A Fascist Russia sparks World War II in place of Nazi Germany?

WolfBear

Well-known member
What about if a Fascist Russia sparks World War II in place of Nazi Germany? Here's what I was thinking:

The Whites win the Russian Civil War. Subsequently, sometime in either the 1920s or 1930s, Russia goes Fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian (every Central/Southern/Eastern European country other than Czechoslovakia became a dictatorship by 1938 in real life), undergoes a rapid industrialization and military expansion program, and looks for an opportunity to reassert itself in its foreign policy once it's ready. First of all, Russia and Germany gang up on Poland around 1940, with Russia conquering the Kresy (eastern Poland) while Germany conquers the Polish Corridor (minus Gdynia) and perhaps Polish Upper Silesia as well. Lithuania gets Vilnius after the end of this war--or perhaps it won't be a war, but will simply be a war scare, with a Munich Agreement-like negotiated outcome and partition of Poland afterwards, with the consent of the Western Powers. (Though the central Polish core of Poland, plus Gdynia, would remain independent.) Then, Russia decides to demand Bessarabia from Romania, which in turn motivates Hungary to demand Northern Transylvania from Romania and Bulgaria to demand Southern Dobruja from Romania. Again, war is avoided with another Munich-style conference. Afterwards, Russia purchases Subcarpathian Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia. But Anglo-French patience with Russia is running thin. So, the next time that Russia makes territorial demands on a neighbor--in this case, Russia demanding the former six Armenian Vilayets from Turkey, in eastern Anatolia, Britain and France decide to back Turkey to the hilt and to offer Turkey a guarantee against Russian aggression. Russia subsequently proceeds to invade Turkey, which results in an Anglo-French declaration of war on Russia and in France revoking the 1890s Franco-Russian alliance.

In this war, Russia will aim to do an assault on eastern Anatolia from the Caucasus while also aiming to do an amphibious attack on Constantinople. Russia would also be quite capable of expanding this war onto other fronts--for instance, by allying with Afghanistan in order to invade British India, which it can also portray as an invasion to liberate British India from British tyranny (while of course giving its Pashtun and possibly Baloch parts to Afghanistan). There could perhaps be some fighting in the Persian theater as well. Meanwhile, Japan, seeing a golden opportunity with the Anglo-French distracted, could proceed to make a move on some of their colonies, such as making a move on French Indochina.

Anyway, how do you see this war playing out? And do you actually see any realistic way to bring the US into this war, other than by a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or something similar?
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
I notice you are hinting towards parallel White Russian and Japanese assaults on the west? What are you seeing as the foreign policy stances of Italy and Germany towards the west? Are either of them aggressive, revisionist, pro-Russian powers, or are they more inclined to side with the west or stay neutral?

The details of plausible White Russian-Japanese collaboration (vs. the alternative of cooperation) would have to be filled in, along with a whole alternate history of China, because everything about aid to the KMT and CCP and thus the set-up for OTL's Sino-Japanese war has been changed.

And, could it be possible, that even White Russian aggression against Turkey may not be enough to get Britain, or France, to ultimately go to war? Could they say, "another Crimean war, no thanks". Or the Armenian community in France says, "serves 'em right for genocide" and the Dominions say "serves 'em right for Gallipoli"?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I notice you are hinting towards parallel White Russian and Japanese assaults on the west? What are you seeing as the foreign policy stances of Italy and Germany towards the west? Are either of them aggressive, revisionist, pro-Russian powers, or are they more inclined to side with the west or stay neutral?

The details of plausible White Russian-Japanese collaboration (vs. the alternative of cooperation) would have to be filled in, along with a whole alternate history of China, because everything about aid to the KMT and CCP and thus the set-up for OTL's Sino-Japanese war has been changed.

And, could it be possible, that even White Russian aggression against Turkey may not be enough to get Britain, or France, to ultimately go to war? Could they say, "another Crimean war, no thanks". Or the Armenian community in France says, "serves 'em right for genocide" and the Dominions say "serves 'em right for Gallipoli"?

Yes, I am thinking of Japan aiming for Western colonies in Asia while Russia fights the Anglo-French in Turkey and perhaps in places like India as well. As for Italy and Germany, they initially remain neutral. Germany already has its territorial claims against Poland satisfied and thus isn't really hungry for much more while Italy, in spite of it possibly having some interest in southern Turkey, really doesn't want to piss off the Anglo-French, who have quite powerful navies, after all.

I would presume that the White Russians would support the KMT in China unless they can find more pliable puppets. However, they would likely aim to support whatever faction in the KMT best aims to protect their interests. Though Japanese designs on China are a problem. Maybe Russia and Japan could partition China into spheres of influence, similar to what Spain and Portugal did with the New World several centuries earlier? :


Japan gets Manchuria and the eastern coastal areas of China while Russia gets the rest in the form of a pro-Russian KMT-led puppet state?

Excellent point, actually! So, maybe you need to have Russia do something really bold and ambitious, such as supporting Indian nationalists in launching an invasion to liberate British India from British rule. Would that actually work for this? The logic behind this would be to create a powerful Eurasian power bloc consisting of Russia, at least the Chinese interior, and India.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
It's difficult. If we assume that Germany is not aligned with the fascists, nor are their Germanic allies, then make assumptions about how a fascist Russia would influence Slavic nations in Eastern Europe, then it would basically be the Warsaw Pact vs NATO, but as a hot war. This would mean that there would be a lot more naval activity near Gallipoli, Sevastopol, and the Aland Islands.

A D-Day into Siberia would be utterly worthless, just like when the US sent troops into Siberia to help quell the Communist Revolution in real life. A land based invasion would have to be the way, but Russia has always benefited from Defence in Depth strategies, ceding territory in favor of lives and resources. The NATO allegory would have to bleed the Russians to the point that they could not maintain their lines.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It's difficult. If we assume that Germany is not aligned with the fascists, nor are their Germanic allies, then make assumptions about how a fascist Russia would influence Slavic nations in Eastern Europe, then it would basically be the Warsaw Pact vs NATO, but as a hot war. This would mean that there would be a lot more naval activity near Gallipoli, Sevastopol, and the Aland Islands.

A D-Day into Siberia would be utterly worthless, just like when the US sent troops into Siberia to help quell the Communist Revolution in real life. A land based invasion would have to be the way, but Russia has always benefited from Defence in Depth strategies, ceding territory in favor of lives and resources. The NATO allegory would have to bleed the Russians to the point that they could not maintain their lines.

In regards to your last sentence here, that might be rather difficult to do if the Russians can successfully withstand millions of casualties without succumbing to defeatism.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
In regards to your last sentence here, that might be rather difficult to do if the Russians can successfully withstand millions of casualties without succumbing to defeatism.
It's not about morale, but rather literally killing so many people that they can't maintain coverage of the whole front. In real life, the Germans killed a solid fraction of the entire Soviet male population of military age. I can't remember what the proportion was off the top of my head, but it was ridiculous. The USSR and Russia have been experiencing cyclical recessions based off of the missing generation caused by those losses (the children of those men don't exist, the grandchildren of those men don't exist). If it were NATO instead of Germany fighting, I bet we could kill even more. The restrictions on Russian infrastructure and armament in real life and in this scenario are both determined by the state of Russia under the Czar, there is nothing that a fascist Russia could do to pump out the number of tanks and guns it needed, the industry simply didn't exist and could not at the time.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It's not about morale, but rather literally killing so many people that they can't maintain coverage of the whole front. In real life, the Germans killed a solid fraction of the entire Soviet male population of military age. I can't remember what the proportion was off the top of my head, but it was ridiculous. The USSR and Russia have been experiencing cyclical recessions based off of the missing generation caused by those losses (the children of those men don't exist, the grandchildren of those men don't exist). If it were NATO instead of Germany fighting, I bet we could kill even more. The restrictions on Russian infrastructure and armament in real life and in this scenario are both determined by the state of Russia under the Czar, there is nothing that a fascist Russia could do to pump out the number of tanks and guns it needed, the industry simply didn't exist and could not at the time.

Except it won't be NATO fighting in place of the Germans. It will, at the very best, be the Anglo-French fighting in place of the Germans.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Except it won't be NATO fighting in place of the Germans. It will, at the very best, be the Anglo-French fighting in place of the Germans.
Any situation where someone wanted to upset the balance of power in Europe would always end up with the US sticking its nose into it. Even if it the US didn't, it would be all of non-Slavic Europe against Slavic Europe. If manpower was an issue, the French and British could bring in millions of troops from India and Africa, or the Dutch from Indonesia, let alone just having the Indian troops march straight north into Central Asia (not that it would make much of a difference given how worthless that land was at the time).

Overall, I think that Russia has a better defensive chance, but a worse chance overall. Best case scenario would be a white peace leading to a Demo/Fascist style cold war. Except, without the German scientists to give Russia nukes and rocketry, they'd be decades away from developing anything useful (Czarist Russia had some geniuses, one of whom invented the idea of the artificial gravity space station, but it would still be a stretch).
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Any situation where someone wanted to upset the balance of power in Europe would always end up with the US sticking its nose into it. Even if it the US didn't, it would be all of non-Slavic Europe against Slavic Europe. If manpower was an issue, the French and British could bring in millions of troops from India and Africa, or the Dutch from Indonesia, let alone just having the Indian troops march straight north into Central Asia (not that it would make much of a difference given how worthless that land was at the time).

Overall, I think that Russia has a better defensive chance, but a worse chance overall. Best case scenario would be a white peace leading to a Demo/Fascist style cold war. Except, without the German scientists to give Russia nukes and rocketry, they'd be decades away from developing anything useful (Czarist Russia had some geniuses, one of whom invented the idea of the artificial gravity space station, but it would still be a stretch).

Russia could have relied on its Jewish geniuses if they wouldn't have all left the country.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Which ones? As far as I am aware, most Jews in Russia didn't tend to have good educations.

 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I notice you are hinting towards parallel White Russian and Japanese assaults on the west? What are you seeing as the foreign policy stances of Italy and Germany towards the west? Are either of them aggressive, revisionist, pro-Russian powers, or are they more inclined to side with the west or stay neutral?

The details of plausible White Russian-Japanese collaboration (vs. the alternative of cooperation) would have to be filled in, along with a whole alternate history of China, because everything about aid to the KMT and CCP and thus the set-up for OTL's Sino-Japanese war has been changed.

And, could it be possible, that even White Russian aggression against Turkey may not be enough to get Britain, or France, to ultimately go to war? Could they say, "another Crimean war, no thanks". Or the Armenian community in France says, "serves 'em right for genocide" and the Dominions say "serves 'em right for Gallipoli"?

I've got another proposal for this: Might Fascist Italy be interested in cooperating with a Fascist Russia in carving up Turkey between themselves? As in, Italy gets Turkey's southern coastline while Russia gets Turkey's northern coastline, the Straits, and the former Six Vilayets:


France would be invited to take back Hatay for French Syria if Hatay still ends up in Turkish hands while Greece would be allowed to take back Smyrna if it's actually interested in this. If not, then Smyrna can end up being Russian, Italian, or split between Russia and Italy. Meanwhile, the rump remaining Turkish state would end up controlling a territory that is landlocked and limited to the Anatolian interior with similar borders to the Medieval Ruman Sultanate:


This Neo-Ruman Sultanate would essentially be a tributary state of Russia due to a lack of any other viable options--unless of course it wants to be an Italian and/or French tributary state instead.

Now this is what I call a Turkey-screw!
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
@raharris1973 Would it be enough to provoke the Anglo-French if a Fascist Russia decide not to limit itself to the Kresy (eastern Poland) in an invasion Poland, but instead to conquer Poland all of the way up to the 1914 borders? Also, what about having a Fascist Russia decide to partition Romania together with both Hungary and Bulgaria? I mean having Russia conquer not only Bessarabia, but also western Moldavia (and, of course, all of Bukovina) from Romania, thus ensuring that Russia's new western borders will be at the Carpathians. If Hungary gets all of Transylvania while Bulgaria gets all of Dobruja, then Wallachia could be turned into a nominally independent Russian satellite state. (Outright annexing Wallachia would create strange borders for Russia.)
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
It's not about morale, but rather literally killing so many people that they can't maintain coverage of the whole front. In real life, the Germans killed a solid fraction of the entire Soviet male population of military age. I can't remember what the proportion was off the top of my head, but it was ridiculous. The USSR and Russia have been experiencing cyclical recessions based off of the missing generation caused by those losses (the children of those men don't exist, the grandchildren of those men don't exist). If it were NATO instead of Germany fighting, I bet we could kill even more. The restrictions on Russian infrastructure and armament in real life and in this scenario are both determined by the state of Russia under the Czar, there is nothing that a fascist Russia could do to pump out the number of tanks and guns it needed, the industry simply didn't exist and could not at the time.

I mean, I'd assume a whole lot of OTL culling of the Soviet population had to do with the war of annihilation the Germans were waging, so unless "NATO come early" is basically made up of seething, TL-displaced Nazis hellbent on enacting their own Final Solution on the "Slavic menace", I don't think the slaughter will be quite that severe. Even if they could kill more Russians in theory, that's not the same as whether they're really inclined to, and—while I don't doubt that ATL World War II would still be exceedingly brutal—I have serious doubts about the latter.
 
Last edited:

Yinko

Well-known member
I'd assume a whole lot of OTL culling of the Soviet population had to do with the war of annihilation the Germans were waging
It wasn't, they weren't. The figures are based primarily on troop casualties. If the Germans had been fighting a war of annihilation then they would have done more damage to Poland, not have allied with other Slavic groups or taken in Slavic partisans. They did have a very Napoleonic stance in regards to putting down rebellion, where they would kill random chunks of people in order to punish rebels, hardly a unique approach but I'd not call it annihilation either.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I mean, I'd assume a whole lot of OTL culling of the Soviet population had to do with the war of annihilation the Germans were waging, so unless "NATO come early" is basically made up of seething, TL-displaced Nazis hellbent on enacting their own Final Solution on the "Slavic menace", I don't think the slaughter will be quite that severe. Even if they could kill more Russians in theory, that's not the same as whether they're really inclined to, and—while I don't doubt that ATL World War II would still be exceedingly brutal—I have serious doubts about the latter.

Yeah, there's no way that an alt-NATO would be anywhere near as brutal towards Russia as Nazi Germany was. It would undoubtedly be helped by the fact that an alt-NATO won't suffer from a blockade like Nazi Germany was nor have its demented racial ideology.

Of course, this is assuming that an alt-NATO would actually be willing to fight a Fascist Russia over Turkey. It might not, if it believes that Turkey deserves its fate after previously engaging in the mass murder of the Armenians.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I notice you are hinting towards parallel White Russian and Japanese assaults on the west? What are you seeing as the foreign policy stances of Italy and Germany towards the west? Are either of them aggressive, revisionist, pro-Russian powers, or are they more inclined to side with the west or stay neutral?

The details of plausible White Russian-Japanese collaboration (vs. the alternative of cooperation) would have to be filled in, along with a whole alternate history of China, because everything about aid to the KMT and CCP and thus the set-up for OTL's Sino-Japanese war has been changed.

And, could it be possible, that even White Russian aggression against Turkey may not be enough to get Britain, or France, to ultimately go to war? Could they say, "another Crimean war, no thanks". Or the Armenian community in France says, "serves 'em right for genocide" and the Dominions say "serves 'em right for Gallipoli"?

Frankly, I wonder if it might be just as likely for a non-Communist Russia and Japan to fight each other over China and Korea in a rematch of the Russo-Japanese War than it would be for them to ally together against the West. After all, a non-Communist Russia could view it as being a noble humanitarian mission to stop Japan's brutal sodomization of China in the 1930s and beyond. If Russia also has the right kind of government, then it might also be willing to try installing puppet/satellite regimes of its choice in China and/or Korea in the event of a Russian victory in a Russo-Japanese War Version 2.0.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
And, could it be possible, that even White Russian aggression against Turkey may not be enough to get Britain, or France, to ultimately go to war? Could they say, "another Crimean war, no thanks". Or the Armenian community in France says, "serves 'em right for genocide" and the Dominions say "serves 'em right for Gallipoli"?

You know, I'm wondering about this: As in, if you're a Fascist rule of a White-led Russia in the 1930s or 1940s and you want to increase Russia's human capital through territorial expansion, would expansion into Poland/the Baltics/Finland/Bessarabia, Turkey, or Mongolia/Manchuria be the most attractive option for you? Or do you go for more than one of these options? But if so, which option would you choose first?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Meanwhile, the rump remaining Turkish state would end up controlling a territory that is landlocked and limited to the Anatolian interior with similar borders to the Medieval Ruman Sultanate:


This Neo-Ruman Sultanate would essentially be a tributary state of Russia due to a lack of any other viable options--unless of course it wants to be an Italian and/or French tributary state instead.

Now this is what I call a Turkey-screw!

Or this Neo-Ruman Sultanate can be directly annexed to Russia.

BTW, re: human capital: In real life, Turkey has human capital comparable to that of Ukraine:


But it's likely even a bit better than that since Turkey's Kurds are holding Turkey back:

1280px-Turkey_IQ_map.svg.png


But of course Turkey's Kurds are a minority of the total population, even of the children. I do wonder exactly what percentage of Turkey's total children they are nowadays, though. Turks don't breed as much as Kurds do, after all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top