Red Storm... Scenario Idea

Ok, I've decided to do a new scenario, and what i really want is a credibility check on the scenario. I know I probably don't need it, but I'd feel better if the history buffs gave me the green light.

The Scenario opens as follows...

1943 The French Border:

The French troops at the Maginot Line had held up for weeks. The British reinforcements were pouring in to secure the defenses in Belgium from the invaders. Mussolini had promised as much troops as possible to the French and British. The Weimar Republic lay in ruins, but a small rebel group calling themselves the National Socialists, financed by Britain and France, continued to fight against their oppressors. The Austrians had been taken several weeks earlier, and Yugoslavia collapsed shortly afterward.

The Republic of Spain continued to remain neutral despite the fact that they had been helped in their Civil War by the very people who were now at war with France and Britain. It appeared that the enemy would smash through the French defenses and overrun France.

Manchuria: Meanwhile, in the Pacific, the war raged on . The Japanese forces were still being forced back, but with American money increasingly flowing into the Japanese war industry, they would soon turn the tide. The Americans promised to protect the government of Chiang Kaishek and destroy the "evil" Mao Tse-tung.


What's this picture?

In World War I, a man named Adolf Hitler had become one of the many fatalities in the war to end all wars. Just after the war, the Soviets solidified their power, and Stalin won the political struggle against Trotsky. In 1922, Mussolini came to power, and for many years his relationship with the democracies of Europe remained cordial.

Meanwhile, the Weimar Republic of Germany continued as it always had. The Nazis made some small gains, but without Hitler behind them, it meant nothing. Despite hard times during the Depression, Germany remained democratic and rarely externally belligerant.

In Spain, Mussolini had been the only one to supply Franco with the finances he needed to win. Much more money poured in from the Soviet Union, and as a result the Republican forces won after a long bloody war.

It seemed like things were finally settling in Europe, but Stalin had other plans. The numerous communist revolts in Eastern Europe had convinced him that it was ripe for the taking. There was not a single force that could stop him from advancing straight to the Maginot Line.

In the 1930s he lacked the power, but by 1943, his factories had produced thousands of the incredible T-34 tanks. His army had the strength to match an other army in the world. His leadership was fresh out of purge a few years earlier, but it was still capable.

When the forces invaded, they destroyed all opposition in their path. The Soviets have now made it clear to France but have been stopped dead in their tracks as they tried to cross Belgium to get to France. Meanwhile, all around the world countries are trying to stamp out communist revolts. This is particularly true in Asia where the U.S. has set aside its differences with Japan in order to deal with the larger threat. And the tide of war is about to turn on all fronts...

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

[Case]

That sounds like an interesting, and not implausible idea for a senario. Just a quick point:
The Red Army leadership was in a VERY bad sate following the purges, and it wasn't until the shock of the German invasion did things really begin to improve (eg the 'Winter War' with Finland was a fiasco, but few reforms came out of it), so perhaps you may want to change the bit about the Red Army Smashing through Eastern Europe. (perhaps the Red Army had a learning experiance at the hands of the Turks on its way to the Mediterranean?)

If you're looking for a map, there's one floating around called silkroad that covers Eurasia from Britain to Japan, as well as India and North Africa that would probably be suitable.

------------------
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
-John Kenneth Galbraith

[Dienstag]

Darn, I thought it might be about Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. Still neat though. I'd like to see how the rest of the world is able to stop the Red Army from occupying the Middle East and thus effectively depriving them of oil.

[Cal]

I really don't think this scenario sounds plausible at all... but here's one historical inaccuracy I noticed, if you're going to make it.

Without Adolf Hitler as a member, the German Workers' Party may never have been renamed to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. This happened on April 1st, 1920. Adolf Hitler became the seventh member of the committee on the German Workers' Party in January, 1919.

------------------
-Cal

[Panda]

Ah, alternative histories. Do you realise you're going to have to rewrite all of post-1919 history? That you can't take anything for granted? Why would the Soviet Union have a need to develop the kind of technologies that culminated in the T-34 without a strong German threat. It might be convenient to demonise Stalin here, but without that threat he would have kept the Red Army very weak. You know...in case they got ideas?

I think this might be more plausible if you deleted all reference to the Spanish Civil War. The socialist were only backed by the Soviet Union because the nationalists were backed by German fascists. Now, if the Nazis had not taken power in Germany, there would have been no German rearmament. Consequently there would be no incentive for the delayed Franco-British rearmaments from about 1935. No development of the famous monoplane fighters, so all the fighters would be biplanes with an armament of four MGs and a top speed of 250mph. No development of the technological advances that were seen during this period either, and which were tested in Spain.

And the Soviets? Well masses of T-34s do not make an army mobile. Tanks will win ground, but you need infantry to hold it and the Red Army was not truly mechanised until mid-1943 after considerable Allied aid. And the Red Army airforce was hardly in a better condition. Without the spectre of a strong German enemy and a need to develop modern technologies to counter it, the airforce would again be equiped by biplanes. No strategic airforce. I don't recall any noteworthy tactical bomber until the IL-2.

Conclusion: Western airpower would have the advantage, particularly on the French side. Faced with European domination by Soviet Communists, the Americans would have been drawn into the war sooner - they wouldn't have to worry about a double u-turn in foreign policy there. The lack of Soviet mobility would mean a return to trench warfare, which favours the defense. Yugoslavia would not be a vital interest. If this were to happen, a blitzkreig invasion of Western Europe from the East would be concentrated on the northern plains.

I think it would far more interesting to keep history as it was until 1941, and consider what might have happened had not the Germans pre-empted Soviet invasion plans.

[shmily_dana]

How about a Commie strong man in Germany instead of Hitler. Germans still bitter about WWI. Ally with USSR. (for real this time). Germany and USSR move West. Germany & USSR vs France, GB, USA...

[C0ckney]

Just another little thing,

Yugoslavia would have backed the Russians as these two countries have (this century at least) always being allies.

Anyway it sounds like a great idea for a scenario, I wish you the best of luck

Ok, this is good. This is the kind of stuff I want to know.

I agree that the creation of the T-34 is a longshot, but I doubt that Stalin would have just kicked back and twiddled his thumbs as the world went by. If there had been no strong Germany, that might have given him the PERFECT reason to invade. Little resistance.

And no one is saying that the U.S. would have been drawn in faster. I'm saying the Soviets BEGIN their invasion in 1943, and the U.S. goes in almost immediately. And the best way to hit the Russians on the Eastern side was by using the Japanese. and French and British would have been extremely important, but thats within the timeline of the scenario.

But how would the rest of you that find this implausable envision a world where Hitler never came to power? Would Stalin be content with the Soviet Union? Would WWI REALLY have been the war to end all wars?

[Panda]

quote: I doubt that Stalin would have just kicked back and twiddled his thumbs as the world went by. If there had been no strong Germany, that might have given him the PERFECT reason to invade. Little resistance.

Hitler or no, the basic point I'd dispute is this preconception dating from 1950's that Josef Stalin was the anti-chirst and sought world domination. The truth is that the Soviet Union was acting in essentially a defensive manner by its direct occupation of much of Eastern Europe - creating a buffer zone. Without a strong threat the Soviet Union would have no reason, and no excuse to act so agressively when industrial and agricultural reforms at home were racing ahead.

Andrew Livings, you are right. Ever since the Cold War, we have cast Stalin in this satanic light next to Hitler. By no means was the man a saint, and he could certainly be up there with the world's worst dictators, but that does not mean he was bent on global conquest.

So, I ask again (now out of curiousity), how would you envision a world where Hitler never came to power? Well, here's one point. Hitler or no, the Japanese and Americans would probably have gone to war at some point without some bigger threat from the Soviets. But other than that, what other conflicts do you think would arise? What other events would likely occur?

[Panda]

Well I'm no expert on the period, but I think I can envisage a possible chain of events to get to where you want. Although as I said before, I don't think you rely on much of our history repeating itself in an alternative timeline, some national interests, rivalries and policies can be regarded as consistant.

1. A Soviet dream of workers revolting and establishing their own communist states.
2. British anti-communism.
3. Anglo-French imperialism.
4. Japanese imperialism.
5. American anti-imperialis.
6. Italian/French rivalry.
7. Bitter French suspicion of Germany.

Let's suppose that Hitler wasn't around and that Soviet industrial reforms are racing ahead.

In Europe
Germany erupts into civil war, as socialist faction armed and trained in the Soviet Union rebel against a weakened German government. The west is slow to react and government forces quickly collaspe. The democrats flee the country and form a government in exile in London. Forming a new government the Socialists enter into an Alliance with the Soviet Union, and some Red Army units move into German bases.

France is outraged. Neither France, Britain, Italy or America recognise the new government, and they all begin a crash programme of rearmament. The Europeans also give what aid they can to German resistance fighters and form a coalition to restore the legitimate government and free the German people from their new oppressive masters (sic). They warn the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops or face the consequences. The Soviet response is to forment a similar civil war in poland, this time backed directly by the Red Army. Britain and France (but not Italy) declare war on the USSR at this provocation but do nothing to help the poles. Neither do they advance beyond the Rhine to liberate the Germans. Frankly they're too weak still. Stalin orders a general mobilisation and accelerates his own armament production. Red Army units filter through Poland into Germany and dig in. No general engagements are ordered in this "phoney war".

In Asia
The Chinese civil war continues with Mao Zedong losing. Japan takes advantage of the instability and invades Manchuria. Moscow takes a hardline approach and decides to eject the Japanese from Manchuria and then aid Mao against the Nationalists. General Zhukov is given command and kicks Japanese bottom. As the Japanese are fighting against the Soviets, the American government decides to overlook their action in China and does not impose any economic embargoes against the Japanese, thus averting the Pacific war.

When Stalin feels strong enough he decides to attack the French.

Actually I don't think your original picture sounds so far-fetched after all. Save that the Soviets would have prefered to use subversion of pro-western governments rather than invasion.

America I think is a big question mark. Unless you want to repeat history - they stay neutral for as long as they can, whilst arming the British and French on a "cash and carry" basis. When war breaks out they offer lend-lease on the condition that the Europeans abolish external tarrifs to their empires and sign a charter committing them to decolonisation within 20 years. When they enter the war they insist on running the show, then afterwards claim they did it pretty much by themselves. And Hollywood takes them literally.

Andrew Livings,

I like this idea a lot. It makes a lot of sense too. I think the best way to set up the game is to have the Soviets in a war they can't possibly win, but you (the player) have to build them to the point where the are capable of taking Europe and ousting Allied troops. And a second map in Asia where you support Mao and push the Japanese out of Manchuria, but thats all when the player's in charge. I think the pre-game set works well under your plan.

Thanks

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu