1945 - Germans fight side-by-side with Allies to stem Red Army

I've been watching the 1945 UKTV series, where 1 historian commented that there were actual cases of German soldiers surrendering to British or American forces and asking that, now the war between them was over, whether they could go and fight the Russians together. Now, under what circs could such a scenario have eventuated ? Maybe if some rabidly anti-Communist American gen on the model of Patton decided to take up that offer ? How much worse would East-West relations and the Cold War have been ?

I'd say pretty comprehensively awful. On the one hand, the Soviets were near the end of their tether and bled white of manpower and funds. On the other hand, they had a multi-million-men army in battle readiness and ready 'to storm the heavens'. OTOH the US had more than enough equipment, but I don't think the army (let alone the people) would have gone for it.

Painful, embarrassing on all sides, and it would probably end with more German territory falling to the Soviets because there is no way Washington will opt for all-out war. Though if they did, they'd probably win (for a given value of 'win')

Can't see it happening unless the Soviets were made to feel very insecure.

I seem to remeber US contingency planning for this event was to evacuate Europe with as little loss as possible. British planning was to ensure it did not happen.

FDR needs to go

FDR was rather pro Soviet. As long as he is in office there will be no U.S. - Soviet clash. His vice president (Wallace) leaned even farther to the left.

If you want to engineer a U.S. - Soviet clash at the end of WWII I would suggest that FDR does not get reelected in 1940. Perhaps his health is a bit worse and he must decline the nomination. The person who becomes president in his place must not be vice president Wallace or anyone else so far to the left. For the sake of argument let's say that Harry Truman wins the 1940 U.S. presidential election.

The war can proceed historically up to the 1943 Casablanca conference. The significant departure is that President Truman does not issue a statement for Germany's unconditional surrender. This leaves the door open for the U.S. and Britain to negotiate with the German government once Hitler is dead.

From this point (1943) all sorts of things are possible.

- Historically the German GeneralStab attempted to kill Hitler in 1943. Perhaps with a bit of U.S. assistance and encouragement they will succeed. The attack may take a different form. Perhaps the GeneralStab will provide precise information as to Hitler's location. Hitler's aircraft is shot down over Germany by a long range U.S. P51 or British Mosquito. This has the advantage that Hitler's death will be due to enemy action, rather then by German traitors. The German army can now declare martial law and assume control. Once in control, they can follow through with what ever prior arrangement they have made with the western allies.

- By 1944 the U.S. had ample evidence as to Stalin's character. Massacres in the Ukraine, Poland, and elsewhere are public knowledge. Stalin's previous invasions of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania are also public knowledge. Once the U.S. and British forces get firmly ashore in Normandy President Truman turns off the lend-lease tap to the Soviet Union. These resources will instead be used to produce the U.S. Pershing tank (or something similiar) 10 months early. The British designed Firefly Sherman would work just fine as an alternate to the Pershing. Implementing production only means installing a different turret on an existing tank.

Now you can end the war with the western allies racing the Soviets to Berlin. The British / U.S. advance will be a bit faster, and the Soviet advance slower due to the resource shift.

So Bender,

1) What happens to China in your timeline.
2) Why do you keep assuming the Western allies will reach Berlin first in the absense of an agreement? The Soviets do not have to advance on all fronts.
3) Why can't the Soviets sue for peace, the Germans may get better terms from them?
4) The allies do not know if the A-bomb is viable. How are they going to invade Japan without Soviet support.
5) Your scenario still does not ensure war between the allies.

U.S. / Britain vs Soviet Union

1) What happens to China in your timeline.

Outside the scope of this discussion.

2) Why do you keep assuming the Western allies will reach Berlin first in the absense of an agreement? The Soviets do not have to advance on all fronts.

I am not assuming the western allies will beat the Soviets to Berlin. Historically the western allies did not even attempt to get there. They purposely diverted U.S. forces south to non essential objects and left Berlin to Stalin's forces. In this scenerio they will at least make the attempt.

3) Why can't the Soviets sue for peace, the Germans may get better terms from them?

Entirely possible. But I doubt Stalin will settle for anything less then all of Poland and the Baltic States. If this settlement happens after the summer 1944 Soviet offensive then Stalin will demand even more of central Europe. This occupation of central Europe will oppose U.S. demands that the independence of Poland and the Baltic States be respected. This is the crux of a possible U.S. - Soviet conflict at the end of WWII.

4) The allies do not know if the A-bomb is viable. How are they going to invade Japan without Soviet support.

Outside the scope of this discussion. In any case, the Soviet Union will still seize Manchuria as they covet the territory for their own empire.

5) Your scenario still does not ensure war between the allies.

The point is that replacing FDR with a different U.S. president makes a U.S. - Soviet war possible. With FDR as president a U.S. vs Soviet Union conflict is not going to happen.

Thanks for replies.

I suggest that China is not out of the scope of the discussion as it could be a significant flash point in your proposed time-line because if the Soviets realise they are loosing the race to Berlin they can simply shift resources to Manchuria.

I also suggest that the position on how to invade Japan will be central to US to US thinking irrespective of who is president.

While the chances of a continued war between the Western Allies that includes elements of the Wehrmacht and a Victorious Soviet Army are Highly unlikely, they are not impossible.

Let me suggest the following elements and ATL events of such a possibility. All have probably been gone over in great detail elsewhere:

1) The German Army, knowing that it is losing, manages to replace Hitler (say in mid 1944) and then puts it own person into power, and seek peace with both sides, going so far as to offer unilaterally to disengage. The allies to this point are determined to win an unconditional surrender and refuse, but the Western Allies at least consider it.

At the same time the German army closes all concentration camps and begins (as much as possible) to nurse the victims back to health. They do this because they know the camps will make a settlement more difficult.

2) The German Strategy then becomes one of ensuring the Western Allies take the largest share of Germany, while slowing the Russians down. Germany even begins to permit the healthier survivors of the holocaust to leave through Switzerland.

3) As a result, the German Armies in the West steadily retreat without a Battle of the Bulge or other attempts to stem the advance of the West. Western troops win lots of small engagements with hard core Nazi troops, (giving them a 'winning attitude'), but wide scale offenses are avoided.

4) The air war is deemphasized, and fewer attacks are made against the already shattered German Industry, almost all benefits of this are thrown against the Russians, who (quite naturally) resent the fact that the Western Allies have backed away from their destruction of Germany from the air.

5) The Yalta Conference is held on schedule, but now the Western allies are requiring all of Germany and Poland, leaving the Russians only East Prussia. Because of increasing reports related to Russian attrocities, this is widely backed by the US.

6) Stalin would (again quite naturally) resent this, and would order his troops to pull all stops in taking additional territory before the war's end.

7) Because of the more aggressive stance of the Russian Armies, numerous small flareups between Western and Russian Troops occur wherever they meet. Stalin is warned, and all aid to Russia is ended in late February. Because of the Greater German Resistance and industrial capacity (see #4 above) the Russian advance is much slower and by February has only reached the Vistula.

8) Western Reporters witness Russian attrocities against a fleeing German populace, including purposefull killings, rape and other attrocites against children. Horrific photoes of these events somehow make their way to the newspapers and are published. US public opinion begins to swing against the Russians. Even Great Britain begins to wonder about the wisdom of an unrestrained Soviet Army.

9) Germany again offers to surrender to the West pending negotiations, pleading that they are seeking protection from the Russians. The images of recent Russian attrocities are too fresh, and the Western Allies agree. Stalin is furious, threatening to take what he hasn't been given.

10) Russian troops attack Danzig, recently surrendered to English Troops who are int he process of demobilizing the remaining German Troops. The English troops resist, and a blood bath results with English and German troops fighting side by side against Russians. After several English transports arrive to evacuate their troops, and the German troops agree to fight the rear guard while the English are evacuated. The German die almost to a man, and the city is ransacked and looted.

11) English public opinion swings against the Russians. Stalin ignores warnings, and the alliance with Russia is formally ended by both the US and England. Neither English nor American troops bother to disarm surrendering German troops when working near Russian units, perferring instead to deal with these troops at and officer to officer level, and on occasion allowing them to remain in position against Russian troops.

12) Russian troops continue to advance into Polish territories, despite increasing protests. They arrive at Pozen where US armored forces have been demobilizing German Troops. General Patton, in response to Russian demands that he leave the city, answers "Nuts!" German forces are integrated into US forces in the resulting defense of the city.

13) In response to the attack, Engaland and the US declare an active state of hostility exists between them and Russia, while simultaneously accepting the formal alliance with the New German Republic in which the German Army remains intact.

14) March 4, 1944, The Soviet Union Declares War on all German Allies, including England and the US..

The chances of this are zero. The Soviets did not have even the sliver of a ghost of a capability to fight the Allies, and te Allies did not have even the sliver of a ghost of a chance of declaring an unprovoked war against our ally. Any government that even tried it would be instantaneously overthrown.

There are a couple of elements of this that are not unreasonable however at its heart lie some completely unsound premises:

”At the same time the German army closes all concentration camps and begins (as much as possible) to nurse the victims back to health. They do this because they know the camps will make a settlement more difficult.”

This is humane it is also completely counter logical and unlikely. The most probable approach to ending the final solution in such a situation would be kill all the current camp residents. Then pull the camps down and bury the evidence not forgetting to kill the work force that does the work (Soviet prisoners?). By all mean play nice with the people left in the Ghettos and labour camps anyone that has not actually witnessed the solution.

”The German Strategy then becomes one of ensuring the Western Allies take the largest share of Germany, while slowing the Russians down.”

Why bother? Stop fighting on the Western front. This makes no sense.

”Stalin would (again quite naturally) resent this, and would order his troops to pull all stops in taking additional territory before the war's end.”

Maybe maybe not. He can stop the Red army and turn his attention on China instead or the Mid-East for that matter.

”Because of the more aggressive stance of the Russian Armies, numerous small flareups between Western and Russian Troops occur wherever they meet. Stalin is warned, and all aid to Russia is ended in late February. Because of the Greater German Resistance and industrial capacity (see #4 above) the Russian advance is much slower and by February has only reached the Vistula.”

I find this the most unlikely of the lot the troops on the ground still think they are all allies. The Soviets would be fools is they did not make use of this idea. It may be possible to get some US formations to attack Soviet formations many British formations will mutiny first, ditto Canadians.

”Western Reporters witness Russian attrocities against a fleeing German populace, including purposefull killings, rape and other attrocites against children.”

How? The Soviets are hardly going to welcome Journos in the sort of political situation you suggest.

Tielhard said:

How? The Soviets are hardly going to welcome Journos in the sort of political situation you suggest.

Click to expand...

Just b/c the Soviets don't want them there doesnn't mean they won't be there. The Soviets threatened to kill any Western journalist found with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but Robert Kaplan (and perhaps others) traveled with guerrilla bands for significant lengthes of time.

Kaplan even wrote a book: Soldiers of God.

As is so often the case, this thread's great weakness is the lack of specifics.

1) WHEN is this happening? If Stalin and Hitler sign the treaty they were actually discussing, and which was a major reason for the FDR-Churchill declaration for unconditional surrender, then the war ended in January 1943.

If it happens sometime in summer of 1944 the Germans might well stop the Soviets cold sans Western support. Simply avoiding Hitler's generosity in throwing away the @60 divisions in Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic States would make the difference.

If it happens in 1945 it is far too late for Germany to save itself.

2) What is the purpose of the US in this? Are we seeking war with the Soviets, an earlier active outbreak of the Cold War while seeking an improved position, or do we simply want the honor of finishing Hitler off ourselves?

Tielhard, I might joke that this would be little different than the Soviet intervention in Manchuria in OTL, but Stalin was always much more cautious than Hitler. It is doubtful he is sending major elements of the Red Army into the Pacific Theater and starting war with Japan, until he gets some idea of what is taking place in Central Europe.

Also, the USSR was irrelevant in the Pacific War. Stalin's behavior has been accurately compared to Mussolini's in 1940, jumping in on the winning side for some spoils. No Soviet intervention, and no atomic bomb either? The US launches Operations Olympic and Coronet in November 1945 and May 1946 to finish Japan.

And no doubt historians later claim the real reason 10 million Japanese died in this invasion is because we didn't want to reveal the true power of the atomic bomb to the Soviets yet.

I recall a historical piece of fiction where this actually comes up, involving the 1944 plot to kill Hitler, and both the West and the Soviets determine that a successful coup would not be in their interests. Whether this is either correct or moral is another matter.

Far from seeking the cover up Tielhard suggested, the plotters begin broadcasting announcements about the Fuhrer's death and order the armed forces to immediately roundup all prominent Nazi figures, including those involved in the political, industrial, and military fields. In addition, they order the immediate seizure of all concentration camps, the arrest of the officers and guards, and add that ALL nearby medical units are to include themselves in the seizure of the camps.

So now it's September 1944. The evacuation of the 25 divisions in Romania, the 12 divisions in Bulgaria, and most of the Norwegian garrison is underway. Presumable a third of the Baltic garrison may be lost to enemy action and lack of shipping, but that is still another 20 divisions. This adds a chilling 60-70 divisions for the defense of the Fatherland, and make no mistake, the new regime is assuming the defensive. They abandon many gold-plated projects of Hitler, and stop all bombardment via rockets. They reveal to the world and a (hopefully) shocked German people what Hitler was up to, and announce that the top Nazis and anyone involved with the death camps are going on trial, even offering to ship the top boys to a neutral nation pending surrendering them to the allied powers.

Lastly they offer an immediate ceasefire to all Allies(including Moscow) pending a negotiated settlement of the war. This cleverly presents the potential to divide the allies and if Stalin IS willing to make a deal...Possibly they announce the intent to withdraw entirely from places like Norway, hoping to see an inter-allied scramble there.

The US alone is taking something like 4000 casualties a day, Patton just got his nose bloodied in Alsace, and most Americans still consider Japan to be the real enemy anyway. What does FDR do?

Two points.

1) Soviet approaches to getting rid of journos in Afghanistan at the close of the 20th and getting rid of them in the mid 20th when the Soviet Union is under threat may be somewhat different.
2) Even accepting some will get through they need to find some attrocities and get the photos back home.

Come to think of it, it's probably better just to stage some attrocities in the mid West film them and blame them on the Soviets. Much more sensible.

Find some attrocities

Stalin's attrocities were so widespread that this is not an issue. By mid 1944 there are hundreds of thousands of people in Germany who have witnessed Stalin's attrocities first hand. Many are from Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, and the Baltic States. It was common for people to volunteer to work in Germany rather then submit to another Soviet occupation. After the war ended Stalin demanded that these former Soviet citizens be returned by force. I believe many were, and ended up in Soviet labor camps.

What about some hardcore anti-Soviet Nazi holdouts managed to provoke a confrontation, even a small one, between the US and/or British against Soviets a month or so after the war? Maybe a dozen or so Germans with good English accents get a hold of some US or British uniforms and some weapons, and stage a few small scale attacks on Soviet patrols, or ambush a few vehicles. Nothing major in scale, but something that gets noticed by both sides, ends up with a few dozen or so Soviet troops dead and injured, and leaves some Soviet troops thinking that that Americans or British or both are responsible.

GrimmReaper,

Credit where credit is due, good point about the timing even if I may not agree with the specifics. Your comments about USA’s motives are good but what are the Soviet’s motives? Do they really want another war?

Back to normal. Your analysis of the Soviet intervention in Manchuria which started on the exact day agreed with the Western allies is flawed. Many historians suggest that it was the loss of this source of raw materials and the incredibly rapid loss of the large army defending it that ended the war, not the USA’s terror attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not much of a gamble to switch 20 divisions or so east (Less than August Storm) and give the Americans a real headache. Remember August Storm had the USSR in a position to invade Hokkido in less than two weeks and there was nothing to stop them. Just think what that is going to do to rational thought in the USA high councils! In another month or two the whole of China will probably be red.

”Far from seeking the cover up Tielhard suggested, the plotters begin broadcasting announcements about the Fuhrer's death and order the armed forces to immediately roundup all prominent Nazi figures, including those involved in the political, industrial, and military fields. In addition, they order the immediate seizure of all concentration camps, the arrest of the officers and guards, and add that ALL nearby medical units are to include themselves in the seizure of the camps.”

They then end up with a Civil War as so many Germans are involved with the final solution or have been indoctrinated too deeply into the Nazi ideology. It simply will not happen.

Of course munitions production will plunge without all of that free labour. So all these divisions you are proposing to pull back are going to be very under equipped shortly.


”Lastly they offer an immediate ceasefire to all Allies(including Moscow) pending a negotiated settlement of the war. This cleverly presents the potential to divide the allies and if Stalin IS willing to make a deal...Possibly they announce the intent to withdraw entirely from places like Norway, hoping to see an inter-allied scramble there.”

This may stop the war, it does not promote the Western/Soviet conflict required at the beginning of the thread. In all likelihood it would be acceptable to the British and Soviets but not to the USA. We might have the strange situation where the Soviets agree terms, the British continue in a half hearted manner and the USA forges onward? Strange.

Tielhard said:

Two points.

1) Soviet approaches to getting rid of journos in Afghanistan at the close of the 20th and getting rid of them in the mid 20th when the Soviet Union is under threat may be somewhat different.
2) Even accepting some will get through they need to find some attrocities and get the photos back home.

Come to think of it, it's probably better just to stage some attrocities in the mid West film them and blame them on the Soviets. Much more sensible.

Click to expand...

Why fake them when you've got the Katyn Forest? Too much effort, and too risky, to fake atrocities.

Why fake them when you've got the Katyn Forest? Too much effort, and too risky, to fake atrocities.

As atrocities go it is not up to much either numerically or in terms of brutality. Just compare it for a moment with the biggies; final solution, Yellow river dykes, H&N, Dresden. Lacks a certain something. If you fake your atrocities Hollywood can even have colour film of it.

Tielhard said:

Why fake them when you've got the Katyn Forest? Too much effort, and too risky, to fake atrocities.

As atrocities go it is not up to much either numerically or in terms of brutality. Just compare it for a moment with the biggies; final solution, Yellow river dykes, H&N, Dresden. Lacks a certain something. If you fake your atrocities Hollywood can even have colour film of it.

Click to expand...

Not as nasty in terms of sheer numbers of dead as those atrocities, but it shows how treacherous the Soviet Union was--those men surrendered to the Soviets b/c they thought the Soviets were coming to help them fight the Nazis.

It also puts paid to the notion that Molotov-Ribbentropp was just to" protect their borders" and gear up to fight Hitler later--if so, why kill 10,000 Polish officers when you can merely incorporate them into your army, with political commissars if you REALLY want to keep an eye on them.

I don't know of any credible historians who think Stalin's attack on Manchuria was decisive factor in ending the war. I can suggest that any historian who considers the Manchurian attack decisive and Hiroshima/Nagasaki to be mere 'terror bombings' saw his academic credentials badly tarnished in 1989.

And the Japanese might well stop 20 divisions. In August 1945 Stalin threw 80 divisions against a force which had been weakened of supplies and key equipment for several more months. In either event, is it plausible Stalin would provoke a war with Japan and send much of his army out of reach when a German/Anglo/American alliance may face him?

The actual number of Germans involved in the death camps was well below 100,000. That's the total number over the entire 1933-1945 period. No civil war there. Especially since a good portion of them are gone in the first day or two. And industrial output from the death camps was irrelevant to the overall German production. It was loyal German workers who produced to the bitter end. They are not going on strike and thereby bringing about the very Soviet occupation the more ideological committed would dread.

Dresden? Why bring up a second-rate bombing, certainly less bloody and damaging than Hamburg(an example) and pretending it ranks along the Holocaust or the use of nuclear weapons(if you believe Japan was on the verge of surrender)?