Anglo-French vs. USSR in 1942

[stg 44]

Supposing that Germany doesn't go for the Sicklecut route and sticks with the rerun of the Schlieffen Plan in 1940, gets stuck in an attritional war that doesn't look like its going there way, Hitler is toppled in an army coup and Germany falls apart in a Civil War by 1941-42, leading to the Anglo-French and Soviet moving in Germany, what would the result be if that touched off a Soviet vs. Anglo-French-Allies war in 1942? The Anglo-French probably would end up with some German army units coming over to resist Soviet domination, while the Soviets don't get much help from the Germans, just the communists and socialists helping to run Germany, same with Poland. I'd imagine that Stalin would move into Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia at a minimum too.

Stalin makes his move in Central Europe as the Germans fall apart because he thinks he can avoid war with the West in the process of securing a valuable buffer/vassal zone, but the when the Allies don't roll over and accept that he commits to a major war and things expand rapidly.

How would that war play out?

In my mind the fight breaks out along the Elbe line when the Allies move into Central Germany and meet up against Soviets moving to secure as much of Germany as possible in the wake of the German Civil War/collapse and both sides refuse to back down. I'm assuming the Allies launch Operation Pike and the Soviets retaliate with a move into the Middle East via Iran and Turkey (supposedly their planned response). In Europe the Allies, including Italy, resort to strategic interdiction of Soviet rail lines, especially in Warsaw where there was a major choke point between Eastern and Central European rail lines. I expect too that the Allies would get Lend-Lease from the US to ensure Europe stays open to capitalism and that the Japanese attack in 1942, maybe somewhat delayed due to the French not collapsing and the Japanese not moving into Indochina and triggering harsher US sanctions as quickly. The US doesn't get involved and its up to the French-Italians-British to fight off the Soviets, probably aiming for a Vistula halt line.

As things bog down I could see Stalin moving in to Hungary and Romania to use his numbers and expand a buffer zone against the Allies, plus it allows him to move on Istanbul, a major objective of his in the long term.

[Tim Smith]

Sorry, but I can't see the French objecting to the USSR occupying the eastern half of Germany, along the lines of the historic East Germany. There would be an equivalent of the Yalta Agreement dividing Germany into occupation zones.

There might be fighting if the Soviets insisted on occupying ALL of Germany, but why would Stalin go that far? Even if he did, would the French really be prepared to go to war over it? I can imagine the French annexing the Rhineland and letting the Soviets have the rest, if that would avoid war with the USSR. After all, in this timeline, the Maginot Line has not been breached.

[stg 44]

Considering a right wing (for France) government was in power in France after one of the left parties left the National front to caucus with the right/center, once Germany is defeated the Allies are going to want to keep the USSR, which had been Germany's ally effectively back and liberate Czchoslovakia and Poland, the entire reason for the war in the first place. Stalin is the bad guy every bit as much as Hitler at this point to the Allies and having him dominate parts of central Europe is the issue, not Germany per se. The British could not let the Soviets that far west, given the ideological make up of the government at this point, plus the economic consequences to the Soviets dominating half of Eastern Europe. Plus I doubt the British would want the French annexing the Rheinland. 1941-42 in this situation is vastly different from the historical 1945, not least of which due to the years of alliance the Brits and Soviets had and their deals before Germany was invaded. Here is another vulture jumping in the war to grab spoils and one that had violated international law just as much as Hitler did with his invasion of Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and Romania while supplying Hitler with the means to fight the Allies. With one half of the European 'axis of evil' taken down, why stop short and give the Soviets the means to spread their ideology more widely in Europe and keep all the industrial/technological hubs of Germany?

[Marcelo Jenisch]

Does Japan still launches the Pacific War in your scenario?

[stg 44]

Does Japan still launches the Pacific War in your scenario?

Yes, thinking the Europeans are too busy to intervene.

[T. A. Gardner]

While I could see British concern with a Soviet occupation of a big chunk of Germany and occupying Eastern Europe, I'd say the French are far more likely to let Germany swing in the wind so long as Stalin doesn't move on France itself, and possibly Belgium.

A Pacific War in this case likely wouldn't involve the Soviet Union at all and with the full weight of the US military falling on Japan the war doesn't last nearly as long.
With no U-boat war in the Atlantic to fight, the USN grows far more rapidly for a Pacific War. The US Army and USAAF throw far more resources into the Pacific and the US military overwhelms Japan.
Without Soviet involvement in China it is doubtful that Mao will win his revolution and civil war remains a big issue. Korea remains in Western / US hands as the Soviets don't get to put in a government in the Northern half. The Kurile Islands remain in Japanese hands in the ensuing peace (possibly with US basing there).

If there were a mid to late 1942 Soviet - Anglo / French war in Europe I'd say the Soviets hold the eventual winning hand. US supplied war materials won't save the French and British. The pair alone don't have the manpower to field a sufficiently large army nor the manpower to absorb the sort of casualties that would result. Britain doesn't have the sort of land forces to deal with the Red Army. The French would be politically weak and their own military is sufficiently inept that it would fight a defensive war. The RAF cannot bomb its way to victory in this scenario. Russian industry is completely beyond bombing range in 1942 - 43.

In the long run all this scenario means is that more of Europe suffers decades of incompetence, hardship, and economic stupidity at the hands of Communist governments run from Moscow.

[stg 44]

While I could see British concern with a Soviet occupation of a big chunk of Germany and occupying Eastern Europe, I'd say the French are far more likely to let Germany swing in the wind so long as Stalin doesn't move on France itself, and possibly Belgium.

The French actually couldn't their PM in 1940 was part of the center/right coalition with a party defection from the National Front, who wanted the USSR fought before Germany. If Germany is defeated the French want Czechoslovakia and Poland back as part of their alliance strategy, while the ruling government, strengthened by the victory over Germany, ideologically want to fight the Soviets. So the French are totally on board. In fact it was their idea to launch Operation Pike (Allied bombing of Baku from Syria), which is definitely happening ITTL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

A Pacific War in this case likely wouldn't involve the Soviet Union at all and with the full weight of the US military falling on Japan the war doesn't last nearly as long.
With no U-boat war in the Atlantic to fight, the USN grows far more rapidly for a Pacific War. The US Army and USAAF throw far more resources into the Pacific and the US military overwhelms Japan.
Without Soviet involvement in China it is doubtful that Mao will win his revolution and civil war remains a big issue. Korea remains in Western / US hands as the Soviets don't get to put in a government in the Northern half. The Kurile Islands remain in Japanese hands in the ensuing peace (possibly with US basing there).

Agreed. But the US is probably going to had to land a lot of men in China to chase down the Japanese army in China and Korea without Soviet intervention.

If there were a mid to late 1942 Soviet - Anglo / French war in Europe I'd say the Soviets hold the eventual winning hand. US supplied war materials won't save the French and British. The pair alone don't have the manpower to field a sufficiently large army nor the manpower to absorb the sort of casualties that would result. Britain doesn't have the sort of land forces to deal with the Red Army. The French would be politically weak and their own military is sufficiently inept that it would fight a defensive war. The RAF cannot bomb its way to victory in this scenario. Russian industry is completely beyond bombing range in 1942 - 43.

Anglo-French production was set to be higher than the Soviets even without LL, with LL its going to be dominating even with manpower shortages due to having far shorter supply lines and a far better airforce. The Soviets are going to be fighting well in advance of their rail heads, as the rail gauge switches at the Vistula and is bottlenecked there, an ideal target for Anglo-French strategic bombers. In fact Warsaw is a massive bottleneck and taking it out would cripple Soviet logistics into Central Europe, especially if the other bridges over the Vistula are hit. Without LL the Soviets lack any high altitude fighters with performance to match what the Allies have especially when the P-51B shows up in 1943. Tactically the Hurricane will be sufficient until the Typhoon is available in numbers (later Tempest) and the Meteor shows up in 1944. The Mosquito is largely untouchable by the Soviets too. Also the Soviets lack radar of any quality without LL so the Soviets lack the ability to truly have any functional early warning worth a damn. In the air the Allies would dominate, which offsets their ground numerical disadvantage. If the lack of numbers matters that much the Italians are willing to fight the Soviets if they get economic aid and Austria. The Germans can also be remobilized to fight to keep their country out of Soviet hands.

Doctrinally the West would have a major advantage due to learning from the fighting in 1940-41 against the Germans, while the Soviets will not have the example of the German success to start molding Deep Battle on and take the wrong lessons from 1940-41, that the dispersed tank doctrine of the French is right, which they were in fact walking back. So French attack and defense doctrine would be more in line with reality based on experience, while the Soviets instead run a flawed offensive doctrine and march into the top notch French artillery park, while having to deal with Allied air superiority. Interdicted supply lines keeps the Soviets from developing their manpower advantage, while the Poles and Czechs resist Soviet occupation, along with the Germans.

In the long run all this scenario means is that more of Europe suffers decades of incompetence, hardship, and economic stupidity at the hands of Communist governments run from Moscow.

Only if the Soviets win, which is hardly a given.