WWII is a three- sided war and should be possble to Axis to turn the allies SU

[Dalwin]

MAD didn't really kick in until the late 50s early 60s when the numbers of nukes got up there. They had plenty of time to fight a total war if they were willing to sustain casaulties on the WWII level again.

(Is it simply MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, and not Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine? You are probably right and also get to avoid confusion with Mothers Aganst Drunk Driving).

The phrase MAD was not coined until well into the Cold War. That is true. But even earlier the concept that a conventional war involving the superpowers could easily escalate into a nuclear exchange was a pretty strong deterrent to having the superpowers go directly at each other instead of supporting various brushwars around the globe. MAD technically did not apply until both sides had enough nukes to guarrantee total anihilation. The deterrent concept was strong long before that, however.

 

[keynes2.0]

I've heard it both ways.

I wasn't talking so much about the rise of the term as that nuclear weapons while scary were also scarce in the immediate postwar.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

I'd say that these arsenals were weapons rather then deterrent of annihilation until they passed 100 or so. If it was a complete destruction situation like WWII the soviets would have struck in 1946 when the number of bombs hadn't ramped up yet. The prospect of hundreds of thousands dead isn't so apocolyptic when you have just experienced the loss of tens of millions.

If the US really saw the Soviets as the same kind of threat as the Nazis the logical thing would have been to strike first in 1952 or so. Against a truly existential threat they could just abandon their allies in western Europe to occupation and hit the Soviets with hundreds of nukes a year and keep the Soviets from the ability to respond in kind. The US was willing to engage in indiscriminate bombing of civilians in WWII after all, they just lacked such powerful weapons.

In the late 50s the Soviets have enough weapons that the threat is mutual not one sided. But in order to get to that point both sides need to decide that struggle isn't one of total destruction. First the Soviets need to decide that they shouldn't strike first in the 1940s. Then the Americans need to decide they shouldn't strike first in the 1950s. Hitler saw the rising power of the Soviets and decided to fight them as soon as possible because he believed no long term peace was possible so it was best to fight a war of total annihilation sooner. Neither the Soviets or Americans showed a similar way of thinking about each other. They didn't even think that way about Hitler before WWII, it was the conflict itself that convinced them of the need of total war.

So while a war between western powers and NATO was certainly possible a total war along the lines of WWII does not seem very plausible to me. Both sides were willing to limit the range of conflict when it came to each other.

 

[Beagá]

Or what if the Germans made some back room deals with Allies to keep Danzig and parts of west Prussia in return for independence of Poland and Cechs, peace, and helping tackle the Great bear.

If Russia was agressive ok, if it wasn´t, pointless for the allies. They weren´t stupid.

 

[Dalwin]

I've heard it both ways.

I wasn't talking so much about the rise of the term as that nuclear weapons while scary were also scarce in the immediate postwar.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

I'd say that these arsenals were weapons rather then deterrent of annihilation until they passed 100 or so. If it was a complete destruction situation like WWII the soviets would have struck in 1946 when the number of bombs hadn't ramped up yet. The prospect of hundreds of thousands dead isn't so apocolyptic when you have just experienced the loss of tens of millions.

If the US really saw the Soviets as the same kind of threat as the Nazis the logical thing would have been to strike first in 1952 or so. Against a truly existential threat they could just abandon their allies in western Europe to occupation and hit the Soviets with hundreds of nukes a year and keep the Soviets from the ability to respond in kind. The US was willing to engage in indiscriminate bombing of civilians in WWII after all, they just lacked such powerful weapons.

In the late 50s the Soviets have enough weapons that the threat is mutual not one sided. But in order to get to that point both sides need to decide that struggle isn't one of total destruction. First the Soviets need to decide that they shouldn't strike first in the 1940s. Then the Americans need to decide they shouldn't strike first in the 1950s. Hitler saw the rising power of the Soviets and decided to fight them as soon as possible because he believed no long term peace was possible so it was best to fight a war of total annihilation sooner. Neither the Soviets or Americans showed a similar way of thinking about each other. They didn't even think that way about Hitler before WWII, it was the conflict itself that convinced them of the need of total war.

So while a war between western powers and NATO was certainly possible a total war along the lines of WWII does not seem very plausible to me. Both sides were willing to limit the range of conflict when it came to each other.

All true, but now let's take it back to a hypothetical realignment caused by deviations from history much earlier than 1945.

Just for the sake of argument let's say the Germans get bogged down in France and that front gets stalemated. Let's also say that instead of turning on Germany for what would certainly have been another two front war that the Germans cannot handle that the Soviets instead decided to start annexing various eastern European and Balkan nations, maybe even going so far as to threaten Turkey and the Middle East.

Is it not at least conceivable under those circumstances that the Axis and Western Allies might agree to an armistice and turn their combined efforts to countering the Communist threat since it would now appear to be a much larger threat in the long run than the Germans who are stalemated in France?

 

[Beagá]

A communist DOW on Turkey would rise some eyebrows even in the US. But even if the soveits did that the main allied focus would be Germany and THEN SU, unless Germany gave up on ALL its claims and returned to 1936 status quo.

 

[Dalwin]

A communist DOW on Turkey would rise some eyebrows even in the US. But even if the soveits did that the main allied focus would be Germany and THEN SU, unless Germany gave up on ALL its claims and returned to 1936 status quo.

I agree that any armistice involving the Germans who are in this hypothetical example stalemated in France would have to involve at the very least releasing Poland, perhaps Czechoslovakia as well. I also think in this situation it is not unlikely that they would agree to do so considering that their position in this scenario is completely untenable. Give back Poland and Czechoslovakia and help us fight the Reds is a much better deal than they got at Versailles.

Edit: Denmark too. Austria might still be debatable because of the nature of the Anschluss.

 

[keynes2.0]

I agree that any armistice involving the Germans who are in this hypothetical example stalemated in France would have to involve at the very least releasing Poland, perhaps Czechoslovakia as well. I also think in this situation it is not unlikely that they would agree to do so considering that their position in this scenario is completely untenable. Give back Poland and Czechoslovakia and help us fight the Reds is a much better deal than they got at Versailles.

Edit: Denmark too. Austria might still be debatable because of the nature of the Anschluss.

The kind of Germany that would see the merits of terms like that would the kind of Germany that wouldn't have started the conflict in the first place IMHO. But even if an agreement was possible I don't see a big war breaking out with the Soviets. The Soviets were pretty careful to avoid diplomatic isolation. They needed to make sure that they had a trading partner to the west that would supply them with what they needed for their industrialization programs. So they only invaded Poland under the framework of the pact which kept them from being alone against the world. They only invaded Finland and the Baltics when Germany had renounced their protection. When France and Britain drew a line in the sand over Poland, Hitler escalated the conflict then crossed that line. If Stalin saw a similar line in the sand over Turkey or Norway he wouldn't want to escalate the issue. Hitler wanted a cataclysmic war, Stalin did not. Conflict could happen but total war could not.

 

[Dalwin]

The kind of Germany that would see the merits of terms like that would the kind of Germany that wouldn't have started the conflict in the first place IMHO. But even if an agreement was possible I don't see a big war breaking out with the Soviets. The Soviets were pretty careful to avoid diplomatic isolation. They needed to make sure that they had a trading partner to the west that would supply them with what they needed for their industrialization programs. So they only invaded Poland under the framework of the pact which kept them from being alone against the world. They only invaded Finland and the Baltics when Germany had renounced their protection. When France and Britain drew a line in the sand over Poland, Hitler escalated the conflict then crossed that line. If Stalin saw a similar line in the sand over Turkey or Norway he wouldn't want to escalate the issue. Hitler wanted a cataclysmic war, Stalin did not. Conflict could happen but total war could not.

Even if I accept every point you just made as a given, there is something important being overlooked. It is not really your intentions that matter. It is others' perception of your intentions that determines their actions. Maybe Stalin would not have considered crossing the line and hitting Turkey. The rest of the world could not read his mind. How much trust would they have had in him to keep his word concerning Turkey if he had already annexed Romania and Bulgaria?

 

[Big Nev]

I think there is merit in the OP’s idea.

Bear in mind that Churchill seriously considered war with the Soviets immediately following the defeat of Germany. Anybody heard of Operation Unthinkable?

Once hostilities had broken out with the West, I think it's extremely unlikely that The Allies could have joined forces with Germany under any circumstances. However, Stalin's early moves & behaviour could certainly have had enormous effect on Allied strategy regarding, for example, aid sent to Russia. I'm actually surprised that Britain helped Russia at all considering Stalin's actions of 17th September 39. The German invasion of Poland was the final straw for The Allies. But the Russian invasion triggered no response, after which Britain sent large amounts of aid to Russia following the German DoW.

The USA, of course, sent staggering amounts of aid to Russia. I would state that without this aid from her Western "allies", the war with Germany would have been very different. How much further Germany would have penetrated is up for debate, but that Germany would have penetrated more deeply is, I think, simply obvious. Also, without this aid from the West, Russia would not have been in as strong a position militarily (or geographically) after Germany was defeated. And Germany would have been defeated. Her industry would still have been torn down by bombing and the resources sent to Russia could simply have been used in Italy & France instead.

The concept of MAD during the game period is not, IMHO, appropriate as the early atomic weapons were neither of sufficient power nor available in sufficient quantity. By August 1946, there were only nine cores for the Fat Man weapons complete.

By December 1948, there were 53 Fat Man cores available and there was also enough bomb-grade material for an additional ten Little Boy weapons. Russia conducted her first successful atomic bomb test in August 1949. Not assured destruction, and certainly not mutual.

So… theoretically at least, war with the Soviets should certainly be possible from a number of different scenarios.

 

[keynes2.0]

Even if I accept every point you just made as a given, there is something important being overlooked. It is not really your intentions that matter. It is others' perception of your intentions that determines their actions. Maybe Stalin would not have considered crossing the line and hitting Turkey. The rest of the world could not read his mind. How much trust would they have had in him to keep his word concerning Turkey if he had already annexed Romania and Bulgaria?

What, they're going to preemptively declare war on him because they think he's threatening Turkey?

 

[EmperorTojo]

I think there is merit in the OP’s idea.

Bear in mind that Churchill seriously considered war with the Soviets immediately following the defeat of Germany. Anybody heard of Operation Unthinkable?

He did consider a war with the Soviet Union, a defensive war. Had the soviets declared war on the allies there and then they would have been overrun in Germany, at least.

 

[geogus]

Re read all the posts, and it seems to me that majority considers possible that according to early game politics the three side could align diferent (for instance allies and Axis VS SU and maybe Japan).

But most think that the alliances should not change during the course of the game.

IMO, paradox games are about alternati history. U pick an historical starting point and build a new history.

I think that are under circunstances, it should be possible to change alliances during war.

I cant see Uk and US accpeting a continental socialist Europe without doing nothing

 

[keynes2.0]

I cant see Uk and US accpeting a continental socialist Europe without doing nothing

I can't either, but Stalin wasn't going to start a war against a superior force trying that.

 

[Dalwin]

I can't either, but Stalin wasn't going to start a war against a superior force trying that.

You seem to "know" an awful lot about what Stalin would and would not do. By making those assumptions and trying to take allowing for such things off the table, I think you are losinig sight of the fact that this is a game. That it might be me instead of Uncle Joe leading the Soviets. If the game does not allow for such possibilities then it will have no good way to deal with them when my Soviets start annexing the Balkans etc.

If the comeback is that I as the Soviet player am to blame for derailing the game by doing something so ahistorical, then we are back to a game that falls apart if the players make any major deviations at all, back to a game where WWII does not even happen if Italy attacks Austria in 1937.

 

[Fawr]

Personally I'd prefer options like this to be part of the options you can select at the start of the game. If the Soviets ally with Germany that changes the difficulty level of the game quite significantly (easier for Germany, harder for the allies), so why not put it with the rest of the game's difficulty levels?

 

[Big Nev]

He did consider a war with the Soviet Union, a defensive war. Had the soviets declared war on the allies there and then they would have been overrun in Germany, at least.

Actually, Operation Unthinkable started out as an offensive plan to make sure the Sov's stuck to the deal.

There were also elements that thought it would be a good idea to stamp-out Communism straight away, you know, while we're at it sort of thing.

It was only changed to a defensive plan when the Allies did the math & realised they were outnumbered about two-to-one in tanks and worse in other areas.

So much aid from Uncle Sam.

 

[scroggin]

I can see the possibility of the allies fighting the soviet union If;
1 the soviet union went on the offensive in finland the Baltic and romania before Germany attacked Poland
2 Germany allied with The Soviet union
3 Germany was easily defeated early on and the allies thought it possible to drive the Soviets out of Poland

During the Russian revolution Britain had sided with the White Russians and sent troops to fight against the Soviets in the Murmansk peninsula. The biggest supporter in Parliament of this expeditionary force was a man named Winston Churchill.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Actually, Operation Unthinkable started out as an offensive plan to make sure the Sov's stuck to the deal.

There were also elements that thought it would be a good idea to stamp-out Communism straight away, you know, while we're at it sort of thing.

It was only changed to a defensive plan when the Allies did the math & realised they were outnumbered about two-to-one in tanks and worse in other areas.

So much aid from Uncle Sam.

Pretty much.

 

[Secret Master]

I can see the possibility of the allies fighting the soviet union If;
1 the soviet union went on the offensive in finland the Baltic and romania before Germany attacked Poland

HOI3 already models that. Go DOW Finland in 1938, and annex it, and then DOW Sweden. See what Britain does.

2 Germany allied with The Soviet union

HOI3 models this as well, with the Soviets offering Germany an unholy alliance in the M-R Pact event chain. The AI always refuses, but humans could ally them together.

3 Germany was easily defeated early on and the allies thought it possible to drive the Soviets out of Poland

The AI won't do this in HOI3, but a human could if they so chose. I've done it before (as the US, for reasons that it would take too long to explain).

 

[Mannstien]

I've not seen any MP games or AAR's for that matter where an Unholy Alliance was formed but that would be awesome to see.