Discussion:
Other cases of countries being partitioned?
Add Reply
WolfBear
2017-10-03 23:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.

Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and government.
David Tenner
2017-10-04 01:23:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
The most obvious possibility is Austria, but apparently Stalin never
seriously considered it; there were free elections in all zones and an
elected all-Austrian government from a very early stage. A neutral Austria
was more to the USSR's advantage than a partitioned Austria where West
Austria could serve as a NATO bridge connecting West Germany with Italy.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-04 01:57:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
The most obvious possibility is Austria, but apparently Stalin never
seriously considered it; there were free elections in all zones and an
elected all-Austrian government from a very early stage. A neutral Austria
was more to the USSR's advantage than a partitioned Austria where West
Austria could serve as a NATO bridge connecting West Germany with Italy.
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.

"The Austrian government, consisting of Social Democrats, Conservatives, and Communists (until 1947), and residing in Vienna, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone, was recognised by the Western Allies in October 1945 after some doubts that Renner could be Stalin's puppet. Thus, the creation of a separate Western Austrian government and the division of the country was avoidable. Austria, in general, was treated as though it had been originally invaded by Germany and liberated by the Allies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#Interwar_period_and_World_War_II

Most definitely, the "NATO bridge" could not be a consideration until 1949. :-)
David Tenner
2017-10-04 03:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just
a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism
had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.
A joke attributed to Billy Wilder among others: The Austrians managed to
convince themselves and the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler
was a German...
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-04 19:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just
a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism
had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.
A joke attributed to Billy Wilder among others: The Austrians managed to
convince themselves and the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler
was a German...
Well said :-)

However, it seems that their future had been more or less determined well before they could start convincing anybody about anything.
Rob
2017-10-06 21:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?

What do you mean by this?
Alex Milman
2017-10-06 21:22:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
Rob
2017-10-07 00:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
Alex Milman
2017-10-07 01:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
Future of Austria was defined in 1943 by Moscow Declaration:

"The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
"They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
"Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Declarations#Declaration_on_Austria
Rob
2017-10-17 02:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
"The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
"They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
"Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Declarations#Declaration_on_Austria
But that declaration did not say anything about spheres of influence over Czechoslovakia.
David Tenner
2017-10-07 23:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay
in Austria only on a temporary basis.
I doubt very much that the 1943 agreement to restore Austria was part of a
deal to make Czechoslovakia a Soviet satellite, given that in 1943 it was
anything but clear who would liberate either Vienna or Prague. It is quite
possible that at that point Stalin still looked forward to working with a
"friendly" but non-communist Czechoslovakia led by Benes.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 00:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay
in Austria only on a temporary basis.
I doubt very much that the 1943 agreement to restore Austria was part of a
deal to make Czechoslovakia a Soviet satellite, given that in 1943 it was
anything but clear who would liberate either Vienna or Prague.
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 01:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
One of the reasons Patton was not allowed to go to Prague is that
there had been an SS revolt featuring Vlasov's army and other
non-German SS units which the Soviets did NOT want surrendering to US
forces in the area.

It was one of the nastiest two week periods of the whole war and the
Czechs got a first hand look (well before 1948 and 1956) of just how
violent the Soviet army could be if allowed.
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 03:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
One of the reasons Patton was not allowed to go to Prague is that
there had been an SS revolt featuring Vlasov's army and other
non-German SS units
There was no "SS revolt": there was Prague Uprising which SS troops tried to suppress.
Post by The Horny Goat
which the Soviets did NOT want surrendering to US
forces in the area.
"Suggesting to General Antonov that a U.S. advance to Prague was now feasible, General Eisenhower was informed that such was not desired by the Soviets. During the meeting with Marshal Ivan Konev on 5 May, General Omar Bradley also proposed the same offer. However, Marshal Konev – while he appreciated the good will of the American commander – refused the offer because Bradley's proposal violated the negotiated borderline between Soviet and Anglo-American forces, therefore Konev had no authority to accept it. Konev also promised that the USSR alone would destroy local German forces as soon as possible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Offensive#Political_and_military_developments

Uprising in Prague started on May 5th, Soviet offensive started on May 6th and the 1st Division of the Russian Liberation Army joined uprising between 5th and 7th. Clearly, even by the "optimistic" timeline the borderline decision was taken before these events which means that ROA could not be a factor in that decision.

As for the practical side of the events, the 1st Division took (by May 7) radio station and airport in Prague but seemingly was unable to prevent advancement of the SS troops. Almost immediately it started having the problems with the heavily communist leadership of the uprising.
On May 8th "The 1st KONR Division, its relations with the ČNR broken down and realizing no quarter could be expected from Soviet forces, joined SS and other German troops in a wary alliance of convenience and starting moving west.The KONR 2nd Division had already contacted the Americans and started the march west." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army

They unsuccessfully tried to surrender to Patton. More than a thousand soldiers who managed to surrender had been extradited to the Soviets by the Allies, due to a previous agreement between Churchill and Stalin that all ROA soldiers be returned to the USSR.

In other words, what you wrote seems to be a historical legend (advertised, among others, by Solzhenitsyn who is not the best source of the historic information unless when he was directly quoting from "Stalin's canal").
Post by The Horny Goat
It was one of the nastiest two week periods of the whole war and the
Czechs got a first hand look (well before 1948 and 1956) of just how
violent the Soviet army could be if allowed.
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 03:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
No - I'm saying the Czechs got a first hand glance of what the Red
Army could do to those they really didn't like. The average Czech in
Prague was a bystander not a participant.

I said two weeks as an upper bound lest someone say I had messed up
the beginning and end dates. The Czechs' "turn" came later.
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 15:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
No - I'm saying the Czechs got a first hand glance of what the Red
Army could do to those they really didn't like. The average Czech in
Prague was a bystander not a participant.
Sorry, but I wonder if you have an idea on a subject you are talking about.

There was an uprising in Prague which started on May 5th. To crush it the Germans had been systematically destroying the city. At the news of the uprising the Soviets started their offensive a day ahead of the planned date.
The American troops had been closer and their reconnaissance units reached suburbs of Prague but did not help an uprising due to the existing agreement (the insurgent leaders were already informed that American Army would not move from its final positions but an "average Czech in Prague" had no clue so it did not look nice). On May 8, faced with no arriving allied help and the imminent destruction of the city, the insurgents were forced to negotiate, and accepted the German terms presented by General Rudolf Toussaint, the German Military Governor. The agreement allowed the German nationals, including civilians to escape to the West. The 1st ROA Division left with the Germans.

The Red Army entered Prague on May 9th, AFTER the Germans left so the whole thing about "those they really didn't like" and an average citizen of Prague watching <what exactly?> does not make sense to me.

As far as "those they really didn't like" is involved, the Czechs made it quite clear whom THEY don't like (the Germans) and killed quite a few of them.
Post by The Horny Goat
I said two weeks as an upper bound lest someone say I had messed up
the beginning and end dates.
Does not make a slightest sense because the Soviets simply were not in Prague until the fight was over and the whole "Prague Offensive" took less than a week.
Post by The Horny Goat
The Czechs' "turn" came later.
Benefit of a hindsight is a great thing but knowledge of the future was not available in 1945.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-09 05:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Another possibility:

The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.

Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.

Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.

The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.

Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.

Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...

The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).

Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)

In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.

After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Insane Ranter
2017-10-09 14:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.
Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.
Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...
The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).
Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-09 15:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he
wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
Royal Italy is out in the ocean, and the Communists
have no way to get at it; the Communists have no
part of France.

It's quite possible the partitions would not last
very long. But that is not the challenge.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-09 17:27:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rich Rostrom
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
I thought this was a GREAT scenario given the outcome was divided
Greece, Germany and Italy. Probably one of the great single post
scenarios in SHWI history.

One aspect I thought about after I read it was that absent US troops
in 1944 Britain would depend much more heavily on Commonwealth and
Empire troops than in OTL and THAT presents the possibility of a
divided Canada as while Canada conscripted from 1939 only volunteer
conscriptees (e.g. men that volunteered for overseas service) were
sent overseas until 1944. At that point the federal government staged
a referendum which passed but was HIGHLY unpopular in Quebec (which
felt no sympathy for France at all and didn't want Quebecers to "die
for France").

Your scenario implies considerably higher Canadian and Aussie
casualties and higher than WW1 - level casualties could cause Canada
as well to break up. (Bear in mind the population of Canada at that
time was roughly 12 million - barely 1/3 of 2017's)

It goes without saying that it almost certainly delays the atomic bomb
for several years though by more by default than any other factor the
US is stronger than it was in OTL 1945 - PARTICULARLY if there is no
counterpart to the Marshal Plan. (Though that might happen mostly in
terms of countering Soviet domination of Europe)

It looks like a rather nasty Europe by 1960.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-12 17:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Greece, Germany and Italy. Probably one of the great single post
scenarios in SHWI history.
<blush>
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-09 18:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.
Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.
Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...
The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).
Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
How Stalin would get anywhere close to any of these countries to start with? Without the US supplies the Red Army (and the Soviet economy in general) is severely handicapped by shortage of the moving stock which they can't produce themselves and which the Brits can't supply in the adequate numbers. Then, of course, there is a shortage of aluminum (crippling production of T34's) and high octane fuel (impacting air force), absence of the canned goods means a greater stress on already overstressed agriculture and other endless problems. Hardly makes sense to speculate about Stalin wanting more. How about him considering a separate deal with Germany.

Not to mention that WC was advocating the Allied landing on the Balkans (to attend to what he considered the British imperial interests) rather than in France. In OTL this idea was rejected both by the US and the SU but here he has a free hand.
Alex Milman
2017-10-09 17:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very serious problems with turning the tide and especially with the further developments.

The ATL Lend Lease is strictly British (which should not be shrugged off).

In 1941 the Brits had been a major source of the heavy and medium tanks (estimated 30 - 40% before Moscow counter-offensive). By July of 1942 approximately 8% of the 13,500 tanks in service had been British (but it leaves approximately the same number of the American tanks).

AFAIK, similar situation existed with aircraft: in 1941 - early 1942 the
supplies were predominantly British.

However, later the US supplies picked up ending with approximately 94% of the total supplies I(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LendLease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union):

"The United States sold to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.... a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR" ... "11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)" and "7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)"

Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:

3,000+ Hurricanes
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada)
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks
1,212 Universal Carriers and Loyd Carriers (with another 1,348 from Canada )
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
1,474 radar sets
4,338 radio sets
600 naval radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots

So the British supplies had been extremely valuable but not adequate for the needs. How would that gap be patched? Notice the difference in the trucks: absence of the US supplies would create a terrible problem especially during the offensives. Soviet truck production during WWII (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=145035):

"Out of total 205,000 trucks produced, 150,400 were consumed by the military. So, on 22.6.41 Red Army had around 270,000 trucks, and received another 745,000 during the war. Out of these, 150,000 were new domestic production, 221,500 trucks drafted from the industry and agriculture sectors, 60,600 captured enemy's trucks and 312,600 lend-lease trucks." As you can see, the whole domestic production amounted to less than a half of Lend Lease supplies (I assume that a portion of the supplied trucks had been used for the non-military purposes and that those drafted from industry and agriculture belong to the initial period of war). Soviet truck production picked in 1944 - 57,400 trucks. Not too impressive. Keep in mind that most of the Soviet production were 2 wheel trucks with a relatively low capacity (1.5 tons, IIRC) and that the Jeeps, halftracks and reconnaissance vehicles (practically absent in the Soviet production) are not included.

Also keep in mind supply of the components and spare parts. Anything from chassis to the ball bearings.

Ditto for the tanks: by the end of WWII most of the tank Guards had been equipped with Shermans: the rubberized threads made them much better for the deep advances than T34's (especially when it comes to the paved roads). And, IIRC, supply of aluminum was quite important for T-34 carburetor.

Remove the American portion of the supplies and the Soviets may have fundamental problems. They still may end up pushing Nazis out of the Soviet territory but it may happen later and with a greater exhausting preventing from developing success along the OTL lines.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-12 17:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)

As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.

This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").

This in turn should be enough for the Schwarz
Kapelle to strike at Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Then comes the failed coup, Himmler's rule,
another failed coup, and the breakdown of the
German state and army, which provides a Soviet
victory.

Is this an "easy" scenario? No, but plausible,
IMO, and meets the challenge.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-12 18:49:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942.
Of course. Starting with ALL Soviet historians. :-)

The main problem with the "observers" is that the Soviet ones had been predictable and the foreign ones were not in a position to judge due to the lack of an adequate information.

It is more or less clear that by the mid-end 1942 the Germans made themselves obnoxious enough to the local (non-Baltic) population not to count on a political breakdown of the SU. Tippelskirch remarked that prior to (mid, IIRC) 1942 the Germans did not have partisan problems in Ukraine.

So we can probably say with a certainty that political breakdown of the SU was highly unlikely starting from mid-1942. However, the rest "turning the tide" is a different issue because it is hard to tell what would the Soviet industry be able to come with having only British Lend Lease (BTW, would it be greater or smaller with US neutral?). Of course, by stretching as they were the Germans became strategically vulnerable so something like Stalingrad is quite easy to imagine but the things are much less clear with the following events. How the things would develop without hundreds thousands of the US trucks? After all, you need to bring supplies to the front line and to be able to move them with the advancing troops. You need vehicles for motorized infantry, etc. You can probably do without them but it means that you are moving much slower with a greater reliance upon a horsepower. How will you manage without an adequate supply of aluminum (used, among other places, in T-34 carburetor), etc.

With too many items being unavailable or in a short supply who can clearly tell how things would develop?
Post by Rich Rostrom
If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable.
"If so" :-)

Very few things were inevitable and "victory" could mean quite a few things including Soviets pushing Germans out of their territory and not being able to move far beyond it. This still would be a victory (of the kind).
Post by Rich Rostrom
And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
From the optimistic statements that Germany could not defeat the SU a conclusion that the SU would inevitably conquer Germany is not necessary an inevitable conclusion. Especially with the US absent from the picture.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
This is an old legend which is by now thoroughly compromised. The Red Army could not be "prepared" much more than it was in OTL because it suffered from the numerous structural issues which could not be easily resolved by an order from the top. The country was in a process of building up its industry and its army and as a result was lacking many things which Germany had for quite a few decades, starting from professional technical and military cadres. By 1941 a high percentage of the personnel in the Soviet mechanized units did not have ANY experience with any vehicle (forget the tanks) and had 5 - 6 classes of school education (with a noticeable percentage of the illiterate and those not speaking Russian). Industry was not producing spare parts for the equipment and mechanized units routinely did not have field repair shops they were supposed to have. With the constant switch from one tank model to another, the industry was falling back in production of the armor piercing shells (which, anyway, were inferior to German "under-caliber" ones) so the tanks had mostly anti-personnel ammunition. The tanks, even the over-advertised T-34 and KV had numerous technical problems and, contrary to the legend, were quite vulnerable unless one was shooting straight into the front armor of their turret (hit under turret would immediately jam it and from the sides they were quite vulnerable). Infantry had been mostly equipped with the semi-automatic rifles which they were not trained to handle properly and which were too complex and costly to produce during the war. As a result, Soviet infantry "rolled back" to the old Mosin rifles later to be augmented with the submachine guns (PPD).
Tractors used for transporting the artillery pieces or moving damaged tanks did not have adequate power and were not available in the necessary numbers, etc.
Unlike the Germans who had nucleus of their force preserved and trained since after WWI, most of the Soviet non-coms served only for couple years and serious "production" of the officer cadres started only in 1930's (with a severe shortage of those capable to teach them).

Shortage of the civilian technical/engineering cadres resulted in slow design and even slower introduction of the new models of weapons and shortage of the machine tools had been a contributing factor.

As for being altered and prepared, the Soviet mechanized units started counter-offensive operations almost immediately after the German attack. Of course, it ended with a crushing defeat but the same goes for most of the Soviet offensives prior to the Stalingrad so unpreparedness and being taken by surprise probably were not the main reason for the defeats.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.
It would be nice but quite unrealistic, especially taking into an account that the whole story about being caught by surprise is mostly BS pushed by Stalinist propaganda (somehow, looking as a naïve idiot always was OK for the Russian self-esteem; "... at night, suddenly Bonaparte's troops crossed the Neman" - from popular "heroic" play).
Post by Rich Rostrom
This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").
You keep forgetting to in OTL "push back" happened with a serious help from the Allies and that by the time it did happen the bulk of that help was coming from the US. How the Soviets would be able to compensate for the absent material of all types is anybody's guess and speculations like your above are too vague to make some definite conclusions.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-13 01:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:32:36 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)

Could the German army have fought the Red Army to a bloody draw in
1943 with better leadership? Looks that way to me particularly given
the pre-Kursk battles of April/May. Some have said "Stalingrad proved
Germany couldn't win, Kursk meant the Soviets would" with the period
between being the critical moment. I would argue that 1942 on the
Eastern front was critical with so much time being lost after the fall
of Voronezh. When you look at the front on 30 June 1942 vs 1 October
1942 it's clear numerous opportunities were lost by the Germans.

I tend to be one of those who would argue the world would be better
off if Russia HAD lost at Stalingrad since I don't see them losing
completely (eg. creating the German fantasy of the Arkangel-Astrakhan
line) and think Europe would have been better with the Soviets ending
the war on their pre-war (or even 6/22/1941) boundaries than on the
Elbe.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.
While I agree with you it's fair to say that Stalin was the best thing
the Germans had going for them in the 1941 campaign. I am exaggerating
but surely not by much.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").
Simply not losing half the Red Air Force in June 1941 would have
produced the effects you're talking about! That particular fiasco I do
believe Stalin has to "wear" as he was insistent his troops move
forward of their 1939 defence lines.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This in turn should be enough for the Schwarz
Kapelle to strike at Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Then comes the failed coup, Himmler's rule,
another failed coup, and the breakdown of the
German state and army, which provides a Soviet
victory.
Is this an "easy" scenario? No, but plausible,
IMO, and meets the challenge.
Alex Milman
2017-10-13 19:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:32:36 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).

IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.

But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-14 02:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).
IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.
But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.

However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
Alex Milman
2017-10-14 16:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).
IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.
But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that.
You can dispute whatever you like but here are the facts:

"By the end of 1941, early shipments of Matilda, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks represented only 6.5% of total Soviet tank production but over 25% of medium and heavy tanks produced for the Red Army.[46][47] The British tanks first saw action with the 138 Independent Tank Battalion in the Volga Reservoir on 20 November 1941.Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance
Post by The Horny Goat
No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid.
"In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942."

You are more than welcomed to produce a detailed breakdown of the LendLease supplies in 1942 and comparable numbers of the Soviet production to back up your statement.
Post by The Horny Goat
Bagration the following year was a different story.
Here are some opinions on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance):


"According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-15 06:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
There was a long and very erudite discussion of whether
Western aid was critical to Soviet survival in 1941-1942
on soc-history-war-world-war-ii.

The final conclusion was that it was too close to call.
The Western contribution was small - but the Soviet
margin of victory may have been even smaller.

As to 1943 - by the time of Kursk, the USSR had received
considerable aid and was relying on it to fill gaps in
its war economy - notably food production and railroad
equipment.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-15 19:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
There was a long and very erudite discussion of whether
Western aid was critical to Soviet survival in 1941-1942
on soc-history-war-world-war-ii.
The final conclusion was that it was too close to call.
The Western contribution was small
Well, the British contribution in 1941 had been relatively modest but if we are talking about approximately 30% of the tanks used during the Battle for Moscow (among other items) it is not "small" in the terms of importance.
Post by Rich Rostrom
- but the Soviet
margin of victory may have been even smaller.
Which period are you talking about? Most of 1942 victory was a series of the defeats and beginning of the victory is second half of November (November 23 - encirclement accomplished). For that period survival was an ability to keep fighting and during 1942 volume of LendLease amounted to almost 2.5M tons (comparing to 360K in 1941).
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to 1943 - by the time of Kursk, the USSR had received
considerable aid and was relying on it to fill gaps in
its war economy - notably food production and railroad
equipment.
Don't forget the trucks and strategic materials. Of course, not 92.7% as for railroad equipment (seems to be total for the war) but at least 30% of the trucks (or 64% according to http://statehistory.ru/35/Lend-liz--Mify-i-realnost/), 13% of aircraft, etc. Taking into an account importance of the railroads in the SU (and construction of the new ones during the war), the railroad equipment alone amounts to a critical "strategic factor".

On a strictly unscientific level, according to my father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars in his army had been out of use due to the absence of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized to provide them so they had continuously diminishing pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-16 16:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
On a strictly unscientific level, according to my
father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars
in his army had been out of use due to the absence
of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized
to provide them so they had continuously diminishing
pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Minor historical factoid: the famous and very effective
"Katyusha" multi-barrel rocket launchers were almost all
mounted on Studebaker trucks.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 17:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
On a strictly unscientific level, according to my
father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars
in his army had been out of use due to the absence
of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized
to provide them so they had continuously diminishing
pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Minor historical factoid: the famous and very effective
"Katyusha" multi-barrel rocket launchers were almost all
mounted on Studebaker trucks.
You touched a very interesting issue which is a perfect illustration to the subject. The 1st model was mounted on ZIS-5 trucks (only 40 launchers had been built before war started). By the end of 1942, 3,237 Katyusha launchers of all types had been built mounted on ZIS-5, ZIS-5V, ZIS-6. In 1941, a small number of BM-13 launchers were mounted on STZ-5 artillery tractors. A few were also tried on KV tank chassis as the KV-1K. But starting from 1943 Studebaker US6 2½ ton truck became a standard mounting with more than 1,800 of this model manufactured by the end of World War II.

Model BM-8 also had been installed (among other options) on Studebaker and, interesting factoid, for the Studebaker-based model (BM-8-48) Leonid Shvarts, Moisei Komissarchik and engineer Yakov Shor received the Stalin prize.
Rob
2017-10-04 01:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and government.
I've suggested the following in the past:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 8:33:43 PM UTC-5, Rob wrote:

Now with illustrative maps linked
Post by WolfBear
The challenge is to alter the World War Two endgame so that any of these partitions happen -
a) Hungary is divided between a communist East Hungary (east of the Danube) and a non-communist West Hungary (west of the Danube)
http://imgur.com/gallery/PDTYNxZ
Post by WolfBear
b) Yugoslavia is divided between a Communist West Yugoslavia run by Tito and a non-communist (probably royalist) East Yugoslavia run by the Chetnik-Royalist leadership
http://imgur.com/gallery/w561mYY
Post by WolfBear
c) Bulgaria is divided between a Communist North Bulgaria and Non-Communist (probably Royalist) South Bulgaria
http://imgur.com/gallery/KTynXXR
Post by WolfBear
D) Romania is divided between a Communist North Romania and Non-Communist (probably Royalist) South Romania
http://imgur.com/gallery/s4lUAll

---Aside from these, in other parts of the world, there's the prospect of

E) a north and south Turkey if Turkey goes Axis or gets invaded by the Germans and liberated by WAllies in the south and the Soviets in the north

F) a north and south Italy if the Wallies face more setbacks or the USA is not in and the Soviets get to north Italy first

G) An east and west Spain if the Spanish Civil War is stopped in place mid-course (of course that is really hard, probably impossible, to arrange)

H) North and South Greece with boosted Soviet and Yugoslav partisan performance

I) North and South Norway if the Soviets have spare capacity to impose their will on the north

J) East and West Denmark if the Soviets have the spare capacity to occupy the Baltic islands of Denmark (like Zealand where Copenhagen is) and break a socialist regime from a monarchy left with control over Jutland and Sjaelland

K) North and South Iran

L) North and South Afghanistan

M) North and south China has been done a lot, just move the boundary up to the Great Wall or down to the Yangzi to taste

N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido

O) East (Capitalist) and West (Communist) Russia if Alaska stays Russian instead of American or Canadian and it becomes a refuge for non-communists

P) You forgot OTL's North (capitalist) and South (Communist) Yemen

Q) I hardly see a permanent split as plausible but the Communists in Burma, Thailand and the Philippines always had stronger local support in the northern reaches of their countries than from their capitals on south

R) A Lumumbist Congo goes Communist but Katanga becomes a capitalist breakaway

S) Cuba is partitioned, with the main island being Communist, but the Isle of Pines/Isle of Youth becoming a non-communist refuge a la Taiwan.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-04 04:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were
partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned
in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries
where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and
government.
Now with illustrative maps linked
Post by WolfBear
The challenge is to alter the World War Two endgame so that any of these
partitions happen -
a) Hungary is divided between a communist East Hungary (east of the Danube)
and a non-communist West Hungary (west of the Danube)
http://imgur.com/gallery/PDTYNxZ
Post by WolfBear
b) Yugoslavia is divided between a Communist West Yugoslavia run by Tito and
a non-communist (probably royalist) East Yugoslavia run by the
Chetnik-Royalist leadership
http://imgur.com/gallery/w561mYY
Post by WolfBear
c) Bulgaria is divided between a Communist North Bulgaria and Non-Communist
(probably Royalist) South Bulgaria
http://imgur.com/gallery/KTynXXR
Post by WolfBear
D) Romania is divided between a Communist North Romania and Non-Communist
(probably Royalist) South Romania
http://imgur.com/gallery/s4lUAll
---Aside from these, in other parts of the world, there's the prospect of
E) a north and south Turkey if Turkey goes Axis or gets invaded by the
Germans and liberated by WAllies in the south and the Soviets in the north
East (Soviet zone) and West (Allied zone) more likely I would say.
Post by Rob
F) a north and south Italy if the Wallies face more setbacks or the USA is
not in and the Soviets get to north Italy first
G) An east and west Spain if the Spanish Civil War is stopped in place
mid-course (of course that is really hard, probably impossible, to arrange)
H) North and South Greece with boosted Soviet and Yugoslav partisan performance
You took the words out of my mouth. Almost happened.
Post by Rob
I) North and South Norway if the Soviets have spare capacity to impose their
will on the north
J) East and West Denmark if the Soviets have the spare capacity to occupy the
Baltic islands of Denmark (like Zealand where Copenhagen is) and break a
socialist regime from a monarchy left with control over Jutland and Sjaelland
K) North and South Iran
You took the words out of my mouth. And it almost happened.

Even more likely than a divided Greece, as pro-Communist forces were in
the NW. AFAIK the civil war in greece was more evenly spread.
Post by Rob
L) North and South Afghanistan
M) North and south China has been done a lot, just move the boundary up to
the Great Wall or down to the Yangzi to taste
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Post by Rob
O) East (Capitalist) and West (Communist) Russia if Alaska stays Russian
instead of American or Canadian and it becomes a refuge for non-communists
P) You forgot OTL's North (capitalist) and South (Communist) Yemen
Q) I hardly see a permanent split as plausible but the Communists in Burma,
Thailand and the Philippines always had stronger local support in the
northern reaches of their countries than from their capitals on south
R) A Lumumbist Congo goes Communist but Katanga becomes a capitalist breakaway
In OTL Congo-Brazzaville was Communist (or pro-Communsıst) while
Congo-Kinshasa under Mobutu (renamed Zaire) was capitalist.
Post by Rob
S) Cuba is partitioned, with the main island being Communist, but the Isle of
Pines/Isle of Youth becoming a non-communist refuge a la Taiwan.
Angola could have been partitioned (pro-Communist MPLA North - Pro-West
UNITA South)
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-05 00:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.

Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.

However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 02:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.
Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.
Well, of course it can be argued that Russia never ruled Czechia or Hungary but, unlike these cases, how exactly the Red Army would end up on Hokkaido especially if the US was not fond of that idea? To start with, short of the exciting scenario under which the Soviet soldiers are swimming all the way to Hokkaido or are transporting there by the friendly ASBs, there was no way for them to get on that island due to almost complete absence of a needed craft and a total inexperience in the seaborne operations. Soviet capture of the Kuril Islands became possible thanks to the US ships (the United States secretly transferred 149 ships and craft) but even this operation almost turned into a fiasco and was the only WWII operation in which Soviet troops had greater casualties than Japanese (1.5K vs. 1K) and ended up successfully because Japan capitulated. Now, an attempt to take Hokkaido would require quite a few things that the Soviets did not have on the Pacific. You can start with an absence of a heavy naval artillery (the highest caliber available was 130mm). No need to go any further. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
IMO, somewhat unlikely. Japan claimed all Sakhalin in 1845. In 1855 Japan and Russia signed a treaty which declared that nationals of both countries could inhabit the island: Russians in the north, and Japanese in the south, without a clearly defined boundary between. In 1865 Japan again claimed sovereignty over the whole island but it remained under the joined sovereignty until the signing of the 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg, in which Japan surrendered its claims in Sakhalin to Russia in exchange for the Kuril Islands. AFAIK, Japan retained some fishing rights. Then Japan was in a possession of the whole island from 1920 till 1925.

By 1945 population of the Southern Sakhalin was approximately 400,000 people - mostly Japanese and Korean out of which 100K had been evacuated into Japan before WWII was over. Most of the remaining 300K had been gradually repatriated between 1946 and 1950. Approximately 43K Koreans remained on the island (not being accepted by Japan or North Korea). Initially, the intention was to evacuate ALL Koreans but the local administration argued that there are not enough skilled Russian workers ready to settle in the island so they had been left where they are as Sakhalin Koreans: presently 25K in Sakhalin, 10K elsewhere in Russia, 1.5K South in Korea and 1K in North Korea (my deep condolences to them).

As you can see, the SU was not interested in creation of a new socialist Japan.
What would be the reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish Democratic Republic was declared with a clear purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of Japan so why bother?
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-06 15:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
As you can see, the SU was not interested in
creation of a new socialist Japan. What would be the
reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish
Democratic Republic was declared with a clear
purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was
no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of
Japan so why bother?
I have no idea, it is just a way for Japan to be
partitioned. As to reasons - the USSR wanted all
Sakhalin for obvious purpose of sea access.

_If_ Sakhalin was heavily settled by Japanese, such
that it was recognized as a part of metropolitan
Japan, then the USSR _might_ prefer to control it
through a satellite regime rather than incorporating
it into the USSR.

Displacing its population might risk generating "bad
optics", as the recent phrase goes. I realize that
the Soviets had no qualms about expelling the entire
German population of Prussia and annexing the region.
But that was in the context of wholesale territorial
transfers to and from Poland; there was no such agenda
regarding Japan, so the alternate approach _might_
seem preferable.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-06 20:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
As you can see, the SU was not interested in
creation of a new socialist Japan. What would be the
reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish
Democratic Republic was declared with a clear
purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was
no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of
Japan so why bother?
I have no idea, it is just a way for Japan to be
partitioned.
Calling Sakhalin "Japan" would be an interesting idea. It would also make Stalin a laughingstock of the world so I'm not sure that it would work.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to reasons - the USSR wanted all
Sakhalin for obvious purpose of sea access.
Well, the SU got ALL Sakhalin without creating a new Japan.
Post by Rich Rostrom
_If_ Sakhalin was heavily settled by Japanese, such
that it was recognized as a part of metropolitan
Japan,
It WAS settled by approximately the same number of Japanese and Koreans as you stated in your scenario (it is an open question if a noticeably bigger number could be supported on the island) but it was obviously NOT recognized as a part of metropolitan Japan and, anyway, from the Soviet perspective it would be Russian land occupied by Japan and calling it "Japan" would undermine the whole claim.
Post by Rich Rostrom
then the USSR _might_ prefer to control it
through a satellite regime rather than incorporating
it into the USSR.
I don't think that this would work out in OTL and I don't see any advantages from the Soviet perspective, especially taking into an account that the island is not self-sustainable.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Displacing its population might risk generating "bad
optics", as the recent phrase goes.
Japanese (and those Koreans who are lucky) would go to Japan just as the Germans went to Germany from the post-WWII Poland.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I realize that
the Soviets had no qualms about expelling the entire
German population of Prussia and annexing the region.
Neither did Poles and, IIRC, Czechs.
Post by Rich Rostrom
But that was in the context of wholesale territorial
transfers to and from Poland; there was no such agenda
regarding Japan,
Repatriations to Japan and Korea continued after WWII was over as I explained in my previous post: "Most of the remaining 300K had been gradually repatriated between 1946 and 1950." Of course, it is up to you to snip whatever you choose but it would not change the known facts.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-05 10:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.
However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
Pete Barrett
2017-10-04 17:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.

And of course, there is Ireland.
--
Pete BARRETT
Ned Latham
2017-10-04 20:31:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.
And of course, there is Ireland.
Wolffan
2017-10-07 18:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.
And of course, there is Ireland.
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of Ulster
still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist jackboot,
right?</mel gibson>
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 01:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolffan
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of Ulster
still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist jackboot,
right?</mel gibson>
I was going to mention Ireland until I realized the challenge said one
had to be communist and one capitalistic and I didn't see any scenario
making Dublin red (and even the proverbial Alien Space Bats would have
difficulty making the 6 Counties red whether still attached to London
or not)

Even if you have the Nazi wank of Hitler conquering England, Scotland
and Wales and then being defeated by an American nuclear campaign you
don't get Communists in power. (You'd be more likely to get a
post-nuclear Mad Max nightmare than a Communist regime)
Pete Barrett
2017-10-08 13:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Wolffan
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of
Ulster still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist
jackboot, right?</mel gibson>
I was going to mention Ireland until I realized the challenge said one
had to be communist and one capitalistic and I didn't see any scenario
making Dublin red (and even the proverbial Alien Space Bats would have
difficulty making the 6 Counties red whether still attached to London or
not)
But you wouldn't make Dublin red! The North, with its large numbers of
(almost exclusively Protestant) workers in heavy industry would be much
more likely to go communist in the 1920s (think of Red Clydeside, but in
Belfast and Derry; and with the added contingency that Northern Ireland
has its own parliament and government, unlike Scotland at the time).
--
Pete BARRETT
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-05 00:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Anyway, which additional countries could have
realistically been partitioned in a similar manner?
Specifically, I am thinking of two separate
countries where each of them considers the other one
to be an illegitimate country and government.
Italy in 1943-1944 was so partitioned.

For broad use of "realistically"...

France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".

One could also have a "Free Danish" government
in the Faeroes against a German puppet state
in the homeland.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 03:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia

Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 04:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council

By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.

Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 17:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council
By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.
Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
Thank you for the correction. I stand by my comment on de Gaulle. (Who
I happen to think would deserve to go there - but that's a different
posting.

Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period. This
would have been just after the German invasion of both Greece and
Crete.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 19:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council
By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.
Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
Thank you for the correction. I stand by my comment on de Gaulle. (Who
I happen to think would deserve to go there - but that's a different
posting.
Well, I'm anything but de Gaulle's admirer: based his memoirs he made an impression of a pompous prick and experience of his presidency confirms (IMO) that impression. However, the fact remains that he managed to position himself as a leader of the anti-Nazi France (with the competitors conveniently disappearing) and to convince/blackmail FDR & WC into accepting it. Stalin was (hopefully, I'm not mistaken) more or less OK with him. Perhaps because he did not have to deal with him on a regular basis.
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Post by The Horny Goat
This
would have been just after the German invasion of both Greece and
Crete.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 22:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.

The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.

Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!

As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
The Old Man
2017-10-05 22:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.
The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.
Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!
As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.

Regards,
John Braungart
The Horny Goat
2017-10-06 18:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.
He probably did but if nothing else he wanted to cause trouble for
both Canada and the US.
Alex Milman
2017-10-07 01:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.
He probably did but if nothing else he wanted to cause trouble for
both Canada and the US.
Well, he did not have excessive love to the US.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 23:05:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.
What this has to do with the Bulge and de Gaulle - Ike exchange?


Of course, liberation of Paris by the French troops was a political gesture than a military necessity.
Post by The Horny Goat
The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.
Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!
As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
Well, yes, he was and it was up to FDR & WC to swallow his BS. I wonder what was REAL importance (in practical terms) of his address to the French on D Day. Anyway, he managed to position France as one of the main partners in the alliance with its own zone of occupation and presence on surrender ceremony (allegedly, Keitel was surprised: “What, the French are here, too?” :-)).
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-06 03:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
C
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-06 15:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that
immediately declared for the Free French was New
Caledonia...
Who said anything about OTL "Free France"?

A "France Fights On" TL, where the Third Republic
leadership relocates to North Africa, could have
this result. (IMO, more plausibly than OTL after
1940.)

I mention Algeria and Corsica because they were
(Corsica is) part of "Metropolitan France"; thus
the _country_, rather than the colonial empire,
is partitioned.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Insane Ranter
2017-10-06 03:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Split Cuba one side Capitalist and the other Communist.

Cyprus?
The Horny Goat
2017-10-07 00:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter
Post by Insane Ranter
Split Cuba one side Capitalist and the other Communist.
Cyprus?
That's an interesting idea though how are you going to do that? Do the
Greek Communists win their civil war?
s***@yahoo.com
2017-10-10 17:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
of churchill landings in the balkans, a german general said "it would be the biggest prison camp ever, and we wouldn't even need to feed them."

Nils
The Horny Goat
2017-10-10 19:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
of churchill landings in the balkans, a german general said "it would be the biggest prison camp ever, and we wouldn't even need to feed them."
That's exactly what one of the senior British naval officers said
about Sealion....

(the obvious implication being that before an invasion the Royal Navy
couldn't cover the entire British shoreline, after an invasion the
Royal Navy could do a much better job interdicting the 10-15 mile
lodgement since they wouldn't have to cover the other 1000+ mile
coastline any more thus making the Royal Navy's job MUCH easier)
David Tenner
2017-10-16 02:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
One possibility (though I doubt the partition would last long) is Russia
itself...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-partitioned-the-lenin-bullitt-agreeement-of-march-1919.356184/


BTW, after 1972 and the Basic Treaty the FRG and GDR recognized each other,
so I'm not sure you could say that *legally* each considered the other to be
illegitimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Treaty,_1972

(Morally is another matter, of course.)
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 04:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
One possibility (though I doubt the partition would last long) is Russia
itself...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-partitioned-the-lenin-bullitt-agreeement-of-march-1919.356184/
Very detailed, as usual, but IMO, this would be impractical (BTW, how comes that in 1919 Bolsheviks are in possession of Riga and Vilno?)

Now:
'Ilya Somin has argued that *if* the Allies would say to the Soviets, "OK, we'll adhere to the Lenin-Bullitt agreement but if you violate it by sending troops into the territory of the non-Bolshevik governments, we will resume our military aid to them" the agreement might indeed have "worked" in the sense that the Soviet government would reluctantly have been forced to comply with it, and that this would lead to a long-term partition of Russia'

I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected from a reality.

Quote above is one more example. What "military aid"? The problem of the White movements was shortage of the cadres and, in the case of Kolchak, inability to keep government going without alienating the peasants and workers of Siberia while, in the case of Denikin, inability to create any serious semblance of a functioning government (see memoirs of Peter Wrangel).

Sending weapons would mean little if there are no soldiers (in the case of Kolchak) or if there are no reserves to compensate for the losses (pretty much the case with Denikin). Yudenich was from the very beginning in pretty much hopeless situation operating from Estonia.

An idea that Lenin & Co would comply is "ignorance of the habits and people which you can find only among the innocent girls" (A.K.Tolstoy). :-)

It was absolutely clear that as soon as they are out, the allies will have serious problems with political will at home to get involved again on any serious level. Then comes an issue of the Russian debt. Why would the Bolsheviks agree to pay any part of it if (a) they had no money and (b) if they came with a perfect excuse for not paying it? What would be "proportion" of the debt for each agreeing party including, as I understand, the "exotic" ones like the Ural Cossacks? Actually, territory shown as held by the Volunteer Army also includes the Republic of Don with its own government and troops (fighting along the Volunteer Army but only for as long as it suited them). How to separate them (if at all) and how to assign percentages of a debt? And how would they pay it if their assigned area is hardly self-sustainable?

'The guaranteeing of unhindered transit for the Soviet government on all railways and through all ports in Russia'. Now, who would believe THAT and who would enforce this condition? I can imagine 'unhindered' transit of the Bolsheviks through Kolchak-held territories or even a much shorter one through the Don area. Probably the total distance would not matter too much: they would be executed on the 1st station (optimistically).

'A mutual general amnesty of political opponents and prisoners' - was this in a reality? Yes, as you remarked, Bullitt was hardly the best person for the task. Actually, this projects image of a complete nincompoop absolutely unfamiliar with the situation.


I have very serious doubts that Kolchak or Denikin would start serious talks with the Bolsheviks. BTW, what about Kolchak's status of "supreme ruler of Russia"?
David Tenner
2017-10-16 07:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I
missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw
produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected
from a reality.
Well, I did quote Somin, but only because AFAIK he is the only person to
argue that the agreement might hace worked if backed up with a credible
threat of military aid (I don't have his book here and it's not clear to me
if he includes the actual sending of troops under "military aid") in the
event of the inevitable Bolshevik attempts to violate it. I go on to quote
the contrary argument of Richard K. Debo in his analysis of the agreement at
p. 48 of his *Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet
Russia, 1918-1921* that even without Red Army invasions, the agreement would
doom the non-Bolshevik governments:

"The Bolsheviks were, in fact, offering a great deal for peace, but not
nearly as much as it might first appear. Their proposal was a document of
political genius, yet one more example of the 'rotten compromise' for which
Lenin was so justly famous. It might just as well have been headed 'A Charter
to Bolshevize Russia.' Adoption, in whole or in part, would almost surely
have led to the collapse of the anti-Soviet governments even more rapidly
than was actually to take place. No one, least of all themselves, believed
that they could long exist without foreign assistance. The proposed agreement
purported to secure them against the Soviet government and the Red Army. Even
if it had, nothing protected them from the Bolshevik party, deeply rooted and
active, in all the territories of the former Russian empire. Invigorated by
the proposed amnesty, reinforced by added cadres from Soviet Russia, and
aided by the instant demoralization which would have swept through the anti-
Bolshevik forces once the Soviet government had received some form of Allied
recognition, local Bolshevik organizations would have made fast work of the
bogus regimes they confronted. When the inevitable came, it would fall well
within the agreement for, of course, it provided that no existing de facto
governments were to be altered until such time as the peoples inhabiting
their territories 'shall themselves determine to change their governments.'
This was self-determination Bolshevik-style with a vengeance.."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQfUB0CXBO4C&pg=PA48

This certainly was Lenin's own judgment: "When, a year ago, we proposed to
Bullitt a treaty which was extremely favourable to them and extremely
unfavourable to us, a treaty that would have left huge territories in the
hands of Denikin and Kolchak, we did so in the certainty that, if peace were
concluded, the whiteguard government would never be able to retain power..."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/20b.htm
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 15:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I
missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw
produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected
from a reality.
Well, I did quote Somin, but only because AFAIK he is the only person to
argue that the agreement might hace worked if backed up with a credible
threat of military aid (I don't have his book here and it's not clear to me
if he includes the actual sending of troops under "military aid") in the
event of the inevitable Bolshevik attempts to violate it.
[Don't get my criticism of Somin as a personal criticism of you]

So basically you are quoting him because he is the only one who was foolish enough to think that Bullett's ideas were practical? That makes sense. :-)

Of course, the main point which makes his belief impractical is "a credible threat of military aid" because after the foreign troops are withdrawn it would be very difficult if not impossible to send them back to Russia again. Starting from a possible nonexistence of the troops to send (due to a demobilization) and then expenses related to such an expedition, absence of a political will and even a time needed for such an endeavor in a time of peace. By the time the troops are arriving (if they arrive at all) it is too late.

Sending just weapons does not help too much if there are no troops and, with a demobilization required for all participants, there are practically no troops on White sides.

Then of course go the issues of the "White territories". One allocated for the Volunteer Army (actually both them AND the Don Cossacks who were at least formally a separate entity) is not self-sustainable economically and easy to crush especially if a big part of the Volunteer Army is disbanded. BTW, what all these people would be doing? Unlike OTL France the area did not need too many taxi drivers or restaurant waiters so where and how all these professional military are going to be employed?

This, of course, would be only a tip of an iceberg.
Post by David Tenner
I go on to quote
the contrary argument of Richard K. Debo in his analysis of the agreement
The only surprising thing is that any serious person (the present company excluding :-)) would bother to even criticize that pile of a nonsense except for a pure entertainment.
Post by David Tenner
at
p. 48 of his *Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet
Russia, 1918-1921* that even without Red Army invasions, the agreement would
"The Bolsheviks were, in fact, offering a great deal for peace, but not
nearly as much as it might first appear. Their proposal was a document of
political genius, yet one more example of the 'rotten compromise' for which
Lenin was so justly famous.
Well put. He was ready for the compromises when being sure that there are ways to circumvent the restrictions like generously "giving" Germany Ukraine over which his government did not have a control and then creating "independent" Ukrainian Bolshevik republic with its own (rather colorful) army. Or playing a very interesting games around Supreme Military Council to retain Party (aka, his own) control over this seemingly all-powerful entity.
Post by David Tenner
It might just as well have been headed 'A Charter
to Bolshevize Russia.' Adoption, in whole or in part, would almost surely
have led to the collapse of the anti-Soviet governments even more rapidly
than was actually to take place. No one, least of all themselves, believed
that they could long exist without foreign assistance.
Yes, none of the White movements managed to create administrative infrastructure capable of making it a true state. If there was some chance in Siberia it was gone with Kolchak's coup.
Post by David Tenner
The proposed agreement
purported to secure them against the Soviet government and the Red Army. Even
if it had, nothing protected them from the Bolshevik party, deeply rooted and
active, in all the territories of the former Russian empire.
Invigorated by
the proposed amnesty, reinforced by added cadres from Soviet Russia, and
aided by the instant demoralization which would have swept through the anti-
Bolshevik forces once the Soviet government had received some form of Allied
recognition, local Bolshevik organizations would have made fast work of the
bogus regimes they confronted. When the inevitable came, it would fall well
within the agreement for, of course, it provided that no existing de facto
governments were to be altered until such time as the peoples inhabiting
their territories 'shall themselves determine to change their governments.'
This was self-determination Bolshevik-style with a vengeance.."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQfUB0CXBO4C&pg=PA48
Very well formulated and exactly to the point. Should be quite obvious to anybody with at least marginal understanding of the situation (which is clearly not the case with Somin).
Post by David Tenner
This certainly was Lenin's own judgment: "When, a year ago, we proposed to
Bullitt a treaty which was extremely favourable to them and extremely
unfavourable to us, a treaty that would have left huge territories in the
hands of Denikin and Kolchak, we did so in the certainty that, if peace were
concluded, the whiteguard government would never be able to retain power..."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/20b.htm
Lenin was a brilliant short-/mid-term planner and him looking for a sucker like Bullitt was an nice try to get a lot for nothing. Of course, his expectations that the figures more serious are going to swallow the bite was somewhat optimistic but, according to the Russian proverb, "an attempt is not a torture".
Loading...