WI: Reich became recipient of Lend-Lease, USSR recipient of American firepower

Aug 2013
613
Pomerium
#1
What if:
in mid 1940, the USSR sent spetsnaz into Alaska to stir up unrest over the issue of Alaskan statehood before dropping Molotov bread baskets, and promised Alaskan statehood as a Soviet republic once liberated by the Red Army;
in mid 1941, the Reich launched Operation Barbarossa.

What would be the outcome on the Eastern Front with the reversal of the recipients of Lend-Lease and American firepower?
 
Jun 2014
1,221
VA
#2
What if:
in mid 1940, the USSR sent spetsnaz into Alaska to stir up unrest over the issue of Alaskan statehood before dropping Molotov bread baskets, and promised Alaskan statehood as a Soviet republic once liberated by the Red Army;
in mid 1941, the Reich launched Operation Barbarossa.

What would be the outcome on the Eastern Front with the reversal of the recipients of Lend-Lease and American firepower?
I understand what if is only a game but this is possibly the stupidest what if scenario anyone has ever come up with anywhere.

The answer to your question is not only we know that Stalin would never have done that under any circumstances, even if he did it would have absolutely zero impact (Alaskan public opinion was not communist).

Even if he had done that moronic thing the result wouldn't have been lend lease to the Wermacht. During the Hitler Stalin pact the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany got on well so bad actions by Stalin would not have positively inclined FDR to Hitler.

Third Lend Lease would have still been to Russia had Stalin been paying millions to have a couple of out of touch moron outcasts in Alaska yell about mother Russia, because one is at worst mildly annoying (and something Stalin would never have done anyway) the other (Nazi domination of the planet) was a clear and present threat to the American Way of Life.

I am sorry but if there was a polite way to answer I would; I don't want to insult you but this scenario is perhaps the stupidest anyone ever came up with.

A good tip for this (because it is a game) is that while too boring and you don't generate any interest; too unrealistic wild and out of the question in reality and you destroy peoples willing suspension of disbelief.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,300
Dispargum
#3
I assume the OP wants to explore if Germany with the same army and blitzkrieg tactics and same economy reinforced by lend lease could defeat the Soviets. The only implausibility is the English-speaking democracies allying with the Nazis. Remove the Nazis, and the scenario gets a lot more plausible.

A few years ago I toyed with an alternate WW2 scenario with Britain and Germany allied against the USSR. The only way I could make it plausible was to remove Nazism from Germany and have the Wiemar Republic survive. To preserve some kind of balance of power in prewar Europe I had a Fascist dictator take over France circa 1930 which is a bit more of a stretch but still possible. So Italy, France, and Spain formed a fascist alliance. To counter this, Britain allied with democratic Germany and allowed their German allies to rearm in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. Then in 1939 the Soviets invaded Poland. Germany and Britain allied with Poland and declared war on the Soviets. The Fascist Alliance eventually entered the war on the side of the Soviets.

I hadn't considered any Pacific Ocean counter-part to my above scenario. There are serious obstacles to war in Alaska - problems with distance, terrain, climate, etc. The Japanese experience in the Aleutian Islands was just a waste of time and resources. But I could see the Soviets invading China as allies of Japan which would make the Soviets enemies of the US.

So, the US, UK, Germany, and Poland as long as she lasts vs the USSR, Japan, Italy, France, and Spain. The Wiemar Republic would probably have a smaller army in 1939 than Nazi Germany had, and the WR would not have annexed Austria or Czechoslovakia, so it would take a little while for Germany to mobilize her full strength. In the actual time line the Soviet Army lost most of its equipment in 1941 and might have collapsed in '42 without lend lease resupplies. Germany would benefit most from American petroleum supplies and the absence of a strategic bombing campaign. Assuming Fascist France was just as disinclined toward offensive warfare, Germany might also benefit from the absence of a second front. Maybe the Americans and the British could keep France and Italy occupied so that Germany could concentrate on the Soviets.

Germany with lots of fuel, not being bombed, and throwing her full strength against the Soviets while the Soviets are not getting any lend lease supplies. Under those conditions Germany would do a lot better vs the USSR than she actually did. Any idea that Germany could occupy all of the Soviet Union is a minnow swallowing a whale, but the Soviets might negotiate a peace like they did in WW1. If the WW1 experience taught the Soviets anything it was that survival is more important than victory. The Wiemar Republic would not have Hitler's fixation with living space in the east. The Soviets would be more willing to negotiate a peace if they thought they could keep their territory relatively intact. The Wiemar Republic would also not have Einsatzgrupen that had the effect of turning Soviet dissidents into Soviet patriots.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#4
What if the Nazis had - before invading Poland -created an international incident with the Russians (much better than the one with Poland) - perhaps have a high-ranking Nazi assassinated by a plot that was traced back to the Kremlin, or plausible (fabricated) plans showing a planned invasion by Stalin?

In all honesty it wouldn't be THAT much of a surprise , as I'm sure that there were plans in place for an invasion of Germany. That way they may have got Eastern European countries on their side and - possibly - assistance from the USA in combatting a foe that the Americans wouldn't be unhappy about seeing removed from the political map.
 
Oct 2015
1,168
California
#5
What if:
in mid 1940, the USSR sent spetsnaz into Alaska to stir up unrest over the issue of Alaskan statehood before dropping Molotov bread baskets, and promised Alaskan statehood as a Soviet republic once liberated by the Red Army;
in mid 1941, the Reich launched Operation Barbarossa.

What would be the outcome on the Eastern Front with the reversal of the recipients of Lend-Lease and American firepower?
Why the hell would Stalin do anything that stupid?
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,784
Stockport Cheshire UK
#6
What if:
in mid 1940, the USSR sent spetsnaz into Alaska to stir up unrest over the issue of Alaskan statehood before dropping Molotov bread baskets, and promised Alaskan statehood as a Soviet republic once liberated by the Red Army
The Spetsnaz were not formed until 1949.
 
Oct 2016
1,137
Merryland
#7
A few years ago I toyed with an alternate WW2 scenario with Britain and Germany allied against the USSR. The only way I could make it plausible was to remove Nazism from Germany and have the Wiemar Republic survive. To preserve some kind of balance of power in prewar Europe I had a Fascist dictator take over France circa 1930 which is a bit more of a stretch but still possible. So Italy, France, and Spain formed a fascist alliance. To counter this, Britain allied with democratic Germany and allowed their German allies to rearm in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. Then in 1939 the Soviets invaded Poland. Germany and Britain allied with Poland and declared war on the Soviets. The Fascist Alliance eventually entered the war on the side of the Soviets.
fascinating stuff, and a great thought experiment.
France definitely had a right-wing segment and a French fascist dictator might not be that far-fetched; ironically a weak Weimar might have encourage Paris to go that way.

I've seen a fair amount of war games and in all of them it is almost impossible to really defeat the USSR. a combined Britain / Germany / US might just have been able to do it; imagine, instead of D-Day @ Omaha etc beaches, a D-Day off Vladivostok, and the US shipping materiel to the Pacific ports to be transshipped to Asia. (Japan probably wouldn't care as long as we agreed to leave them alone, and of course if there was no attack on Pear Harbor).
in such a scenario I imagine the Fascist coalition would stay neutral. Stalin hated fascists (though maybe this was more aimed at Nazi Germany) and a right-wing France would be very unlikely to to look upon the soviets positively. if the allies turned a blind eye and let Italy etc expand in Africa I'm sure they would have sat out such a war. the complicating factor would be Brit colonies; if Italy went into North Africa the Brits would have gotten testy. I suspect they would have finished the allies v soviet war first, then gone down and taken care of business.

no one really know how dependent Stalin was on lend-lease but it made a huge difference, in material (guns, trucks, ammo) and also food.
imagine a joint Britain-German bombing campaign with large long-range bombers going after Stalin's industrial plant, especially if a US army from the East did the same.
at some point the peasants would have had enough and hopefully thrown Stalin over.
 
Jan 2015
3,363
Front Lines of the Pig War
#8
What if:
in mid 1940, the USSR sent spetsnaz into Alaska to stir up unrest over the issue of Alaskan statehood before dropping Molotov bread baskets, and promised Alaskan statehood as a Soviet republic once liberated by the Red Army;
in mid 1941, the Reich launched Operation Barbarossa.

What would be the outcome on the Eastern Front with the reversal of the recipients of Lend-Lease and American firepower?
In mid-1940 Britain & Commonwealth are at war with Nazi Germany.
There is no way in hell that the Royal Navy would allow any US material to reach the Nazis.
Do you really think FDR would go to war with Britain to try to help the Nazis?
 
Oct 2016
1,137
Merryland
#9
the premise is that Britain and Germany are NOT at war.

would the Brits have been able to deploy units in the Baltic / northern seas? not that the USSR had much maritime going on up there (I think).
 

Similar History Discussions