of British naval assets in the Atlantic (and also US naval assets as they don't need as much in the Pacific due to neither the Communist Chinese nor Soviet Union being major naval powers). This means that the British Isles are turned into a veritable fortress and any attempts to stage and invasion of them is going to be exceedingly difficult due to the sheer naval dominance of the combined British+US+Japanese navies give the Imperial side (seriously, those are the three most powerful navies of the period all on one side... they basically own the oceans and there's nothing the Continental Powers can really do to contest them).

This means you're going to see some spectacular air battles over the North Sea and English Channel. The critical point of contention that will see how well the Continental Powers can do is actually going to be... Spain.

You see, so long as the Imperial Powers hold Gibraltar they can freely move their fleets into the Mediterranean and keep supply lines open to North Africa and the Middle East. This is the major ground front of the war, as trying to fight on Continental Europe isn't feasible. For as much as the Imperial Powers own the seas, the land of Europe is the Continental Powers. They have the manpower and logistics to be able to contain and bottle up any landing the Imperial powers try and make in Europe.

North Africa, however, is a different matter. The land route supply lines to the Middle East and North Africa are crap even today, and in the 1940s even worse. As such, the Continental Powers would be hard pressed to keep supply lines open to them, they basically have to ship troops and supplies across the Med. However, as I noted, the sheer naval power disparity between the two groups means that such supply lines are risky and weak. However, unlike the oceans, the Med has a major choke point for entry from the Atlantic. This means that a major concern for the Continental Powers will be to seize Gibraltar in order to try and cut the Imperial powers from the Med. This means they need access to it... which means they need to go through Spain and Portugal to get there. The thing is, invading Spain from Europe isn't actually that easy, as there's a major mountain range right on the border between France and Spain. Further, the Imperials can get supplies to Spain via the Atlantic.

So you have bloody fighting in Spain, North Africa and in China/Siberia. It's anyone's game in Europe, and would greatly depend on the generals and events. Meanwhile, I don't see the Continental Powers doing well in East Asia. They just don't have the advantages necessary to pull it off, which means China rapidly is out of the Continental Power bloc and instead supporting the Imperial powers. This means that in the long term you have the Imperial Powers building up for a long march from the East into the heartland of the Soviet Union, while those powers are focused on trying to secure their African supply lines by securing the Med in a conflict mainly fought in Spain.

If France and Italy are on the same side against the Soviet Union and Germany, then that means in spite of Italy being fascist, all of the anti-fascist and anti-communist factions and countries would be quivering in fear at this new alliance. The Soviets-Germans would be busy invading countries like Poland, and Czechoslovakia first instead of treatying it all out like in the latter case, and probably followup with invasions of other intransient countries like Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Finland etc since none of them are all hot on the whole Fascism-Soviet style Communism ruling over them.

Then after fighting through all of those countries, they'll still have to deal with Britain, France and Italy and I'm assuming the Low Countries and the like as well. I have no doubts that the Russians-Germans could conquer Eastern Europe and the Balkans, with the Germans being more competent and the Russians stumbling over themselves as fair bit as they do so and countries like Hungary and Bulgaria being opportunistic as fuck in the process.

But after swallowing those countries up, you still have to deal with France and Italy. However the Adriatic Sea, the Alps, and the Maginot Line as a fairly formidable barrier to westward expansion. Say what you want about the Italian military, the Alps have been fortified just in case of German aggression since they weren't perfect friends in the leadup to WW2 and the Italian Navy is pretty thick and this time has oil and support of the British and French. And they also have a cause to fight for, which is to not being conquered by a bunch of vicious and oppressive foreigners.

Continental domination is not a forlorn conclusion, at least early in the War as per OTL. And just because there was a Fall of France in OTL, doesn't mean that the odds are going to perpetually be in the Russian-Germans favor this time around. They likely could overrun France and Italy, especially if they can do so before the United States gets involved... buuuuut if they don't do it before then, I feel the situation in continental Europe would actually be a lot more contested.

Would the us have even gotten involved in the war in this timeline? I thought the only reason we got involved was pearl harbor. If Japan is part of the ally powers they don't have a reason to attack the US.

I know that america had a lot of japanese and Italian immigrants at the time, but could that really be enough to push america into the war?

 

[Atarlost]

I can sort of see how this comes about. Fascism isn't actually a unifying ideology. There's no reason Italian or Japanese nationalists should naturally ally with German nationalists. They only allied with Germany because the international community was being hypocritical about them engaging in 19th century colonialism after the old colonial powers had decided that now that they had their colonies conquering people was bad, but not bad enough they were actually going to give those colonies up. There is, however, a common interest between the old colonial powers and the wannabe colonialist powers to oppose the delegitimization of colonialism if the former weren't raging hypocrites about it. This probably requires an early point of divergence, possibly something like Germany surrendering in 1917 due to a major industrial accident and Wilson's 14 points thereby getting no traction at all. China and Abyssinia are a small price to pay for the British, French, and Dutch to keep their colonies if they think they might otherwise be at risk. They are not, after all, European.

Germany can actually pretty easily lose the war early on. With Italy and Japan in the Allies the French and British can both put more ships into the Norway campaign. I think the Brits had a carrier in the Med and that would be available even if the one in the Indian Ocean was still sailing off to rattle sabres at the Americans. These are also more able to provide useful support if they steam south when Germany moves into the Benelux. The Italians probably have an expeditionary force. If Rommel doesn't pocket the BEF and northern French army away from a port that could be used to support them or evacuate their equipment France probably doesn't surrender, especially with an ally sharing a land border. If the BEF and northern French army can actually be resupplied rather than evacuating Rommel's panzers probably get pocketed themselves. If France had any major forces watching the border with Italy OTL they're available for the German front possibly along with an Italian expeditionary force.

And if Norway and France both go badly Hitler or whoever replaced him that would ally with Russia is probably not yet politically entrenched enough to weather the fallout. And then it's all of western Europe including a cobelligerent Germany and Austria against Russia while Japan and it's Chinese puppet states try to hunt down Mao and close off the possibility of Russia getting American support.

I don't think America gets involved unless it suffers a Communist revolution. They might be the enemy the Anti-Anticolonial Entente forms to oppose, but they don't want to embargo everyone. That would effectively be embargoing themselves. And they certainly don't want to send young men off to die for China. Roosevelt wants to engineer an excuse to do so, but if it would mean fighting the IJN and Royal Navy at the same time with no allied navies worth a bucket of warm piss even he would prefer peace.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

what would the aftermath of the war be, in our timeline the 2nd world war shaped much of the world we have today. nuclear bombs the cold war, 9/11 ect. assuming the nationalist allies won against the socialist alliance (as that seems to be more or less the belief on here) how would that change the political landscape afterward?

 

[Atarlost]

what would the aftermath of the war be, in our timeline the 2nd world war shaped much of the world we have today. nuclear bombs the cold war, 9/11 ect. assuming the nationalist allies won against the socialist alliance (as that seems to be more or less the belief on here) how would that change the political landscape afterward?

This gets rambly and is very much initial thoughts.

The clock essentially turns backwards on what some call social progress. The progress on seeing Asians as adults sticks because the Japanese have pretty well succeeded in becoming honorary Europeans TTL, but otherwise we're pretty solidly back into the era of paternalistic colonialism. The Brits are pretty good at raising up native administration in places they don't like the weather at this point and I think India eventually gets self government under the same sorts of terms as the dominions largely populated by Europeans. I want to think the Indian nationalists take a gradualist tack and aim for the achievable goal of being equal to Canada or Australia rather than getting themselves suppressed trying to be completely independent, but more likely they wind up delaying India's promotion to a dominion by a couple decades over the best case.

And I think that's about the extent of decolonization for the 20th century. Some of the Asian colonies get home rule but not independence probably starting with India or British Malaysia (if synthetic rubber still gets invented). China and Korea are the last because Japan is behind the curve on learning that the advantages of free markets apply to colonies having started the process later. Eventually some of the African colonies become Europeanized enough to be considered for limited home rule but probably not until the 21st century. Africa is spared a lot of tribal conflict, but in its place it gets Europeans who can't tell the tribes apart shooting some of the people they're supposed to be defending when they go in to suppress those tribal conflicts. I think Leopold was shocking enough that no one gets that oppressive but paternalism is and the European notion of disciplining a disobedient colony involves lots of capital punishment.

If Germany gets broken up the UK tries to build up Italy, the Netherlands, and I think Bohemia to counterbalance France. I haven't memorized the pre-unification European map but I think Bohemia is the one that borders France. Prussia gets the shaft.
If Germany is allowed to remain unified it may lose East Prussia as OTL to remove the justification for claiming Danzig/Gdansk.

Russia probably can not be completely conquered, but it is deliberately crippled. England probably adds the Baku oil fields to Persia. Japan gets the Siberian oil fields. Japan takes the Pacific ports. There's a pretty good chance Ukraine gets carved off and given St. Petersburg. Germany hopefully gets some credit for cobeligerancy after the government collapses and it surrenders and is allowed terms similar to OTL post-WWI Italy because otherwise it gets broken up. It's possible Moscow gets nuked to make them surrender, but after how the attempts to prop up the Whites in the civil war went I think they get left to their own mess as not worth occupying once the valuable bits have been carved off.

Actually, that option for Russia's fate represents another category of nations that might get decolonized. Places that just aren't worth the trouble because there are no significant resources to exploit and the natives are perpetually restless. Even the Russians decided the Mongols were best left to their own devices and I imagine the UK would eventually come to the same conclusion about the Afghans. Parts of western China and Tibet may also fall into the category of "not worth the trouble" and are potentially useful as "independent" neutral buffer states between the Japanese Empire and British Raj.

If Mussolini stays in power long enough or his successor shares his ambition to rebuild the Roman Empire, Italy starts a war in North Africa. If they go after French North Africa first it probably doesn't become a world war but may become a general European war. If they go after British North Africa they've presumably established an alliance with France beforehand and with France and Britain involved it does become WWIII. It is probably not nuclear. After WWII nobody really wants to see area bombing inflicted on fellow civilized Europeans. If nukes are used it's probably initially in an anti-ship role but they may not even be developed. France vs Italy I think ends in a negotiated peace because if things fall into a stalemate neither wants a repeat of their "win" in the WWI. France+Italy vs UK is won by whoever is better at finding allies. It's probably the UK, which doesn't want to occupy a large part of continental Europe and doesn't want to enlarge its proxies too much so terms are relatively light.

One of my preconditions was Hitler being replaced by someone who could tolerate Slavs. If this means no Holocaust it probably also means no Israel. This also means no Palestine. Before they were isolated as permanent refugees to use as a justification for war with Israel they weren't an ethnic identity. Instead Palestine will be split between Transjordan and Egypt. All three are British Mandates or protectorates anyways.

If tolerance for Slavs does not imply the OTL Nazi racial superiority complex has been replaced by a more benign form of pan-Germanism Israel probably exists and British Arabism means they probably have to fight for independence rather than settle for being a dominion, but since they're mostly European exiles there's international pressure to let them. This also makes the case where Germany is broken up more likely. Italy may try to pull them into its sphere of influence and for the right assurances they might agree. In any case, with their neighbors not fully independent they get in fewer wars, though they probably get pulled into whichever war Italy probably starts.

The US probably hasn't gotten all of the gold reserves in this timeline and the Entente isn't broke. There are force drawdowns after the war, but they're not as severe as OTL and there's probably a return to the treaty system to prevent the Franco-Italian and Japanese-American naval arms races from going out of control. And everyone is going to want to keep their tonnage allotments filled with the most modern ships they can as technology advances. The treaty system may prevent the rise of the guided missile cruiser. The battles that established the supremacy of carriers over battleships OTL don't happen. And one side has no carriers and only one battleship so a lot rests on how that battleship is sunk. If Bismark is sunk by aircraft or if land based German aircraft sink some battleships conducting shore bombardment battleships might fade away, but if Bismark is sunk by naval gunfire and the Luftwaffe can't get any battleships it still looks like it takes a battleship to sink a battleship. Carrier scouting is obviously critical and torpedo bombers can make things easier by damaging rudders or screws, but if naval planners think a battleship can get through to range on a carrier they won't want to risk fleet carriers without fast battleships or Admiral style relatively armored battlecruisers to escort them. And if Hood still gets golden BB'd they'll insist on the former.

In the third decade of the 21st century it is a less trusting but also less fearful world. War is more likely, but recent history suggests that the stakes are going to be where the lines are drawn on a map and which language comes first on government forms not if there will still be any living Uighurs five years from now or if they will be allowed to own property or be property.

 

[ATP]

What it says on the tin. I'm wondering what would have happened if Russia and China sided with the nazis and Japan and italy had sided with the allied powers. I know for a brief time Russia did have a treaty with germany but I'm wondering what the short term and long term implications would be if WWII had essentially turned into a Imperial nationalist-socialist-nationalist war. Would it have deeply affected the nature of the war? What would be the state of the world be like post war? admitidly I don't know anything about the subject so I'm mainly trying to pick brains here.

Not possinle.Soviets allied germans in 1939 and attacked Poland together,but they acted in bad faith from the start - they wonted war in Europe,so they could take all when borh sides weakened.Unfortunatelly for them,France heroically surrender,and germans had chance to attack first.

But,if you want to do so...both Sralin and Hitler must die in 1940,then whatever take power decide that long time alliance is good thing.They would take Iraq and Palestine,but not Italy - Alps would hold them.

USA help would save England,China would be beaten by Japan,but soviets stop them.Japan would lost all China and maybe Korea,too.

Then USA would land in Tunesia in 1942,and fighting in Africa would have place till 1944 when allied forces would win.
In 1945 USA air forces would mostly destroy Luftwaffe,and soviets would not help much there,especially that USA would burn Baku.
USA would mass produce A-bombs,and use 10 or more in 1946 against Germany.End of war.

Italy would hold and nothing more,Japan would loosing in Asia to soviets,but both would hold many resources which soviet and germans could use against USA.Which would win the war using A bombs.

 

[Atarlost]

Then USA would land in Tunesia in 1942

This makes your whole post suspect. It makes it look like you're trying to follow the stations of canon. Who is the USA fighting in Tunisia? Germany has no possessions in Africa anymore. Russia has never had any possessions in Africa. China has never had any possessions in Africa. The lesser Axis powers like Romania have never had any possessions in Africa. Italy is with the Allies as one of the defining traits of the timeline. Do you think one of the Axis powers invaded Africa? Germany even after anschluss has no Mediterranean ports. Russia has no Mediterranean ports. China has no Mediterranean ports. None of them can get into the Mediterranean without forcing Gibraltar or the Suez or violating Turkish neutrality and forcing the Dardanelles.

For there to be a front in Africa Russia needs to conquer northwestern Turkey, build a navy up from practically nothing, get convoys past the Italians and British and with nothing much going on in the Pacific and the way attacking Turkey blatantly telegraphs their intention probably a fair chunk of the Japanese navy. Germany wouldn't have to take on Turkey, but would have to build up a navy from not just practically nothing but literally nothing. Oh, and they probably have to either bring in shipyard workers or contend with Yugoslavian sabotage. China hasn't the ghost of a chance. Any ship they tried to build would be bombed by the Japanese or British to protect the home islands or the trade routes in the Indian Ocean respectively.

 

[ATP]

This makes your whole post suspect. It makes it look like you're trying to follow the stations of canon. Who is the USA fighting in Tunisia? Germany has no possessions in Africa anymore. Russia has never had any possessions in Africa. China has never had any possessions in Africa. The lesser Axis powers like Romania have never had any possessions in Africa. Italy is with the Allies as one of the defining traits of the timeline. Do you think one of the Axis powers invaded Africa? Germany even after anschluss has no Mediterranean ports. Russia has no Mediterranean ports. China has no Mediterranean ports. None of them can get into the Mediterranean without forcing Gibraltar or the Suez or violating Turkish neutrality and forcing the Dardanelles.

For there to be a front in Africa Russia needs to conquer northwestern Turkey, build a navy up from practically nothing, get convoys past the Italians and British and with nothing much going on in the Pacific and the way attacking Turkey blatantly telegraphs their intention probably a fair chunk of the Japanese navy. Germany wouldn't have to take on Turkey, but would have to build up a navy from not just practically nothing but literally nothing. Oh, and they probably have to either bring in shipyard workers or contend with Yugoslavian sabotage. China hasn't the ghost of a chance. Any ship they tried to build would be bombed by the Japanese or British to protect the home islands or the trade routes in the Indian Ocean respectively.

Germans with soviets help would take british and italian colonies there attacking from Caucasus and probably Turkey/they had pro-german faction which almost made them attack soviets in OTL/
Since soviets could send 100+ dyvisions there,they would eventually win.Iraq,Iran,Palestine,Egypt,Libya would all fall.
And then USa would come to Tunisia with help.

 

[S'task]

Germans with soviets help would take british and italian colonies there attacking from Caucasus and probably Turkey/they had pro-german faction which almost made them attack soviets in OTL/
Since soviets could send 100+ dyvisions there,they would eventually win.Iraq,Iran,Palestine,Egypt,Libya would all fall.
And then USa would come to Tunisia with help.

The logistics to do an overland conquest of North Africa from the Caucuses in Russia just... they don't exist. You're dealing with some of the harshest terrain for moving armies through, a mostly desert region with limited water supplies. The supply train for such an operation would be massive and while they may be able to be able to push into Palestine, without being able to contest the Med, there's no way they could push into Egypt, as the Royal Navy would be able to heavily disrupt their supply lines coming through Sinai. Meanwhile the Navies would be able to be launching raids on the supply chains from the Persian Gulf as they come south through Iran/Iraq.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yeah. Trying to think of the ideal way they'd be able to do it. It'd be far easier if Turkey, for whatever reason, joined their side because while I doubt Turkey could withstand the Soviets (and Germans when they march through the Balkans) having to fight through and then occupy a hostile area would be far less preferable then having Turkey on their side. I'm sure there are concessions that could be made at the Greeks or French colonies expense. Persia kinda fell over in OTL so maybe not too much difficulty.

But then you'd need some pro-Fascist revolts in Iraq as per OTL and sympathetic Arab or local populations in the French and British colonies and Egypt to even find a way to be feasible to reach Libya. But I think they'd get mired down in Messopotamia for sure since the British can harass from the Levantine Coast, the Suez/Red Sea area and from British India and the Persian Gulf.

 

[ATP]

The logistics to do an overland conquest of North Africa from the Caucuses in Russia just... they don't exist. You're dealing with some of the harshest terrain for moving armies through, a mostly desert region with limited water supplies. The supply train for such an operation would be massive and while they may be able to be able to push into Palestine, without being able to contest the Med, there's no way they could push into Egypt, as the Royal Navy would be able to heavily disrupt their supply lines coming through Sinai. Meanwhile the Navies would be able to be launching raids on the supply chains from the Persian Gulf as they come south through Iran/Iraq.

Indeed.I forget how shitty soviet logistic without Lend Lease was.But - they could still take Iraq,Iran and Palestine.
And USA would start from that in 1942.Considering how green their troops were in OTL,they would probably need 2 year to push soviets to Caucasus.
Which mean,that they could land troops in France in 1944,too.Facing much stronger germans.And send stuff to Italy,aithought i do not think Italian manage do much - they would attack through mountains,too.

So,nothing change - A bombs in 1946 would end war.Even if soviet spies get american plans and gave it to germans,it would change nothing - USA could mass produce them,Germany could not.Only difference would be burned London and maybe few other cities.If Hitler send one on suicidal U-boot,some american city,too.Probably N.Y.

Only difference - pissed americans would made germany glow in the night.

 

[S'task]

Indeed.I forget how shitty soviet logistic without Lend Lease was.But - they could still take Iraq,Iran and Palestine.
And USA would start from that in 1942.Considering how green their troops were in OTL,they would probably need 2 year to push soviets to Caucasus.
Which mean,that they could land troops in France in 1944,too.Facing much stronger germans.And send stuff to Italy,aithought i do not think Italian manage do much - they would attack through mountains,too.

So,nothing change - A bombs in 1946 would end war.Even if soviet spies get american plans and gave it to germans,it would change nothing - USA could mass produce them,Germany could not.Only difference would be burned London and maybe few other cities.If Hitler send one on suicidal U-boot,some american city,too.Probably N.Y.

Only difference - pissed americans would made germany glow in the night.

There's a reason in my version posted higher up that I felt the major front would be in Spain. Contesting Gibraltar is of critical importance to the Soviet/German bloc. If they can wrest control of Gibraltar away from the British, it means they can bottle up the Med. If they can bottle up the Med, then they can expand their front into North Africa that much easier, while also cutting Italy off from the Imperialist supply lines. The Suez can't handle the traffic needed, plus is a much, MUCH longer trip for supplies to travel, while also putting them in range of land based air raids assuming the Continental Powers manage to invade down to Palestine.

Basically in order to gain footholds beyond the European continent, the Soviet/German Bloc would need to control the Med. If they can manage to gain control of the Med, then they can expand into Africa plus control the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. That may give them the resources and manpower needed to counter the steppe based invasion that the US/Nationalist Chinese/Japanese would be preparing for in the far east, invading Russia from the east rather than the west. Landing in Europe to pressure the Germans might seem like the better idea, certainly, but the amount of ground forces the German/Soviet bloc has in continental Europe would make any such landing easy to bottle up, whereas the utterly massive Eurasian steppe would be impossible to completely stop maneuvers on.

Finally, from the sheer awesome aspect, imagine the scale of tank battles on the Eurasian Steppe... It's perfect tank country.

 

[ATP]

There's a reason in my version posted higher up that I felt the major front would be in Spain. Contesting Gibraltar is of critical importance to the Soviet/German bloc. If they can wrest control of Gibraltar away from the British, it means they can bottle up the Med. If they can bottle up the Med, then they can expand their front into North Africa that much easier, while also cutting Italy off from the Imperialist supply lines. The Suez can't handle the traffic needed, plus is a much, MUCH longer trip for supplies to travel, while also putting them in range of land based air raids assuming the Continental Powers manage to invade down to Palestine.

Basically in order to gain footholds beyond the European continent, the Soviet/German Bloc would need to control the Med. If they can manage to gain control of the Med, then they can expand into Africa plus control the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. That may give them the resources and manpower needed to counter the steppe based invasion that the US/Nationalist Chinese/Japanese would be preparing for in the far east, invading Russia from the east rather than the west. Landing in Europe to pressure the Germans might seem like the better idea, certainly, but the amount of ground forces the German/Soviet bloc has in continental Europe would make any such landing easy to bottle up, whereas the utterly massive Eurasian steppe would be impossible to completely stop maneuvers on.

Finally, from the sheer awesome aspect, imagine the scale of tank battles on the Eurasian Steppe... It's perfect tank country.

Landing in China would not help USA - there were no good roads to soviet territory from that place.
And Spain would fight against german,if they try invade.They do not wonted them when they fought soviets,so they would no do that when soviets would be german ally.

 

[Atarlost]

If they can manage to gain control of the Med, then they can expand into Africa plus control the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

This pretty much guarantees they won't be allowed to do so. They're going to have enough trouble getting any surface ships from Germany or Petrograd past the British Isles to Gibraltar even if they've somehow taken control of it. Meanwhile the Japanese don't have a lot to do in the Pacific and can send stuff through the Suez as if the Black Sea Fleet wasn't a joke already compared to just the Italians. The Germans won't be allowed to take possession of any significant French vessels while the UK still has carriers any more than they were OTL. Even if they somehow keep the Royal Navy out past Gibraltar they have to contend with the Italians unless they cross the Alps and the Japanese and whatever French ships follow Charles De Gaulle. Even if Italy falls the Free French Navy and as much of the IJN as fits through Suez and probably most of the Regia Marina will still be there operating out of Egypt with aerial support from Malta. And the Commies completely wiped out the Russian naval tradition. The officer corps is trying to learn to run ships from scratch with no teachers. This is a navy that was lent an older British Battleship and let the turrets rust in place during wartime.

You have to be careful not to look at Russia's tank and plane production and think they didn't need lend lease to field an effective army. A lot of the metal to make those was moved by American steam engines and the fuel to run them was brought to the front by American trucks. If they have to make up all that infrastructure and logistical tail from their own industry they aren't going to be building nearly as many tanks and planes and guns. They're going to mostly be poorly supplied infantry with a tolerably equipped but small tank corps.

In 1940 when the war starts Russia has just gotten done getting humiliated by the Finns. OTL they got until 1945 to rebuild their purged officer corps and still had problems for the first year of the war against Germany. They're not going to be able to contribute in Europe for a while even if they and the Germans can work out a mutually acceptable compromise on command authority and if they try to open a second front too soon they'll wind up turning the same sort of performance they did in the Winter War. Anatolia is not nice country to invade in any season. Neither is northern Iraq or Persia. Mannerheim was good, but Auchinlek would have a hell of a lot more resources to call upon.

 

[ATP]

This pretty much guarantees they won't be allowed to do so. They're going to have enough trouble getting any surface ships from Germany or Petrograd past the British Isles to Gibraltar even if they've somehow taken control of it. Meanwhile the Japanese don't have a lot to do in the Pacific and can send stuff through the Suez as if the Black Sea Fleet wasn't a joke already compared to just the Italians. The Germans won't be allowed to take possession of any significant French vessels while the UK still has carriers any more than they were OTL. Even if they somehow keep the Royal Navy out past Gibraltar they have to contend with the Italians unless they cross the Alps and the Japanese and whatever French ships follow Charles De Gaulle. Even if Italy falls the Free French Navy and as much of the IJN as fits through Suez and probably most of the Regia Marina will still be there operating out of Egypt with aerial support from Malta. And the Commies completely wiped out the Russian naval tradition. The officer corps is trying to learn to run ships from scratch with no teachers. This is a navy that was lent an older British Battleship and let the turrets rust in place during wartime.

You have to be careful not to look at Russia's tank and plane production and think they didn't need lend lease to field an effective army. A lot of the metal to make those was moved by American steam engines and the fuel to run them was brought to the front by American trucks. If they have to make up all that infrastructure and logistical tail from their own industry they aren't going to be building nearly as many tanks and planes and guns. They're going to mostly be poorly supplied infantry with a tolerably equipped but small tank corps.

In 1940 when the war starts Russia has just gotten done getting humiliated by the Finns. OTL they got until 1945 to rebuild their purged officer corps and still had problems for the first year of the war against Germany. They're not going to be able to contribute in Europe for a while even if they and the Germans can work out a mutually acceptable compromise on command authority and if they try to open a second front too soon they'll wind up turning the same sort of performance they did in the Winter War. Anatolia is not nice country to invade in any season. Neither is northern Iraq or Persia. Mannerheim was good, but Auchinlek would have a hell of a lot more resources to call upon.

All true,with one exception - soviet manage partially form 61 armored and 30 mechanized dyvisions till 1941 in OTL on their own/aithought only part of it was really formed and none worked well/,so they could wield,let say,40 armored dyvisions from 1942.Withe deadly Kv1 and T.34 tanks.But rest would be infrantry.

Soviets would certainly stop Japan offensives - but since their logistic sucked, they would not get much.And japaneese would certainly capture some soviet tanks for USA to look at them.

 

[Atarlost]

All true,with one exception - soviet manage partially form 61 armored and 30 mechanized dyvisions till 1941 in OTL on their own/aithought only part of it was really formed and none worked well/,so they could wield,let say,40 armored dyvisions from 1942.Withe deadly Kv1 and T.34 tanks.But rest would be infrantry.

Soviets would certainly stop Japan offensives - but since their logistic sucked, they would not get much.And japaneese would certainly capture some soviet tanks for USA to look at them.

For rebutting my underestimation of pre-war Soviet industry that number works, but we shouldn't take that as representative of their military at the start of the war because if Russia and Germany were allied and Japan secure in its English and French and possibly Dutch allies as a hedge against the American naval threat I would expect Japan to enter the war nominally in the fall of 1939 and practically in spring of 1940 as part of the response to the invasion of Poland. This is only a couple months after Khalkin Gol so the situation favors Russia in the east if they don't get involved excessively in the west, which I don't think they would try because the logistics don't support would be difficult in spite of Germany having better transportation networks due to things like railroad gauge differences.

That said, in a just couple months Russia can't have digested the lesson of that battle that mobile warfare can work after the deep battle rejectionists won that internal power struggle and killed most of the people that were starting to figure out how to tank. It may be a race as to who figures out how to tank first. Note that if Japan is declaring war on Russia in 1939 and expects British and French support if the Americans try to attack them the effort that went into the Yamato class would presumably have gone into the army. Or possibly the IJN's new "inland marines" depending on how the IJN/IJA power plays out TTL. They're also likely getting Italian or British or French advisors to help them figure out how to tank, though the Russians may be getting German advisors.