-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A difficult peace 1945-1953
The end of World War 2 in July 1945 saw a very different world to that of September 1939. Then the USSR had been encircled, its only ally was Mongolia, its armed forces weakened by the purges from 1937-8. In addition, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had split the Communist movement in Europe, with many people leaving the Communist Parties and driving a wedge between the Communists and other anti-fascist forces.
By July 1945, the USSR was the dominant power with America and the UK effectively encircled. The new People's Democracies now in power across Europe and Latin America were alliances of the wartime anti-fascist forces led by the national Communist Party [1]. However, despite the scale of the triumph, peace was to bring major challenges in the years up to Stalin's death.
Militarily the Soviet armed forces continued to develop. By the end of the 1940s jet fighters and bombers were deployed,
(Mig-17 in northern Mexico)
by 1953 the first of the T-54s that were to serve the Red Army for 10 years were deployed.
(the T-10 was the last of the Soviet heavy tanks derived from the IS series. Built purely as an experimental design, the development of the T-54/5 and the concept of the Main Battle Tank ended this line of tank development)
(T-55 of 2 Tank, deployed on exercises in western Mexico)
As Mexico was in effect the front line of the new Cold War with the USA it received the very best Soviet units. The Group of Soviet Forces Mexico came to comprise 2 Tank Armies (2 and 3) and 7 Infantry Armies (3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 21, 31 and 40). By 1948 all these were motorised and increasingly being equipped with APCs.
(The Btr152 was the first Soviet developed APC and came into general service in the late 1940s)
This group was designated as Category A and maintained at 100% of their notional power. The units supporting pro-Soviet regimes in Western Europe, Latin America and China were designated Category B (50%) and the balance of the Red Army was deployed in the USSR itself (Category C – 25%).
At sea the Soviet navy was redesignated the Voenno-morskoj Flot (VMF) in late 1945 and quickly developed. A war with the USA would be as much a naval encounter as fought in the plains of southern America. By 1952, 3 main fleets equipped with modern Carriers were deployed. One was based permanently at Acapulco, one at Vladivostock and the third at Leningrad. Beneath the waves, the first generation of Soviet nuclear submarines were deployed, ready to deny the USN the capacity to move beyond its territorial waters.
(Soviet submarine at anchor in Amsterdam, the last of the models relying on diesel engines)
Both the Soviets and the Americans learnt from German experiments with rockets and nuclear weaponry. By 1950, Soviet medium range missiles in Mexico had the capacity to reach any corner of the US. In response the Americans nearly bankrupted their economy developing intercontinental missiles and their desire for bases nearer the USSR led to the infamous Irish missile crisis in 1962.
(The first Soviet nuclear weapon test in 1949, 2 years after the US had tested their first weapon)
In the years after the war, the British Empire collapsed. Nationalist revolts had liberated Kenya and Uganda even before the war ended. British troops, exiled from their homes for 5 years, were desperate to return and had little enthusiasm to fight to sustain the empire. A major mutiny in Cairo coincided with Egyptian nationalists seizing power and British forces in Delhi refused to open fire on demonstrators. By 1948 India was independent and formed a close union with Burma and Malaya. All these new regimes were sympathetic to, but not fully aligned with, the USSR.
With this, the four main states within the British Empire (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) met in secret in Cape Town. Feeling threatened by the emerging pro-Soviet regimes in Asia and Africa and no longer able to rely on British support they decided to move to a close alliance with the USA. In turn, this gave the US the means to avoid the partial encirclement and to be able to influence events in Asia. However, South Africa went further and the Nationalist government implemented Apartheid in 1949. The result was a massive revolt, backed by the pro-Soviet regimes in Angola and Mozambique and, fairly openly, by the USSR. By 1951, all of Africa was loosely aligned to the USSR.
However, handling these allies (some of whom owned very little allegiance to the USSR) was a major problem in the Stalin years. The basic structure, created in early 1946, in the long term formed a stable basis for economic, political and military co-operation. The European Socialist Federation covered all of Europe west of the Soviet border (with Scandinavia and the Swiss informal members). The Latin American Socialist Federation stretched from Mexico to Argentina comprising some 70% of the region. In Africa, the African Union was created in 1951 incorporating all the states from Cairo to Cape Town.
However, Asia was more complex. Manchuria and Sinkiang had petitioned to be accepted as full Soviet Republics and were integrated into an expanded USSR. The rest of China became a set of semi-independent republics (there was no opposition after Mao's death in a mysterious plane crash) within the wider Asian Socialist Federation (China, Japan, Indochina, Iran and Indonesia).
The problem was Stalin's growing paranoia. Such a structure could only work with regional autonomy and he became increasingly suspicious that the leaderships of the national Communist Parties were conspiring against him. The show trials of the period 1949-52 did little to build relations, especially when combined with the imposition of the Soviet economic model (and with reparations from the former Axis powers). With Stalin's death, the situation exploded with widespread revolts in Europe.
(The Berlin revolt, June 1953, was repeated across Western and Central Europe)
Kruschev opted to apply Lenin's response to the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. First crush the revolts and then offer the concessions they had sought.
(Nikita Kruschev was to the pivotal figure in the post war evolution of the USSR)
By the end of 1953, the Soviet block was in an uneasy peace. A number of regimes were looking to break away, the African Union had declared its opposition to Soviet economic planning (describing it as a new form of colonialism), and both the national leaderships and the populace across the vast region were waiting to see if the promises of reform held any real meaning. The large Soviet block stood on the edge of possible disintegration as states on the periphery asserted their independence and the non-aligned regimes reacted to Soviet hegemony.
The events of 1954-6 were to resolve these issues and formed the basis of international and domestic politics until the late 1960s.
Finally, the remnant of the Third Reich was isolated in Greenland. Any remaining relevance was lost when its de facto leader Admiral Karl Doenitz died in 1949 after an encounter with a polar bear [2].
[1] – the distinction between this and the one party state in the USSR was important in Soviet political science. In effect, those regimes were not the result of proletarian revolution and represented the multiple class alliances (the Popular Front) that had become the keystone of the Comintern after 1934.
[2] for more on this hazard read the various threads detailing the adventures of the Crovan Clan.
The end of World War 2 in July 1945 saw a very different world to that of September 1939. Then the USSR had been encircled, its only ally was Mongolia, its armed forces weakened by the purges from 1937-8. In addition, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had split the Communist movement in Europe, with many people leaving the Communist Parties and driving a wedge between the Communists and other anti-fascist forces.
By July 1945, the USSR was the dominant power with America and the UK effectively encircled. The new People's Democracies now in power across Europe and Latin America were alliances of the wartime anti-fascist forces led by the national Communist Party [1]. However, despite the scale of the triumph, peace was to bring major challenges in the years up to Stalin's death.
Militarily the Soviet armed forces continued to develop. By the end of the 1940s jet fighters and bombers were deployed,
(Mig-17 in northern Mexico)
by 1953 the first of the T-54s that were to serve the Red Army for 10 years were deployed.
(the T-10 was the last of the Soviet heavy tanks derived from the IS series. Built purely as an experimental design, the development of the T-54/5 and the concept of the Main Battle Tank ended this line of tank development)
(T-55 of 2 Tank, deployed on exercises in western Mexico)
As Mexico was in effect the front line of the new Cold War with the USA it received the very best Soviet units. The Group of Soviet Forces Mexico came to comprise 2 Tank Armies (2 and 3) and 7 Infantry Armies (3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 21, 31 and 40). By 1948 all these were motorised and increasingly being equipped with APCs.
(The Btr152 was the first Soviet developed APC and came into general service in the late 1940s)
This group was designated as Category A and maintained at 100% of their notional power. The units supporting pro-Soviet regimes in Western Europe, Latin America and China were designated Category B (50%) and the balance of the Red Army was deployed in the USSR itself (Category C – 25%).
At sea the Soviet navy was redesignated the Voenno-morskoj Flot (VMF) in late 1945 and quickly developed. A war with the USA would be as much a naval encounter as fought in the plains of southern America. By 1952, 3 main fleets equipped with modern Carriers were deployed. One was based permanently at Acapulco, one at Vladivostock and the third at Leningrad. Beneath the waves, the first generation of Soviet nuclear submarines were deployed, ready to deny the USN the capacity to move beyond its territorial waters.
(Soviet submarine at anchor in Amsterdam, the last of the models relying on diesel engines)
Both the Soviets and the Americans learnt from German experiments with rockets and nuclear weaponry. By 1950, Soviet medium range missiles in Mexico had the capacity to reach any corner of the US. In response the Americans nearly bankrupted their economy developing intercontinental missiles and their desire for bases nearer the USSR led to the infamous Irish missile crisis in 1962.
(The first Soviet nuclear weapon test in 1949, 2 years after the US had tested their first weapon)
In the years after the war, the British Empire collapsed. Nationalist revolts had liberated Kenya and Uganda even before the war ended. British troops, exiled from their homes for 5 years, were desperate to return and had little enthusiasm to fight to sustain the empire. A major mutiny in Cairo coincided with Egyptian nationalists seizing power and British forces in Delhi refused to open fire on demonstrators. By 1948 India was independent and formed a close union with Burma and Malaya. All these new regimes were sympathetic to, but not fully aligned with, the USSR.
With this, the four main states within the British Empire (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) met in secret in Cape Town. Feeling threatened by the emerging pro-Soviet regimes in Asia and Africa and no longer able to rely on British support they decided to move to a close alliance with the USA. In turn, this gave the US the means to avoid the partial encirclement and to be able to influence events in Asia. However, South Africa went further and the Nationalist government implemented Apartheid in 1949. The result was a massive revolt, backed by the pro-Soviet regimes in Angola and Mozambique and, fairly openly, by the USSR. By 1951, all of Africa was loosely aligned to the USSR.
However, handling these allies (some of whom owned very little allegiance to the USSR) was a major problem in the Stalin years. The basic structure, created in early 1946, in the long term formed a stable basis for economic, political and military co-operation. The European Socialist Federation covered all of Europe west of the Soviet border (with Scandinavia and the Swiss informal members). The Latin American Socialist Federation stretched from Mexico to Argentina comprising some 70% of the region. In Africa, the African Union was created in 1951 incorporating all the states from Cairo to Cape Town.
However, Asia was more complex. Manchuria and Sinkiang had petitioned to be accepted as full Soviet Republics and were integrated into an expanded USSR. The rest of China became a set of semi-independent republics (there was no opposition after Mao's death in a mysterious plane crash) within the wider Asian Socialist Federation (China, Japan, Indochina, Iran and Indonesia).
The problem was Stalin's growing paranoia. Such a structure could only work with regional autonomy and he became increasingly suspicious that the leaderships of the national Communist Parties were conspiring against him. The show trials of the period 1949-52 did little to build relations, especially when combined with the imposition of the Soviet economic model (and with reparations from the former Axis powers). With Stalin's death, the situation exploded with widespread revolts in Europe.
(The Berlin revolt, June 1953, was repeated across Western and Central Europe)
Kruschev opted to apply Lenin's response to the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. First crush the revolts and then offer the concessions they had sought.
(Nikita Kruschev was to the pivotal figure in the post war evolution of the USSR)
By the end of 1953, the Soviet block was in an uneasy peace. A number of regimes were looking to break away, the African Union had declared its opposition to Soviet economic planning (describing it as a new form of colonialism), and both the national leaderships and the populace across the vast region were waiting to see if the promises of reform held any real meaning. The large Soviet block stood on the edge of possible disintegration as states on the periphery asserted their independence and the non-aligned regimes reacted to Soviet hegemony.
The events of 1954-6 were to resolve these issues and formed the basis of international and domestic politics until the late 1960s.
Finally, the remnant of the Third Reich was isolated in Greenland. Any remaining relevance was lost when its de facto leader Admiral Karl Doenitz died in 1949 after an encounter with a polar bear [2].
[1] – the distinction between this and the one party state in the USSR was important in Soviet political science. In effect, those regimes were not the result of proletarian revolution and represented the multiple class alliances (the Popular Front) that had become the keystone of the Comintern after 1934.
[2] for more on this hazard read the various threads detailing the adventures of the Crovan Clan.
Great wrap-up and plausible descriptions (it's hard to truly gauge as your game world has run so far off the rails of Real Life, but internally it all makes sense).
I think the Soviets and their local henchmen are going to learn a really painful lesson about the enduring power of nationalism really soon, so I can't imagine those huge regional Federations stick around. The second decolonization of Africa could be particularly interesting: if the old colonial borders have already been abolished, I'd be interested to see how future national borders would be decided. Anyway, off on a tangent again...
Congratulations to AnweRU and Dewirix. Oh, and Dewirix: babies might sleep a lot, but soon they'll also be awake a fair bit. During the night. Enjoy.
Oh, and loki: awesome reference to the Crovans. It says something about my warped frame of reference that the mere mention of a polar bear instantly conjures up images of polar bears, outhouses and crap poetry.
I think the Soviets and their local henchmen are going to learn a really painful lesson about the enduring power of nationalism really soon, so I can't imagine those huge regional Federations stick around. The second decolonization of Africa could be particularly interesting: if the old colonial borders have already been abolished, I'd be interested to see how future national borders would be decided. Anyway, off on a tangent again...
Congratulations to AnweRU and Dewirix. Oh, and Dewirix: babies might sleep a lot, but soon they'll also be awake a fair bit. During the night. Enjoy.
Oh, and loki: awesome reference to the Crovans. It says something about my warped frame of reference that the mere mention of a polar bear instantly conjures up images of polar bears, outhouses and crap poetry.
We need a limerick of Doenitz's death, quick!
This reference to the mighty Crovan makes me fear that our glorious Russia will fall apart due to constant rebelious vassals, ehm, comrades presidents and that Kruchev will exile himself in Constantinople. Damn, stop playing with my mind Loki!
This reference to the mighty Crovan makes me fear that our glorious Russia will fall apart due to constant rebelious vassals, ehm, comrades presidents and that Kruchev will exile himself in Constantinople. Damn, stop playing with my mind Loki!
Very good stuff. Plausible and interesting, I certainly like mention of the 'infamous Irish missile crisis in 1962' and the way in which Admiral Doenitz's met his end!
Delighted to hear about your new projects; I also add my congratulations to anwerU and Dewirix. A fitting end to the AAR, one which I've enjoyed immensely.
LOVE <3
there should be soemthing about united nations organisation being formed in leningrad though ;-)
there should be soemthing about united nations organisation being formed in leningrad though ;-)
Is that the UK still occupying Iraq and the Arabian peninsula? If so, it's going to become geopolitically interesting as the oil fields develop. I'd expect an increasingly bloody proxy war to be fought between the Brits desparate to keep hold of a gold mine and Soviet-backed nationalists. All in all I don't think the UK did half bad out of the peace.
I'm assuming from the end of your analysis we're going to get another update covering at least 1954-56.
I'm assuming from the end of your analysis we're going to get another update covering at least 1954-56.
Thanks all, and congratulations to you as well Dewirix!
It looks like we have one final update. I'll have to find my way to the awards thread before I head out to the hospital to pick up my wife and son - whose name we have to decide on this morning. Two procastinating parents, three good names!
@Loki: Looking forward to your EU3 AAR. I haven't played EU3 or Vicky in 6-12 months. You might convince me to give them a try again...
It looks like we have one final update. I'll have to find my way to the awards thread before I head out to the hospital to pick up my wife and son - whose name we have to decide on this morning. Two procastinating parents, three good names!
@Loki: Looking forward to your EU3 AAR. I haven't played EU3 or Vicky in 6-12 months. You might convince me to give them a try again...
Quite logical, really, considering the state of the world and the people involved. The GSFM is a nice touch.
I do wonder about the abandonment of diesel submarines. They've got advantages over nuclear ones, and are still in production even for navies that have nuclear ones. Although an expanded Red Navy is an obvious requirement.
Grand Admiral Doenitz should have stuck to shark-cavalry. Everyone knows it's only Russian Cossacks who can train Polar Bear Cavalry, definitely no Nazi Polar Bear Deaths Head Hussars.
I do wonder about the abandonment of diesel submarines. They've got advantages over nuclear ones, and are still in production even for navies that have nuclear ones. Although an expanded Red Navy is an obvious requirement.
Grand Admiral Doenitz should have stuck to shark-cavalry. Everyone knows it's only Russian Cossacks who can train Polar Bear Cavalry, definitely no Nazi Polar Bear Deaths Head Hussars.
Just caught up again, excellent stuff, its interesting to see how the post war world plays out.
No i can't still accept the fact this eneded, once again came here, by being used to do so. ;(
Great wrap-up and plausible descriptions (it's hard to truly gauge as your game world has run so far off the rails of Real Life, but internally it all makes sense).
I think the Soviets and their local henchmen are going to learn a really painful lesson about the enduring power of nationalism really soon, so I can't imagine those huge regional Federations stick around. The second decolonization of Africa could be particularly interesting: if the old colonial borders have already been abolished, I'd be interested to see how future national borders would be decided. Anyway, off on a tangent again...
Congratulations to AnweRU and Dewirix. Oh, and Dewirix: babies might sleep a lot, but soon they'll also be awake a fair bit. During the night. Enjoy.
Oh, and loki: awesome reference to the Crovans. It says something about my warped frame of reference that the mere mention of a polar bear instantly conjures up images of polar bears, outhouses and crap poetry.
You can argue that the only way to avoid nationalism being a problem in that sort of arrangement is to either repress it out of existence (very hard) or act as so as not to provoke it (& hope over time it becomes a minor cultural issue). But its in Africa where the colonial borders made no sense that the issue is most explosive (as in the final post)
I couldn't resist the Crovan reference, it was looking at that map with all the frozen white stuff and trying to come up with a reason why no one could even be bothered to finish the Third Reich off ... so a bit of polar bear induced mayhem seemed the way to go.
more on the Irish crisis in the final post - its sort of related back to 4 Army's accidental shelling of the Vatican.
thank you ... but I still personally would nominate Myth's opus to be honest. The way he took and used the vagaries of vanilla to weave a compelling tale and explore some very theoretical issues was very impressive.
Well the end is now nigh ...
and thanks to all my readers and commentators ... very much appreciated.
well the following is your last fix I fear (at least for this). I thought about a League of Nations but with either Soviet dominated, or broadly supportive, regimes everywhere except in the English speaking world I can't see the need. A revamped Comintern, but with more emphasis on the CPs as ruling parties, seems a more plausible international body.
I'll run it to 1961, but do want to keep some link the GPW rather than make it about the cold war. But the Middle East is the first big crisis, followed by China.
hope you've chosen a name ... or why not just use them all? Or have 3 kids ... all sorts of permutations
always good to acknowledge the real masters of AAR writing and the Crovans is one of the real masterpieces
It is a very different game to anything else. Not only do you have the horror-show of the initial German onslaught, its never very elegant (unlike say with the UK where you have to be very precise in force usage). I always find there is a period of effective stalemate when all you can do is to bludgeon the Axis and hope they crack before you do.
Well I would point you to the image somewhere in this of Reindeer assisting the VVS, so it could well have been a NKVD trained polar bear ... a theme best not followed up any further.
glad to see you back on the forums, sorry it wasn't up to your World Conquest standards but I couldn't face the micro management of finishing off the UK and didn't fancy the slow grind (& to be fair quite epic experience) of dealing with the US.
Ok, final 2 posts. First is an increasingly fantasy rendition of the period 1954-61. Any further and it has less and less to do with the actual AAR but that takes it to a nice end point - detente (to some extent) and a desire to avoid outright Soviet-American conflict.
Second is if anyone is interested in the source material. Both books I've used and sources for about 75% of the images in the AAR.
Many thanks to all readers, lurkers and regular commentators - it all has helped keep this in production at times when I've been busy or in danger of running out of inspiration.
International and Domestic Tensions 1954-1961
The period from 1953-56 was critical in the evolution of the post war world. Some were external such as in the Middle East and China, some were domestic (Kruschev's secret speech) and some involved the emerging USSR-US rivalry.
By late 1953 the Arab nationalists regimes in Syria and Egypt declared the formation of the United Arab Republic unifying their two states. In turn, they turned away from both the African Union and the USSR, stressing their regional identity. In March 1954, their combined armies attacked the remaining British possessions in Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. Initially the Soviets tried to mediate, fearing the growth of a large nationalist force on their southern borders. When the British both turned to the Americans for military help and started to gain the upper hand, Kruschev, under pressure from the armed forces, threatened intervention on behalf of the UAR forces. More directly, Soviet equipment was supplied to replace their losses and the ports in Southern Africa were closed to British shipping. This turned the tide and by late 1956, the British conceeded, with the entire region becoming part of the UAR.
This war set the tone for the next ten years. Up to 1954, USSR-US relations had been tense, but rarely seen as a direct contest. The USSR was trying to come to terms with its war time gains and the US with the consequences of its neutrality. The extension of US bases to Australia and New Zealand were of little real concern to the USSR. However, US support for the British was a different matter, not least in indicating the Americans were worried about their access to critical raw materials given direct and indirect Soviet control over critical regions.
A larger and more immediate crisis though broke out in Asia. Many Chinese nationalists were unhappy at the imposed structure in China and they, together with Indo China and Indonesia, objected to what they saw as the pro-Japanese bias of the Federation. The 'Sun Yat Sen' uprisings in March 1955 overthrew most of the regimes in the various Chinese republics and pronounced the creation of a united China. This presented the Soviets with a major dilemna. A direct invasion would restore the old order, but would take considerable effort and lose the USSR much international support (especially in Africa where the African Union was increasingly calling for the creation of a 'non-aligned' movement). Fortunately threats by the new Chinese government towards Tibet, Vietnam, Sinkiang and Manchuria (on the grounds of regaining historic lands) all isolated the new regime.
For the moment, the Soviets accepted the emergence of the two new power blocks. Whatever differences they had with the USSR, they were also unlikely to align to the USA. Over time the new China joined with India and the African Union in the non-aligned block and the Asian Federation gradually fell apart as first Indonesia and then Indo-China weakened their ties. Japan became increasingly tied to the USSR, given rivalry with the Americans it was critical to Soviet power in the Pacific region.
Instead, the focus of the Soviet leadership was almost entirely on domestic issues. After the death of Stalin, a group of his past associates, clustered around Beria, had tried to seize power. Widely hated in the Red Army for his role in the 1937-8 purges a group of officers around Koniev and Chuikov (known as the 'Kalinin-group' [1] as all had served in senior positions on that critical front) overthrew Beria, tried and executed him, For a moment, there was a possibility that the army would replace the party as the basis of the state. Kruschev's election as General-Secretary of the CPSU was a compromise. He had served in the Great Patriotic War in the Ukraine, he had also been a member of the Central Committee since the late 1930s. Critically he was relatively untainted by Stalin's crimes but was still seen as part of the Nomenklatura.
To balance these tensions, to a shocked Central Committee, with observers from all the other Communist Parties in the Soviet block, he delivered the famous 'secret speach' in early 1955. In it he denounced Stalin as having violated Soviet legality, in particular with the killing of almost 90% of the 1935 Central Committee, and the majority of the Red Army officers tried in 1937 [2]. The denunciation also included failing to prepare for the German assault, the failure to evacuate Murmansk and Archangelsk, the conduct of the Mars offensive as well as allowing the creation of the Moldavian salient that had derailed Soviet operations in the Ukraine and the Balkans for 6 months.
Inevitably news leaked out, first in theoretical party journals and then in the mainstream press. Many leaders of allied parties such as Ulbricht in the GDR, Theorez in France and Togliatti in Italy were closely associated with the Comintern in the pre war and war years. Togliatti distanced himself by denouncing the deaths of Italian communists who had sought asylum in Russia. Others were less astute and fell to either internal party coups or, as in France, were killed in street riots.
Kruschev was trapped. The 1953 uprisings had been relatively isolated and mostly external to the ruling parties. The events in late 1955 happened across Europe and weakened the resolve of many of the ruling Communist Parties. Their notional allies in government were able to use the revelations to demand reforms. In places such as Hungary, the Soviets responded by repression, but elsewhere it appeared as if the European Federation (and this was mostly a European issue) was going to break apart. The system was saved by two factors. One was that, Europe broadly accepted the post-war settlement and that economically it was delivering reconstruction and growing prosperity. In other words, the current structure benefitted from inertia.
More critical was the 'Congo incident'. The African Union had failed to resolve the tensions between those who wished to see an end to the artificial borders of the colonial powers and those who felt these formed a valid basis for the new confederation. In the Congo, this exploded into civil war as the surrounding countries sought to redraw the borders on ethnic and historic lines. The Congolese government turned to the US for support. At first covert, by early 1956 this saw the deployment of US combat troops. In turn, the Soviets stepped up support for the other states involved but kept short of committing regular forces.
By 1957 the US backed government was on the verge of defeat. However, the use of a US atomic bomb came close to causing a world war. At the time the Americans asserted it had been an accident and the subsequent trials supported this. However, not only did this lose the US influence in Africa, it also convinced the restive European regimes that their security lay in the Soviet block. By 1958, at Maastricht, a new set of arrangements for the Federation were agreed. Allowing greated plurality and greater economic independence in return for closer military integration, it addressed most of the problems in European-Soviet relations in the period 1952-8.
However, tensions with the US remained high. The result was a series of summits designed to reduce both the number of nuclear weapons held by each side and the number of missiles. The latter foundered on the Soviet demand that only ICBMs (Intercontinental Missiles) be counted and the US pointing to the ability of Soviet medium range missiles in Mexico to hit anywhere in the US. In return the Soviets stressed that US medium range missiles were a threat to the USSR's allies [3].
Seeking redress, the Americans sought bases for their shorter range missiles where they would be a threat to the USSR. Ireland had lapsed into a form of clerical-fascism and welcomed increasing US involvement (it had also taken refugees from the Vatican and Franco's Spain). In early 1961, a new, hawkish, US President (Kennedy) was elected and began a covert operation to install US missiles in Ireland. Soviet intelligence quickly identified the sites and the Soviet leadership debated whether to try to resolve the matter diplomatically or militarily. The latter carried the risk of nuclear war as it would involve US and Soviet forces in direct combat.
In the end they opted to publicise the US actions and instigate a naval blockade. After 15 days, the US backed down and agreed to withdraw the missiles.
[1] – IRL the 'Stalingrad group', same commanders though, somewhat ironic as Stalin's cronies in the Red Army had been the group of officers who had defended Tsaritsyn in 1920.
[2] – this was deliberate. In 1935 at the 'Congress of Victors' Stalin had announced the end of class war in the USSR with the complete victory of the proletariat. Many of the CPSU members tried and executed in the purges were accused of representing other class interests – the two statements could not be reconciled. More directly, it avoided any question of the actions by which Stalin and his group (of which Kruschev had been a part) had come to power.
[3] – which in reverse was the problem with the various negotiations in the late 70s and the 1980s.
The period from 1953-56 was critical in the evolution of the post war world. Some were external such as in the Middle East and China, some were domestic (Kruschev's secret speech) and some involved the emerging USSR-US rivalry.
By late 1953 the Arab nationalists regimes in Syria and Egypt declared the formation of the United Arab Republic unifying their two states. In turn, they turned away from both the African Union and the USSR, stressing their regional identity. In March 1954, their combined armies attacked the remaining British possessions in Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. Initially the Soviets tried to mediate, fearing the growth of a large nationalist force on their southern borders. When the British both turned to the Americans for military help and started to gain the upper hand, Kruschev, under pressure from the armed forces, threatened intervention on behalf of the UAR forces. More directly, Soviet equipment was supplied to replace their losses and the ports in Southern Africa were closed to British shipping. This turned the tide and by late 1956, the British conceeded, with the entire region becoming part of the UAR.
This war set the tone for the next ten years. Up to 1954, USSR-US relations had been tense, but rarely seen as a direct contest. The USSR was trying to come to terms with its war time gains and the US with the consequences of its neutrality. The extension of US bases to Australia and New Zealand were of little real concern to the USSR. However, US support for the British was a different matter, not least in indicating the Americans were worried about their access to critical raw materials given direct and indirect Soviet control over critical regions.
A larger and more immediate crisis though broke out in Asia. Many Chinese nationalists were unhappy at the imposed structure in China and they, together with Indo China and Indonesia, objected to what they saw as the pro-Japanese bias of the Federation. The 'Sun Yat Sen' uprisings in March 1955 overthrew most of the regimes in the various Chinese republics and pronounced the creation of a united China. This presented the Soviets with a major dilemna. A direct invasion would restore the old order, but would take considerable effort and lose the USSR much international support (especially in Africa where the African Union was increasingly calling for the creation of a 'non-aligned' movement). Fortunately threats by the new Chinese government towards Tibet, Vietnam, Sinkiang and Manchuria (on the grounds of regaining historic lands) all isolated the new regime.
For the moment, the Soviets accepted the emergence of the two new power blocks. Whatever differences they had with the USSR, they were also unlikely to align to the USA. Over time the new China joined with India and the African Union in the non-aligned block and the Asian Federation gradually fell apart as first Indonesia and then Indo-China weakened their ties. Japan became increasingly tied to the USSR, given rivalry with the Americans it was critical to Soviet power in the Pacific region.
Instead, the focus of the Soviet leadership was almost entirely on domestic issues. After the death of Stalin, a group of his past associates, clustered around Beria, had tried to seize power. Widely hated in the Red Army for his role in the 1937-8 purges a group of officers around Koniev and Chuikov (known as the 'Kalinin-group' [1] as all had served in senior positions on that critical front) overthrew Beria, tried and executed him, For a moment, there was a possibility that the army would replace the party as the basis of the state. Kruschev's election as General-Secretary of the CPSU was a compromise. He had served in the Great Patriotic War in the Ukraine, he had also been a member of the Central Committee since the late 1930s. Critically he was relatively untainted by Stalin's crimes but was still seen as part of the Nomenklatura.
To balance these tensions, to a shocked Central Committee, with observers from all the other Communist Parties in the Soviet block, he delivered the famous 'secret speach' in early 1955. In it he denounced Stalin as having violated Soviet legality, in particular with the killing of almost 90% of the 1935 Central Committee, and the majority of the Red Army officers tried in 1937 [2]. The denunciation also included failing to prepare for the German assault, the failure to evacuate Murmansk and Archangelsk, the conduct of the Mars offensive as well as allowing the creation of the Moldavian salient that had derailed Soviet operations in the Ukraine and the Balkans for 6 months.
Inevitably news leaked out, first in theoretical party journals and then in the mainstream press. Many leaders of allied parties such as Ulbricht in the GDR, Theorez in France and Togliatti in Italy were closely associated with the Comintern in the pre war and war years. Togliatti distanced himself by denouncing the deaths of Italian communists who had sought asylum in Russia. Others were less astute and fell to either internal party coups or, as in France, were killed in street riots.
Kruschev was trapped. The 1953 uprisings had been relatively isolated and mostly external to the ruling parties. The events in late 1955 happened across Europe and weakened the resolve of many of the ruling Communist Parties. Their notional allies in government were able to use the revelations to demand reforms. In places such as Hungary, the Soviets responded by repression, but elsewhere it appeared as if the European Federation (and this was mostly a European issue) was going to break apart. The system was saved by two factors. One was that, Europe broadly accepted the post-war settlement and that economically it was delivering reconstruction and growing prosperity. In other words, the current structure benefitted from inertia.
More critical was the 'Congo incident'. The African Union had failed to resolve the tensions between those who wished to see an end to the artificial borders of the colonial powers and those who felt these formed a valid basis for the new confederation. In the Congo, this exploded into civil war as the surrounding countries sought to redraw the borders on ethnic and historic lines. The Congolese government turned to the US for support. At first covert, by early 1956 this saw the deployment of US combat troops. In turn, the Soviets stepped up support for the other states involved but kept short of committing regular forces.
By 1957 the US backed government was on the verge of defeat. However, the use of a US atomic bomb came close to causing a world war. At the time the Americans asserted it had been an accident and the subsequent trials supported this. However, not only did this lose the US influence in Africa, it also convinced the restive European regimes that their security lay in the Soviet block. By 1958, at Maastricht, a new set of arrangements for the Federation were agreed. Allowing greated plurality and greater economic independence in return for closer military integration, it addressed most of the problems in European-Soviet relations in the period 1952-8.
However, tensions with the US remained high. The result was a series of summits designed to reduce both the number of nuclear weapons held by each side and the number of missiles. The latter foundered on the Soviet demand that only ICBMs (Intercontinental Missiles) be counted and the US pointing to the ability of Soviet medium range missiles in Mexico to hit anywhere in the US. In return the Soviets stressed that US medium range missiles were a threat to the USSR's allies [3].
Seeking redress, the Americans sought bases for their shorter range missiles where they would be a threat to the USSR. Ireland had lapsed into a form of clerical-fascism and welcomed increasing US involvement (it had also taken refugees from the Vatican and Franco's Spain). In early 1961, a new, hawkish, US President (Kennedy) was elected and began a covert operation to install US missiles in Ireland. Soviet intelligence quickly identified the sites and the Soviet leadership debated whether to try to resolve the matter diplomatically or militarily. The latter carried the risk of nuclear war as it would involve US and Soviet forces in direct combat.
In the end they opted to publicise the US actions and instigate a naval blockade. After 15 days, the US backed down and agreed to withdraw the missiles.
[1] – IRL the 'Stalingrad group', same commanders though, somewhat ironic as Stalin's cronies in the Red Army had been the group of officers who had defended Tsaritsyn in 1920.
[2] – this was deliberate. In 1935 at the 'Congress of Victors' Stalin had announced the end of class war in the USSR with the complete victory of the proletariat. Many of the CPSU members tried and executed in the purges were accused of representing other class interests – the two statements could not be reconciled. More directly, it avoided any question of the actions by which Stalin and his group (of which Kruschev had been a part) had come to power.
[3] – which in reverse was the problem with the various negotiations in the late 70s and the 1980s.
Source Materials
Books:
Barber, J. & Harrison, M. 1991. The Soviet Home Front, 1941-45: A Social and Economic History of the U.S.S.R. in World War II, London, Longman.
(superb on the domestic aspect of the Great Patriotic War and the impact behind the lines)
Erickson, J. 1985. The Road to Stalingrad, London, Panther Books.
Erickson, J. 1985. The Road to Berlin, London, Panther Books.
(in combination, still the best English language treatment of the war from a Soviet perspective. He interviewed people like Koniev and had access to the, still sealed, Stavka archives. Blends the military campaigns with both Soviet domestic and international politics).
Grossman, V. 2006. A Writer at War, London, Random House.
(not a particularly great selection but its the only collection of his wartime journalism in English. Depending on your politics the intro may have you spitting blood, but the content is a soldiers-eye view of the war and explodes the myth that all Soviet journalism was just propoganda).
If you find War and Peace too jolly, read his "Life and Fate", a semi-fictional treatment of the Stalingrad campaign (which, given he was there, is surprisingly sympathetic to the plight of the German soldiers in Sixth Army).
There is more on journalism during the war in Philp Knightley's The First Casualty (a history of war journalism from the Crimea to the Falklands). The chapter on the Great Patriotic War – The Struggle for Mother Russia – is interesting, not least the prominance he gives to Curzio Malaparte, war correspondent for the Corriere della Sera till the Germans had him banned (by July 1941 he was writing that the Soviets would win, which didn't please them as he was accredited to cover the Wehrmacht. After his banning he covered the war to 1943 from Finland).
Lots of material by David Glantz who bothered to look at what the Soviets did as opposed to what the Germans claimed they did. Some good ones are:
Glantz, D. M. 1991. Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942, New York, Ian Allen Publishing.
Glantz, D. M. & House, J. M. 1998. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, Kansas, University of Kansas.
His work on August Storm is available freely online here
Images:
I found stuff all over the place, some just by running searches (switching google to a .ru and running simple cyrillic searches will generate a lot). Of the mostly English language websites, the following were especially useful (be aware there are swastikas and other things not appropriate for the Paradox forum on some of these links).
Images and Soviet military doctrinal material
This is simply brilliant, if you can read Russian there is a huge volume of original source material on there as well as photographs, even if you switch to English there are real gems. The images, maps of Soviet artillery fire zones, early war discussions of anti-tank tactics, Soviet tactics to deal with Tiger tanks etc etc.
This is useful, but horribly organised and slow to load - but the range of material is impressive.
Another really good source is well organised and covers the airforce and some aspects of the fleet
You need to be able to at least transliterate cyrillic for this but its the best collection of naval images I found.
Despite the title, this is good for aircraft images
More aircraft can be found here.
Posters
Soviet war time propoganda posters can be found here. The wider site has them for all the main combatents.
Maps
Superb source of war time maps mostly covering Poland and the Western USSR but also Central Europe, some are German some are from UK/US sources
A complete map set of the Western USSR at 1:100,000, mostly from the 1950s (& courtesy of the CIA) but good enough for the Great Patriotic War era
Part of this wider resource are maps of the former USSR, with Japan, China (1950s, 1:250,000) in its entirety and Manchuria.
In general the University of Texas archive is a goldmine of historical maps.
Books:
Barber, J. & Harrison, M. 1991. The Soviet Home Front, 1941-45: A Social and Economic History of the U.S.S.R. in World War II, London, Longman.
(superb on the domestic aspect of the Great Patriotic War and the impact behind the lines)
Erickson, J. 1985. The Road to Stalingrad, London, Panther Books.
Erickson, J. 1985. The Road to Berlin, London, Panther Books.
(in combination, still the best English language treatment of the war from a Soviet perspective. He interviewed people like Koniev and had access to the, still sealed, Stavka archives. Blends the military campaigns with both Soviet domestic and international politics).
Grossman, V. 2006. A Writer at War, London, Random House.
(not a particularly great selection but its the only collection of his wartime journalism in English. Depending on your politics the intro may have you spitting blood, but the content is a soldiers-eye view of the war and explodes the myth that all Soviet journalism was just propoganda).
If you find War and Peace too jolly, read his "Life and Fate", a semi-fictional treatment of the Stalingrad campaign (which, given he was there, is surprisingly sympathetic to the plight of the German soldiers in Sixth Army).
There is more on journalism during the war in Philp Knightley's The First Casualty (a history of war journalism from the Crimea to the Falklands). The chapter on the Great Patriotic War – The Struggle for Mother Russia – is interesting, not least the prominance he gives to Curzio Malaparte, war correspondent for the Corriere della Sera till the Germans had him banned (by July 1941 he was writing that the Soviets would win, which didn't please them as he was accredited to cover the Wehrmacht. After his banning he covered the war to 1943 from Finland).
Lots of material by David Glantz who bothered to look at what the Soviets did as opposed to what the Germans claimed they did. Some good ones are:
Glantz, D. M. 1991. Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942, New York, Ian Allen Publishing.
Glantz, D. M. & House, J. M. 1998. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, Kansas, University of Kansas.
His work on August Storm is available freely online here
Images:
I found stuff all over the place, some just by running searches (switching google to a .ru and running simple cyrillic searches will generate a lot). Of the mostly English language websites, the following were especially useful (be aware there are swastikas and other things not appropriate for the Paradox forum on some of these links).
Images and Soviet military doctrinal material
This is simply brilliant, if you can read Russian there is a huge volume of original source material on there as well as photographs, even if you switch to English there are real gems. The images, maps of Soviet artillery fire zones, early war discussions of anti-tank tactics, Soviet tactics to deal with Tiger tanks etc etc.
This is useful, but horribly organised and slow to load - but the range of material is impressive.
Another really good source is well organised and covers the airforce and some aspects of the fleet
You need to be able to at least transliterate cyrillic for this but its the best collection of naval images I found.
Despite the title, this is good for aircraft images
More aircraft can be found here.
Posters
Soviet war time propoganda posters can be found here. The wider site has them for all the main combatents.
Maps
Superb source of war time maps mostly covering Poland and the Western USSR but also Central Europe, some are German some are from UK/US sources
A complete map set of the Western USSR at 1:100,000, mostly from the 1950s (& courtesy of the CIA) but good enough for the Great Patriotic War era
Part of this wider resource are maps of the former USSR, with Japan, China (1950s, 1:250,000) in its entirety and Manchuria.
In general the University of Texas archive is a goldmine of historical maps.
Last edited:
Thanks for the list of links, I'll have to delve into them some.
Nice coda to the story. I note the irony of the missile talks, the Irish Missile Crisis, the highly aggressive John F. Kennedy and your version of the Maastricht Treaty. I'm sure I'm missing quite a few still.
By the way, that's one scary UAR... The British will have to reinvent the electric car, if they want to keep people driving, I think.
Nice coda to the story. I note the irony of the missile talks, the Irish Missile Crisis, the highly aggressive John F. Kennedy and your version of the Maastricht Treaty.
I'm sure I'm missing quite a few still.By the way, that's one scary UAR... The British will have to reinvent the electric car, if they want to keep people driving, I think.