What If: Stalin was sincere?

[abc123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note

What if Stalin was sincere and all of this was not some scam of his to conquer Europe and brake NATO?
What if West and West Germany accepted the offer, and free elections were held in Germany, with international supervision ( Supreme Electoral Commission with 9 members: one from USA, one from UK, one from France, one from USSR, one from East Germany, one from West germany, one from Hungary one from Ireland and one from Switzerland ).

What butterflies are in this case?

[LeoXiao]

Germany goes pro-West in the next couple of years, but the Cold War in Europe isn't as heated since the NATO/WP armies aren't sitting right next to each other.

Also, if Stalin truly wanted a neutral Germany, that means that the rejection by the West would have been another reason for the USSR to be paranoid about the intentions of NATO.

[grdja83]

Well he might have wanted to cut wasting resources on keeping DDR in line. And to have a huge "look we aren't that bad" symbol.

Think of Finland after WWII. They might have seriously considered a similar but much more disarmed solution for Germany.

[abc123]

Well he might have wanted to cut wasting resources on keeping DDR in line. And to have a huge "look we aren't that bad" symbol.

Think of Finland after WWII. They might have seriously considered a similar but much more disarmed solution for Germany.


So, what would Germany look like in this scenario of unification by 1954.?

Let's say that occupying powers get right to keep its forces in Germany for next 5 years, and after that no mote than 10 000 soldiers and one airbase for another 10 years.

Are this limitations for Germany realistical:


Germany agreed to limit its combined armed forces (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Armed_forces) to no more than 370,000 personnel, no more than 345,000 of whom were to be in the Army (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Army) and the Air Force (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Air_Force) (Luftwaffe (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Luftwaffe)). Germany also reaffirmed its renunciation of the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and in particular, that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) would continue to apply in full to the unified Germany (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Germany) (the Federal Republic of Germany (http://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Germany))

?

[aktarian]

I guess it would draw germany and Austria close together, both being forcibly neutral. Likely closer cooperation with Sweden, maybe Finland

EEC would be just France, Benelux and Italy. EEC would stay common market only thing and would go down EU road, trying for stronger integration. maybe alternate, EFTA-like treaty covering Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland and maybe Switzerland

[abc123]

I guess it would draw germany and Austria close together, both being forcibly neutral. Likely closer cooperation with Sweden, maybe Finland

EEC would be just France, Benelux and Italy. EEC would stay common market only thing and would go down EU road, trying for stronger integration. maybe alternate, EFTA-like treaty covering Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland and maybe Switzerland


Intresting ideas.
But i dont know would Soviets object that Germany becomes a part of some economical organisation?

So, no Britain in EFTA? ( because she is in NATO )
Maybe Britain in EEC from beginning?

[wolf_brother]

OK, sitting POD aside, we have at TL with a reunified, western-leaning, demilitarized Germany by '54 or so. How does this affect things like the Hungarian Revolution in '56?

[abc123]

OK, sitting POD aside, we have at TL with a reunified, western-leaning, demilitarized Germany by '54 or so. How does this affect things like the Hungarian Revolution in '56?

Not demilitarised, just with very limited military. About 370 000 soldiers max., profesional military, no NBC weapons, no nuclear submarines, no aircraft carriers, no balistic missiles...

;)

Well, I don't think that this effects a lot on Hungarian Revolution.
;)

But, it can affect french leawing of NATO ( not goeing to happen, they are now a first line of defense ), Britain's entry into EEC from the beginning, shape of EFTA...

[loughery111]

Not demilitarised, just with very limited military. About 370 000 soldiers max., profesional military, no NBC weapons, no nuclear submarines, no aircraft carriers, no balistic missiles...

;)

Well, I don't think that this effects a lot on Hungarian Revolution.
;)

But, it can affect french leawing of NATO ( not goeing to happen, they are now a first line of defense ), Britain's entry into EEC from the beginning, shape of EFTA...

What was the OTL peak number of West German armed forces? I don't know that 370,000 sounds all that disarmed, though I admit the I'm not old enough to remember the last time they might actually have an enemy to fight.

EDIT: Looked it up, 500,000 was about the maximum. If the Germans really feel threatened, they could technically start outsourcing rear-area and logistical duties to free up more shooters for their new quota. It would be easy to build a force as effective as the OTL Bundeswehr under this limit.

[Susano]

Stalin WAS sincere. It was Adenauer who sabotaged the project. Not because he had the power to do so, after all the FRG was not yet a fully souvereign country, but because the Americans trusted his advise. Per se, though, the Americans were ready to entertain the thought, so with a different FRG government it might happen.

[abc123]

Stalin WAS sincere. It was Adenauer who sabotaged the project. Not because he had the power to do so, after all the FRG was not yet a fully souvereign country, but because the Americans trusted his advise. Per se, though, the Americans were ready to entertain the thought, so with a different FRG government it might happen.

Anybody willing to make a timeline with this POD? :confused:
I'm would done it myself, but my knowledge of english is too limited...
:(

[abc123]

What was the OTL peak number of West German armed forces? I don't know that 370,000 sounds all that disarmed, though I admit the I'm not old enough to remember the last time they might actually have an enemy to fight.

EDIT: Looked it up, 500,000 was about the maximum. If the Germans really feel threatened, they could technically start outsourcing rear-area and logistical duties to free up more shooters for their new quota. It would be easy to build a force as effective as the OTL Bundeswehr under this limit.


OK, let's say that the number is 500 000. ;)
This is, after all, a bigger, unified Germany.

[wolf_brother]

Well, I don't think that this effects a lot on Hungarian Revolution.
;)

How could it not affect the Hungarian Revolution? :confused:
It'd be awfully hard, and damaging internationally, for the Soviets to support democracy, elections, free speech and etc on the one hand in Germany, but to suppress it literally next-door in Hungary. If ATL there's already precedent for this time of slow and peaceful withdrawal of all foreign militaries and a support of pro-democratic forces and processes..

On the other-other hand though, OTL the Politburo was at first willing to negotiate with the Hungarians about a withdrawal of Soviet forces, and fighting had virtually stopped between 28 Oct and 4 Nov as the Soviets did just that. However the Politburo changed its mind in early Nov and instead order the revolution crushed due to the apparent weakness this would cause to be seen in the Warsaw Pact by the NATO powers. So perhaps ITTL the Soviets respond even harsher than IOTL as they see their sphere of influence in Europe crumbling.

Either way though, you must certainly will not see the HR'56 play out exactly or near-to-exactly as it did OTL :rolleyes: :cool:

[wiking]

What would the borders of this state be? OTL the Eastern border wasn't officially set until unification IIRC, though defacto it had been acknowledged by the '60s.

What about trade? Would Germany then become a transshipment point for East and West? Additionally I'd imagine that the Communist party would have to be sanctioned ITTL Germany as well, which means Germany might be much less capitalist than OTL, i.e. somewhere between the GDR and DDR politically and economically. Perhaps a truly socialist state that won't have to deal with the RAF and various leftist terrorists. Also would there be a '60s generation backlash against the war generation?

[archaeogeek]

What would the borders of this state be? OTL the Eastern border wasn't officially set until unification IIRC, though defacto it had been acknowledged by the '60s.



Potsdam, with maybe some leeway for actual respect of the Oder Neisse thing but I doubt much would have been negotiated besides Stettin. To be honest even with his lip service paid to the notion of reunification, Adenauer would never have accepted, even less with a return to 1939-minus-Ostpreussen. That would mean more heavy SPD districts to compete against and more protestants and prussians too...

[Typo]

Stalin WAS sincere. It was Adenauer who sabotaged the project. Not because he had the power to do so, after all the FRG was not yet a fully souvereign country, but because the Americans trusted his advise. Per se, though, the Americans were ready to entertain the thought, so with a different FRG government it might happen.
Do you have any evidence for this?

[abc123]

How could it not affect the Hungarian Revolution? :confused:
It'd be awfully hard, and damaging internationally, for the Soviets to support democracy, elections, free speech and etc on the one hand in Germany, but to suppress it literally next-door in Hungary. If ATL there's already precedent for this time of slow and peaceful withdrawal of all foreign militaries and a support of pro-democratic forces and processes..

On the other-other hand though, OTL the Politburo was at first willing to negotiate with the Hungarians about a withdrawal of Soviet forces, and fighting had virtually stopped between 28 Oct and 4 Nov as the Soviets did just that. However the Politburo changed its mind in early Nov and instead order the revolution crushed due to the apparent weakness this would cause to be seen in the Warsaw Pact by the NATO powers. So perhaps ITTL the Soviets respond even harsher than IOTL as they see their sphere of influence in Europe crumbling.

Either way though, you must certainly will not see the HR'56 play out exactly or near-to-exactly as it did OTL :rolleyes: :cool:


You forgetting that USSR allways has spoken about himself as a bastion of freedom and democracy.
;)
For them and other hard-core communists, Imre Nagy & Co. were western spies, traitors of freedom and demokracy and reactionary capitalists.
;)

[abc123]

What would the borders of this state be? OTL the Eastern border wasn't officially set until unification IIRC, though defacto it had been acknowledged by the '60s.

What about trade? Would Germany then become a transshipment point for East and West? Additionally I'd imagine that the Communist party would have to be sanctioned ITTL Germany as well, which means Germany might be much less capitalist than OTL, i.e. somewhere between the GDR and DDR politically and economically. Perhaps a truly socialist state that won't have to deal with the RAF and various leftist terrorists. Also would there be a '60s generation backlash against the war generation?


Borders: Definitly Oder- Niese line. Anything else is impossible.

About Communist Party, well FRG is a liberal democracy, so any party can be politicly active, and so Communists too.
;)

[Susano]

Borders: Definitly Oder- Niese line. Anything else is impossible.

About Communist Party, well FRG is a liberal democracy, so any party can be politicly active, and so Communists too.
;)

Nogt necessarily under the Basic Law (i.e., FRGs constitution), which allows for partys to be outlawed, and the KPD was. Of course, if the Stalin Note is followed through there would be a new constitution drawn up.

As for Hungary: If the Stalin Note is executed 1952, there wont be unrests in the GDR in 1953, and I think that was one of the impeti for the (much grander in scale) Hungarian revolution... all in all I think a revolution there (though not the timing) was rather inevitable, but I also see no reason why (or indeed HOW) it could become any larger in scale.

[abc123]

Nogt necessarily under the Basic Law (i.e., FRGs constitution), which allows for partys to be outlawed, and the KPD was.



Well, I did not know that KPD was outlawed.

But, of course, USSR will definitly make that a part of the agreement, that FRG must allow free action for KPD.
;)

[Susano]

Well, I did not know that KPD was outlawed.

But, of course, USSR will definitly make that a part of the agreement, that FRG must allow free action for KPD.
;)

Actually, I think at that time the KPD was still allowed. And generally over the 60 years of the FRGs existence so far only two parties have been outlawed (of course thats still two too many as Im concerned, but thats another discussion).

[LordInsane]

Stalin WAS sincere. It was Adenauer who sabotaged the project. Not because he had the power to do so, after all the FRG was not yet a fully souvereign country, but because the Americans trusted his advise. Per se, though, the Americans were ready to entertain the thought, so with a different FRG government it might happen.
Thing is, one can make an argument that Stalin wasn't sincere, and that is a fairly common argument amongst historians today. Wilson Centre, if you remember from the last thread this came up in?
Of course, as you note, his sincerity or not can not be a POD in and of itself, so it only becomes a real issue in a TL as a consequence of other changes.

[wolf_brother]

You forgetting that USSR allways has spoken about himself as a bastion of freedom and democracy.
;)
For them and other hard-core communists, Imre Nagy & Co. were western spies, traitors of freedom and demokracy and reactionary capitalists.
;)

And that's going to have a HUGE impact on the International scene if the Soviets are the ones that lobbied for and successfully convinced the Western Allies to withdrawal from Germany and allow a free and open unified German state to negotiate with them on equal terms, but then literally a few years later applies the exact opposite approach to Hungry. :rolleyes:

Perception was the key ingredient in Cold War politics. Perception both internationally and intranationally. By the time we see a unified but neatural Germany is will beyond Stalin's death (March '53). If post-Stalin Soviet leaders saw even The Man of Steel supporting democracy (read: worker's rights, etc) at the expense of geo-strategic gains in order to uphold certain ideas (read: shinning city on the hill), especially in regards to relations with the US, than they're going to be more open to the idea of pulling out of Hungary and negotiating with the Hungarians. This would keep Hungary a socialist-communist style economy, or at least much more 'leftists' than the capitalists Western nations, and still within the Soviet sphere of influence.

This entire TL could easily see a much earlier Gorbachevian-style reforms, and perhaps even a longer lasting Soviet Union (in the form of the Union of Sovereign States).

As for Hungary: If the Stalin Note is executed 1952, there wont be unrests in the GDR in 1953, and I think that was one of the impeti for the (much grander in scale) Hungarian revolution... all in all I think a revolution there (though not the timing) was rather inevitable, but I also see no reason why (or indeed HOW) it could become any larger in scale.

True. But at least you admit the POD will have affects upon the Hungarian Revolution ;) In all seriousness though this very well could be the answer - a smaller or less successful revolt (instead of full-on revolution) in which the Politburo decides to negotiate with the Hungarians about their demands. Even OTL before the hardliners gained control and sent in the Army, figures such as Khrushchev and Zhukov were opposed to any military action and wanted to settle. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Khrushchev stated that he believed that Party Secretary Ernő Gerő's request for intervention on 23 October indicated that the Hungarian Party still held the confidence of the Hungarian public. In addition, he saw the protests not as an ideological struggle, but as popular discontent over unresolved basic economic and social issues. So ITL again, perhaps earlier Gorbachev-style reforms.

[Susano]

Thing is, one can make an argument that Stalin wasn't sincere, and that is a fairly common argument amongst historians today. Wilson Centre, if you remember from the last thread this came up in?
Of course, as you note, his sincerity or not can not be a POD in and of itself, so it only becomes a real issue in a TL as a consequence of other changes.

Thing is, all the historians who say Stalin wasnt sincere - they all seem to tie western partyline of portraying Stalin as the scheming bastard...

[Adam]

Thing is, all the historians who say Stalin wasnt sincere - they all seem to tie western partyline of portraying Stalin as the scheming bastard...

Well, in two words, he was. That was how he got into power after all.

[LordInsane]

Thing is, all the historians who say Stalin wasnt sincere - they all seem to tie western partyline of portraying Stalin as the scheming bastard...
May I point out that the more common argument before the Soviet archives opened up and were looked at was that Stalin was sincere? The timing of the change might imply something...

[RGB]

May I point out that the more common argument before the Soviet archives opened up and were looked at was that Stalin was sincere? The timing of the change might imply something...

I'm interested to know if there's any documental proof either way, because right now it's all he said she said.

[LordInsane]

I'm interested to know if there's any documental proof either way, because right now it's all he said she said.
Apparently there was. Page 39 of this link:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFB54.pdf cites, among others, an article called ''Die Deutschland-Note vom 10. März 1952 auf der Basis diplomatischer Akten des russischen Aussenministeriums'' to note that Germany was a special case, and that Stalin was not willing to give up the GDR.

[RGB]

Apparently there was. Page 39 of this link:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFB54.pdf cites, among others, an article called ''Die Deutschland-Note vom 10. März 1952 auf der Basis diplomatischer Akten des russischen Aussenministeriums'' to note that Germany was a special case, and that Stalin was not willing to give up the GDR.

Is there more to it than something that Semyonov said?

[LordInsane]

Is there more to it than something that Semyonov said?
Well, I wasn't looking at 121 but 122. Die Deutschland-Note vom 10. März 1952 auf der Basis diplomatischer Akten des russischen Aussenministeriums means something like 'The Stalin Note of the 10th of March 1952 analyzed on the basis of diplomatic documents in the Russian Foreign Ministry', and that the time the bulk of those documents would be Soviet.

[Xanth]

Germany is the industrial centre and second largest population area in Europe.
Ask yourself if Stalin with his personality would really opt for losing control over it.

[RGB]

Well, I wasn't looking at 121 but 122. Die Deutschland-Note vom 10. März 1952 auf der Basis diplomatischer Akten des russischen Aussenministeriums means something like 'The Stalin Note of the 10th of March 1952 analyzed on the basis of diplomatic documents in the Russian Foreign Ministry', and that the time the bulk of those documents would be Soviet.

I don't know what's inside that or how good the scholarship is, so alright, I'll take his word for it.

Doesn't really address the OP, though, so I will stop the derail.

[LordInsane]

I don't know what's inside that or how good the scholarship is, so alright, I'll take his word for it.

Doesn't really address the OP, though, so I will stop the derail.
Well, I'm not saying Stalin wasn't sincere, just that we cannot say that he was as if that was an obvious truth.

It does address the OP - the importance would be whether the OP's WI is, in fact, a WI and not DBWI.
Germany is the industrial centre and second largest population area in Europe.
Ask yourself if Stalin with his personality would really opt for losing control over it.
The GDR was the smaller part of Germany, though. I could see him as willing to exchange control of the smaller part for making certain the greater part is not under the control of his enemies.

[abc123]

Well, I'm not saying Stalin wasn't sincere, just that we cannot say that he was as if that was an obvious truth.

It does address the OP - the importance would be whether the OP's WI is, in fact, a WI and not DBWI.

The GDR was the smaller part of Germany, though. I could see him as willing to exchange control of the smaller part for making certain the greater part is not under the control of his enemies.


OK guys, the question here is NOT "Was Stalin sincere?".
The question is: "What would happen IF he WAS sincere? How would Germany look like if that proposal is accepted?"
;)

[Ziomatrix]

I guess it would draw germany and Austria close together, both being forcibly neutral. Likely closer cooperation with Sweden, maybe Finland

EEC would be just France, Benelux and Italy. EEC would stay common market only thing and would go down EU road, trying for stronger integration. maybe alternate, EFTA-like treaty covering Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland and maybe Switzerland

Well that would certainly have big reprocussions when it comes to influencing secterian matters in the Balkans. It may also be detrimental to the overal penetration of the IMF and Western banks if the Soviet Union breaks up like OTL.

[abc123]

OK, so if Germany becomes independent, unified and neutral by 1955., what direction it would her's rearmament go?
Back to old war-time projects and upgrading or?:confused:

[wiking]

OK, so if Germany becomes independent, unified and neutral by 1955., what direction it would her's rearmament go?
Back to old war-time projects and upgrading or?:confused:

Though sadly verging on ASBs, the state would have something along the lines of OTL's borders, so probably would focus on a beefed up police force with minor military power that would make the Reichswehr look impressive. Heavy focus on advanced automatic weaponry, with squad firepower being crucial. Probably completely mechanized forces, but with nearly no Panzers. Artillery is going to be a very rare item, with nothing above the 150mm range. I would actually doubt that a Luftwaffe would be allowed at all.

I could see more focus on special forces like GSG9 and KSK, but with spy agencies getting special bonuses. What now happens with de-nazification? Does it end when the East and West leave?

[Xanth]

I could see more focus on special forces like GSG9 and KSK, but with spy agencies getting special bonuses. What now happens with de-nazification? Does it end when the East and West leave?
Denazification was stopped by Adenauer in 1949-1951. The Note was in 1952.

[Susano]

Denazification was stopped by Adenauer in 1949-1951. The Note was in 1952.

Yeah well, as said, with Adenauer at the helm the thing will moszt likely flop anyway. Of course, OTOH, with Schumacher at the helm the SPD might indeed have a rather little chance at government, despite my liking of the guy. So, maybe the SPD with a different leader and candidate... and maybe then Denazification wont be stopped...

[LordInsane]

Yeah well, as said, with Adenauer at the helm the thing will moszt likely flop anyway. Of course, OTOH, with Schumacher at the helm the SPD might indeed have a rather little chance at government, despite my liking of the guy. So, maybe the SPD with a different leader and candidate... and maybe then Denazification wont be stopped...
'course, IIRC the OTL note suggested that Denazification would be stopped.
Heh, that would be an interesting turn of events - someone else than Adenauer is in power (maybe a SPD-FDP-possibly Zentrum [if we get clear information on how they were in '52] coalition led by a Schumacher that missed the concentration camps), the Note is considered seriously, a Four Power Conference is convened... and flops as the Soviet Union fails to provide terms acceptable to the West Germans or the Western Allies (in this matter, I expect the Wallies to listen careful to the FRG if they say no, though not necessarily if they say yes).

[archaeogeek]

'course, IIRC the OTL note suggested that Denazification would be stopped.
Heh, that would be an interesting turn of events - someone else than Adenauer is in power (maybe a SPD-FDP-possibly Zentrum [if we get clear information on how they were in '52] coalition led by a Schumacher that missed the concentration camps), the Note is considered seriously, a Four Power Conference is convened... and flops as the Soviet Union fails to provide terms acceptable to the West Germans or the Western Allies (in this matter, I expect the Wallies to listen careful to the FRG if they say no, though not necessarily if they say yes).

That was basically Adenauer's fear; gaining the east back = CDU/CSU isn't in a position to dominate anymore because of heavier SPD (and Zentrum) regions where the CDU can't hope significant gains: have a more organized "Anti-Adenauer" coalition and the main reason it flopped isn't there anymore, instead you end up with reunited germany and today's multiparty politics and both the KPD and CDU have to learn to play nicer earlier.

[LordInsane]

That was basically Adenauer's fear; gaining the east back = CDU/CSU isn't in a position to dominate anymore because of heavier SPD (and Zentrum) regions where the CDU can't hope significant gains: have a more organized "Anti-Adenauer" coalition and the main reason it flopped isn't there anymore, instead you end up with reunited germany and today's multiparty politics and both the KPD and CDU have to learn to play nicer earlier.
Well, not in the 'interesting turn of events' I mused about - the basic idea was that the CDU didn't dominate in '52 (for whatever reason), the Note is seriously considered due to that, but re-unification still fails, just at a later stage (of course, in another interpretation of Stalin's intentions, the Note would have been a no-go in the proposed scenario) - that negotiations start over a matter isn't the same as an agreement being reached, after all.

[Susano]

'course, IIRC the OTL note suggested that Denazification would be stopped.
Heh, that would be an interesting turn of events - someone else than Adenauer is in power (maybe a SPD-FDP-possibly Zentrum [if we get clear information on how they were in '52] coalition led by a Schumacher that missed the concentration camps), the Note is considered seriously, a Four Power Conference is convened... and flops as the Soviet Union fails to provide terms acceptable to the West Germans or the Western Allies (in this matter, I expect the Wallies to listen careful to the FRG if they say no, though not necessarily if they say yes).
Since the Americans were in theory ready to entertain the notion, what conditions would there be that they find inherently unacceptable? if Stalin suggests a neutral Germany, he wont suggest anything like Soviet troop stationing rights or so at the Conference, so in purely strategic terms I dont know what could be unacceptable to the Western Allies.

That was basically Adenauer's fear; gaining the east back = CDU/CSU isn't in a position to dominate anymore because of heavier SPD (and Zentrum) regions where the CDU can't hope significant gains: have a more organized "Anti-Adenauer" coalition and the main reason it flopped isn't there anymore, instead you end up with reunited germany and today's multiparty politics and both the KPD and CDU have to learn to play nicer earlier.

That might be part of it, but I think it was more. Even before the war Adenauer has said that Siberia begins beyond Magdeburg. And dont forget he entertained contact with the ridicolous Rhenish seperatists (all 3 of them...) during the French occupation of the Rhineland interbellum. Yes, publicalyl he advocated seceding Rhineland-Westhalia from Prussia, but I think he wouldnt have minded it being seperated from Germany, either. So I think he simply hated East Germany - so an independent Rhineland would be acceptable to him, as was an independent West Germany, basically an enlarged Rhineland. In short, I think the guy simply was an authoritarian jackarse and had some issues...

[LordInsane]

Since the Americans were in theory ready to entertain the notion, what conditions would there be that they find inherently unacceptable? if Stalin suggests a neutral Germany, he wont suggest anything like Soviet troop stationing rights or so at the Conference, so in purely strategic terms I dont know what could be unacceptable to the Western Allies.
Hm, possibly (6) Civil and political rights equal to all other German citizens for participation in the building of peace-loving democratic Germany must be made available to all former members of the German army, including officers and generals, all former Nazis, excluding those who are serving court sentences for commission of crimes.
, although that may be more of an SPD issue, and maybe not even them - depends on how much importance is giving on continuing denazification, I guess. There is also the territorial part:

Territory
The territory of Germany is defined by the borders established by the provisions of the Potsdam Conference of the Great Powers.

Which, erm, was interpreted as 'Oder-Neisse' - though that could well be swallowed in the name of German unity, I guess. Why the West German opinion matters is that it is not in the interests of the Western Allies to enforce German unity and neutrality against the wishes of the FRG government, even if the reverse - enforcing non-unity against the FRG's wishes - could happen.
Apparently, for the Americans there is The United States Government also observes that the Soviet Government now considers that the peace treaty should provide for the formation of German national land, air, and sea forces, while at the same time imposing limitations on Germany's freedom to enter into association with other countries. The United States Government considers that such provisions would be a step backwards and might jeopardize the emergency in Europe of a new era in which international relations would be based on cooperation and not on rivalry and distrust. Being convinced of the need of a policy of European unity, the United States Government is giving its full support to plans designed to secure the participation of Germany in a purely defensive European community which will preserve freedom, prevent aggression, and preclude the revival of militarism. The United States Government believes that the proposal of the Soviet Government for the formation of German national forces is inconsistent with the achievement of this objective. The United States Government remains convinced that this policy of European unity cannot threaten the interests of any country and represents the true path of peace.

All taken from http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org, which appears to be not entirely unreliable after a twenty-minute search.

[Susano]

The territory of Germany is defined by the borders established by the provisions of the Potsdam Conference of the Great Powers.
Which were provisional as there was no formal peace treaty, and as long as Stalins demand dont call for one, even an united Germany can do like the FRG did and mark down the silly pre-war borders on maps etc. :D

From a soviet point of view, demanding that Germany should have armed forces but not in military cooperation with others makes sense - no use in a buffer state (if that was Stalins intent) that can be just walked over.

[LordInsane]

Which were provisional as there was no formal peace treaty, and as long as Stalins demand dont call for one, even an united Germany can do like the FRG did and mark down the silly pre-war borders on maps etc. :D

From a soviet point of view, demanding that Germany should have armed forces but not in military cooperation with others makes sense - no use in a buffer state (if that was Stalins intent) that can be just walked over.
Well, if they are integrated into the formal peace treaty, they wouldn't be provisional anymore. That was the problem, really. Though it might well not be an important problem in the end.

And yes, but you asked for Western/American objections. That was an OTL official objection from the Americans.;)

I edited the above post to a bit more clear, though I'm not certain the edited version isn't the one you read.

[wiking]

Did anyone really trust Germany to have an independent military only 7 years after the most destructive war in history that was started by Germany? Even without Prussia (assuming the Oder-Neisse line) Germany still represents a major economic power. France would be going nuts, Poland would be scared shitless, and I doubt most Soviet citizens would be particularly 'thrilled' with the recreation of an independent Germany.

While I'm sure most Germans would be overjoyed by independence (which I have a feeling would have tremendous strings attached), no one else would.

[archaeogeek]

Did anyone really trust Germany to have an independent military only 7 years after the most destructive war in history that was started by Germany? Even without Prussia (assuming the Oder-Neisse line) Germany still represents a major economic power. France would be going nuts, Poland would be scared shitless, and I doubt most Soviet citizens would be particularly 'thrilled' with the recreation of an independent Germany.

While I'm sure most Germans would be overjoyed by independence (which I have a feeling would have tremendous strings attached), no one else would.

Stalin supposedly did have some propaganda efforts during the second World War stating that the enemy of the Soviet Union was the nazi party, not the german people. Of course on the ground the reality probably seemed a bit different and the people who were massacred by the advancing Heer probably begged to differ.