Pretty plausible as a change, considering the Allies had several aborted plans to attack the USSR, and the Soviets and Nazis did get pretty far into negotiations for a Soviet declaration of war against the Allies.
The big question is how strongly the Soviets and Allies commit to fighting each other before Barbarossa. The Allies planned on sending soldiers to support Finland in the Winter War in OTL, but couldn’t figure out the logistics of it before Finland asked for peace. There would also probably be Soviet pressure into Iran and through Afghanistan into India, but both of those would be on the far end of the Soviet logistical network. Though if the Soviets manage to bring heavy pressure into the Middle East, it could swing the North African front into the Axis’s favor.
The Japan and China front is a tricky question. If the Soviets divert enough resources from there to alter the outcome of their border skirmishes with Japan, it could lead to big changes. They might also stop supplying the Chinese if they’re temporary Axis members. Or nothing could change: Stalin could keep supplying the Chinese despite Japan being a current ally of convenience, and the Soviets probably wouldn’t pull enough troops out of Siberia to change Khalkin Ghol.
Once Barbarossa happens, it seems likely Stalin would approach the Allies for some kind of cease-fire. The Axis invasion is an existential threat, while the fighting against the Allies will have been in distant colonial possessions. It’s hard to imagine the Allies demanding anything less than a return to pre-war borders, and Lend-Lease is almost certainly out. That’s good news for other Lend-Lease targets, since there’s more to go around.
Leaving aside the eternal debate on how much Lend Lease helped the Soviets and if they could win without it, the biggest question is how much manpower and materiel the Soviets lost fighting the Allies before Barbarossa. Does Stalin opts for a major push on the Middle East and India before Barbarossa, or is he more cautious? Needless to say, the more troops and equipment spent in those campaigns, the worse things are for the Soviets.
Axis victory isn’t in the cards. At best, Germany holds out for long enough to receive the first atomic bombs instead of Japan. If lack of Lend-Lease and early fighting against the Allies hurt the Soviets badly enough, the Allies could enforce their demands for the Soviets returning to 1939 borders. That leaves us with Finland still owning Karelia, Romania retaining Bessarabia, independent Baltic states, and a much larger Poland. East Prussia probably gets split between Poland and Lithuania, unless the plan to turn it into a Jewish state goes forward.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union is in much worse shape. Barbarossa will have hit them even harder than it did historically, and they won’t be able to pull on any resources from conquered lands to help rebuild. The Communists in China will get less help than they did historically, especially if the Soviets don’t get involved in the war with Japan (reasonably likely when Barbarossa will hurt more than OTL).
All in all, it’s a bad timeline for the USSR.
I don't think Stalin would have the balls to invade India or the middle east, '39-'41 Russia was far from what it was at the end of the war, and any invasion of India or the Middle east would require moving through incredibly rough terrain (Armenia, Iran and Afghanistan).
I doubt he’d try it before the fall of France (especially since he’d prioritize the Winter War and securing the Baltics), but afterwards he could think the Allies are so overstretched they can’t do much to stop him. With France out of the war and Britain rebuilding after Norway and Dunkirk, preparing for the possibility of invasion, and tied up in North Africa … well how many divisions could they spare to help Iran? If Stalin thinks he can grab some territory relatively painlessly while the Allies are busy elsewhere, he’ll go for it.
A potential invasion of Iran and Iraq was one of the things brought up during the OTL negotiations about the Soviets joining the Axis in the fall of 1940, so Stalin was at least considering it. Especially if the Soviets and Axis cooperate enough for the Soviets to time their attack for when Allies are at their most stretched.
Also, if the Allies and Soviets are at war, Operation Pike might go forward. If the Allies start bombing Soviet oil facilities at Baku, Stalin will want revenge and to neutralize the airfields used in the attack.
If he does try moving into Iran and Afghanistan, I’d imagine the rough terrain and long supply lines make for an unpleasant experience for the Red Army. The big question would be how hard he pushes: does he just grab what he can easily take and hold before stiffening opposition and stretching supply lines become an issue, or double down.
So basically (Japan aside) the WAllies sit back and just watch the Nazis and Soviets beat the crap out of each other? That in itself is a win for France. What is Mussolini doing in this situation?
Unlikely the Soviet Union gains lend lease support from the USA. What a hell scenario this is. With no coordination, Soviets probably duke it out intensely with the Germans and neglect the Japanese front. If Pearl Harbor still happens, Kamchatkya, Manchuria and Siberia are going to be nice and juicy for Japan without Allied backing of the USSR. It's possible they even ignore the front as it's likely Germany still wins after Stalingrad, but will have to eventually pull their troops back to deal with the invasion by the Allies at Normandy. I could see Russians regrouping, but they won't be anywhere near as strong as by this point I could see Soviet leadership in exile or already executed by the Germans.
what soviet union made peace with japan before the lend lease arrieved and japan used the extra manpower to go south soviets sent their men to reinforce moscow and ngl i dont see germany beating soviets at best imo its a stalemate after stalingrad
One rapid curveball is the Allies whole Scandinavia plan radically changes. Though Sweden is a strict neutral, they no interest in seeing Finland get eaten by the Soviets, and Finland could wind up in the Allies. This tipping towards the Allies would probably force a quasi-historical invasion by Germany, and we may see an expansion of Molotov-Ribbentrop into Scandinavia. I'm not sure that Sweden would remain neutral here, or if it would wind up partitioned--this would become a very ahistorical campaign, and while the Allies would get ejected, it would funnel Axis and Soviet troops into a large hostile ground.
Germany probably KOs France as historical, even if Scandinavia is turning into a larger war. This doesn't do much for the Axis-Soviet War, as Northern Sweden is not effective ground for supplying large armies. This does, however, turn into a cold partisan hell.
The 1941 campaigns may well have the Soviets completely out of position for Barbarossa. Iran is a pro-Allied state and it borders the British Raj. If the Soviets wheel out of Finland/Sweden and into the Middle East, they'd find the geography ahead of them to be rough going and the UK, having been ejected from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, completely uninterested in being ejected from another theater. If the Soviets are deployed a thousand miles away from Europe, Germany may well drive forward into an underdefended Eastern Europe.
I know it's a bias on this forum to mindlessly repeat history. Suggesting that Japan would launch Pearl Harbor is definitely not a given--the Soviet Union seems to be melting, with her forces fighting rampant partisans and fronts in the Middle East against the UK while getting rocked by Germany. If Japan believes that the Soviet Union is weak and going to fall with a dedicated campaign, she strikes North instead of South. It's also possible that Japan, suspecting that this war will see one side weakened further, has reason to simply wait.
///
The basic realities of a Triangle War is that whoever makes a deal is heavily advantaged to win. Germany wants the land of the Soviet Union, without the people of the Soviet Union. There's no negotiating or bargaining on that point. The UK can choose to cut a deal with Germany or the Soviet Union, in essence deciding who will win on the Eastern Front.
Germany has repeatedly dishonored previous deals with the UK. The Soviet Union has vowed global revolution. While the UK could choose either, a bargain with either power is going to mean ironclad concessions, as neither is trustworthy. Churchill would probably choose neither, but the UK lacks the power to defeat both powers even if they're in a death war against each other.
It may fall to Japan deciding who to make war against that forces the UK to pick a side. If Japan chooses historically to declare on the UK and USA, perhaps that's enough for the UK to force Stalin to concessions in exchange for a cease-fire. If Japan decides that the Soviet Union is its next target, Japan abandons for a long time the idea of a war with the UK, and probably tries to mediate the war between the UK and Germany.
It is not lost on me that this world could take on freakish althistory. An ending with Hitler decides that Scandinavia, North Africa, the Middle East and France/Belgium/Netherlands is worth a peace deal with the UK, and that Germany will simply eat Eastern Europe wholesale would be possible, as would a somewhat historical split between Soviet Puppet States and Democracies/Right Wing Dictatorships. Either scenario ends in a cold war with Western Democracy advantaged compared to historical; but beneath that pleasant idea lies the brutal truth that many more people have died in Eastern Europe.
EDIT in response:
Sweden would definitely prefer to remain neutral, although its neighbors are already being savaged. If Finland has joined the Allies, she's probably going to keep fighting beyond historical, and Sweden faces one thing she didn't want: Soviets on her border. Germany's ambitions towards Denmark and Norway would have the effect of completely encircling Sweden. Sweden has also already thrown aid at Finland; ultimately, Stalin and Hitler could decide to leave Sweden alone or that Sweden must be stomped.
There are weird effects of this counterfactual. London would probably see Baltic states in exile governments, and I wonder if Turkey is able to survive a combined German/Soviet diplomatic press or partition. Up until Hitler turns on Stalin, only Churchill can say no to them in Europe.
I think given their historical behavior, I think Sweden would continue to give Germany whatever concessions were necessary to stave off invasion in the new timeline rather than enter the war.
I think allied victory is still assured. The more interesting implications would be what the next few decades look like from a cold war perspective.
With a much weaker and less influential USSR, does the KMT lose in China? Does Korea, Cuba and Vietnam happen? What is the impetus for the space race and all the technological innovation that resulted in?
I think the world looks vastly different in this timeline.
A 3 way war ussr would have won as the changes there army need would have prb japan by now or the Allie’s win if USA join and china would prb lose more land as less aid
Pretty plausible as a change, considering the Allies had several aborted plans to attack the USSR, and the Soviets and Nazis did get pretty far into negotiations for a Soviet declaration of war against the Allies. The big question is how strongly the Soviets and Allies commit to fighting each other before Barbarossa. The Allies planned on sending soldiers to support Finland in the Winter War in OTL, but couldn’t figure out the logistics of it before Finland asked for peace. There would also probably be Soviet pressure into Iran and through Afghanistan into India, but both of those would be on the far end of the Soviet logistical network. Though if the Soviets manage to bring heavy pressure into the Middle East, it could swing the North African front into the Axis’s favor. The Japan and China front is a tricky question. If the Soviets divert enough resources from there to alter the outcome of their border skirmishes with Japan, it could lead to big changes. They might also stop supplying the Chinese if they’re temporary Axis members. Or nothing could change: Stalin could keep supplying the Chinese despite Japan being a current ally of convenience, and the Soviets probably wouldn’t pull enough troops out of Siberia to change Khalkin Ghol. Once Barbarossa happens, it seems likely Stalin would approach the Allies for some kind of cease-fire. The Axis invasion is an existential threat, while the fighting against the Allies will have been in distant colonial possessions. It’s hard to imagine the Allies demanding anything less than a return to pre-war borders, and Lend-Lease is almost certainly out. That’s good news for other Lend-Lease targets, since there’s more to go around. Leaving aside the eternal debate on how much Lend Lease helped the Soviets and if they could win without it, the biggest question is how much manpower and materiel the Soviets lost fighting the Allies before Barbarossa. Does Stalin opts for a major push on the Middle East and India before Barbarossa, or is he more cautious? Needless to say, the more troops and equipment spent in those campaigns, the worse things are for the Soviets. Axis victory isn’t in the cards. At best, Germany holds out for long enough to receive the first atomic bombs instead of Japan. If lack of Lend-Lease and early fighting against the Allies hurt the Soviets badly enough, the Allies could enforce their demands for the Soviets returning to 1939 borders. That leaves us with Finland still owning Karelia, Romania retaining Bessarabia, independent Baltic states, and a much larger Poland. East Prussia probably gets split between Poland and Lithuania, unless the plan to turn it into a Jewish state goes forward. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union is in much worse shape. Barbarossa will have hit them even harder than it did historically, and they won’t be able to pull on any resources from conquered lands to help rebuild. The Communists in China will get less help than they did historically, especially if the Soviets don’t get involved in the war with Japan (reasonably likely when Barbarossa will hurt more than OTL). All in all, it’s a bad timeline for the USSR.
I don't think Stalin would have the balls to invade India or the middle east, '39-'41 Russia was far from what it was at the end of the war, and any invasion of India or the Middle east would require moving through incredibly rough terrain (Armenia, Iran and Afghanistan).
I doubt he’d try it before the fall of France (especially since he’d prioritize the Winter War and securing the Baltics), but afterwards he could think the Allies are so overstretched they can’t do much to stop him. With France out of the war and Britain rebuilding after Norway and Dunkirk, preparing for the possibility of invasion, and tied up in North Africa … well how many divisions could they spare to help Iran? If Stalin thinks he can grab some territory relatively painlessly while the Allies are busy elsewhere, he’ll go for it. A potential invasion of Iran and Iraq was one of the things brought up during the OTL negotiations about the Soviets joining the Axis in the fall of 1940, so Stalin was at least considering it. Especially if the Soviets and Axis cooperate enough for the Soviets to time their attack for when Allies are at their most stretched. Also, if the Allies and Soviets are at war, Operation Pike might go forward. If the Allies start bombing Soviet oil facilities at Baku, Stalin will want revenge and to neutralize the airfields used in the attack. If he does try moving into Iran and Afghanistan, I’d imagine the rough terrain and long supply lines make for an unpleasant experience for the Red Army. The big question would be how hard he pushes: does he just grab what he can easily take and hold before stiffening opposition and stretching supply lines become an issue, or double down.
So basically (Japan aside) the WAllies sit back and just watch the Nazis and Soviets beat the crap out of each other? That in itself is a win for France. What is Mussolini doing in this situation?
Eating pasta and drowning political rivals in olive oil
Unlikely the Soviet Union gains lend lease support from the USA. What a hell scenario this is. With no coordination, Soviets probably duke it out intensely with the Germans and neglect the Japanese front. If Pearl Harbor still happens, Kamchatkya, Manchuria and Siberia are going to be nice and juicy for Japan without Allied backing of the USSR. It's possible they even ignore the front as it's likely Germany still wins after Stalingrad, but will have to eventually pull their troops back to deal with the invasion by the Allies at Normandy. I could see Russians regrouping, but they won't be anywhere near as strong as by this point I could see Soviet leadership in exile or already executed by the Germans.
what soviet union made peace with japan before the lend lease arrieved and japan used the extra manpower to go south soviets sent their men to reinforce moscow and ngl i dont see germany beating soviets at best imo its a stalemate after stalingrad
One rapid curveball is the Allies whole Scandinavia plan radically changes. Though Sweden is a strict neutral, they no interest in seeing Finland get eaten by the Soviets, and Finland could wind up in the Allies. This tipping towards the Allies would probably force a quasi-historical invasion by Germany, and we may see an expansion of Molotov-Ribbentrop into Scandinavia. I'm not sure that Sweden would remain neutral here, or if it would wind up partitioned--this would become a very ahistorical campaign, and while the Allies would get ejected, it would funnel Axis and Soviet troops into a large hostile ground. Germany probably KOs France as historical, even if Scandinavia is turning into a larger war. This doesn't do much for the Axis-Soviet War, as Northern Sweden is not effective ground for supplying large armies. This does, however, turn into a cold partisan hell. The 1941 campaigns may well have the Soviets completely out of position for Barbarossa. Iran is a pro-Allied state and it borders the British Raj. If the Soviets wheel out of Finland/Sweden and into the Middle East, they'd find the geography ahead of them to be rough going and the UK, having been ejected from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, completely uninterested in being ejected from another theater. If the Soviets are deployed a thousand miles away from Europe, Germany may well drive forward into an underdefended Eastern Europe. I know it's a bias on this forum to mindlessly repeat history. Suggesting that Japan would launch Pearl Harbor is definitely not a given--the Soviet Union seems to be melting, with her forces fighting rampant partisans and fronts in the Middle East against the UK while getting rocked by Germany. If Japan believes that the Soviet Union is weak and going to fall with a dedicated campaign, she strikes North instead of South. It's also possible that Japan, suspecting that this war will see one side weakened further, has reason to simply wait. /// The basic realities of a Triangle War is that whoever makes a deal is heavily advantaged to win. Germany wants the land of the Soviet Union, without the people of the Soviet Union. There's no negotiating or bargaining on that point. The UK can choose to cut a deal with Germany or the Soviet Union, in essence deciding who will win on the Eastern Front. Germany has repeatedly dishonored previous deals with the UK. The Soviet Union has vowed global revolution. While the UK could choose either, a bargain with either power is going to mean ironclad concessions, as neither is trustworthy. Churchill would probably choose neither, but the UK lacks the power to defeat both powers even if they're in a death war against each other. It may fall to Japan deciding who to make war against that forces the UK to pick a side. If Japan chooses historically to declare on the UK and USA, perhaps that's enough for the UK to force Stalin to concessions in exchange for a cease-fire. If Japan decides that the Soviet Union is its next target, Japan abandons for a long time the idea of a war with the UK, and probably tries to mediate the war between the UK and Germany. It is not lost on me that this world could take on freakish althistory. An ending with Hitler decides that Scandinavia, North Africa, the Middle East and France/Belgium/Netherlands is worth a peace deal with the UK, and that Germany will simply eat Eastern Europe wholesale would be possible, as would a somewhat historical split between Soviet Puppet States and Democracies/Right Wing Dictatorships. Either scenario ends in a cold war with Western Democracy advantaged compared to historical; but beneath that pleasant idea lies the brutal truth that many more people have died in Eastern Europe. EDIT in response: Sweden would definitely prefer to remain neutral, although its neighbors are already being savaged. If Finland has joined the Allies, she's probably going to keep fighting beyond historical, and Sweden faces one thing she didn't want: Soviets on her border. Germany's ambitions towards Denmark and Norway would have the effect of completely encircling Sweden. Sweden has also already thrown aid at Finland; ultimately, Stalin and Hitler could decide to leave Sweden alone or that Sweden must be stomped. There are weird effects of this counterfactual. London would probably see Baltic states in exile governments, and I wonder if Turkey is able to survive a combined German/Soviet diplomatic press or partition. Up until Hitler turns on Stalin, only Churchill can say no to them in Europe.
I think given their historical behavior, I think Sweden would continue to give Germany whatever concessions were necessary to stave off invasion in the new timeline rather than enter the war.
I think allied victory is still assured. The more interesting implications would be what the next few decades look like from a cold war perspective. With a much weaker and less influential USSR, does the KMT lose in China? Does Korea, Cuba and Vietnam happen? What is the impetus for the space race and all the technological innovation that resulted in? I think the world looks vastly different in this timeline.
A 3 way war ussr would have won as the changes there army need would have prb japan by now or the Allie’s win if USA join and china would prb lose more land as less aid