Nazis win in Russia - What happens to their allies?

[Grumpy young Man]

Concerning Independent State of Croatia Nazis wanted to annex Slovenia as a former territory of a Holy Roman Empire and resettle Slovenians into Bosnia to repopulate the emptiness that would be left behind with the murder of Serbian population.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Grumpy young Man

Concerning Independent State of Croatia Nazis wanted to annex Slovenia as a former territory of a Holy Roman Empire and resettle Slovenians into Bosnia to repopulate the emptiness that would be left behind with the murder of Serbian population.

They wanted to resettle one part of Slovenes in Bosnia ( after resettlemant of Serbs in Serbia ) and other part somewhere in Africa.

[Clandango]

Originally Posted by abc123

They wanted to resettle one part of Slovenes in Bosnia ( after resettlemant of Serbs in Serbia ) and other part somewhere in Africa.

That could work. The Italians should have been more than happy to stuff a bunch of Catholic Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Slovenes, and anyone else into Ethiopia. Still wouldn't make up for how there were more Italians in New York than Africa.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Clandango

That could work. The Italians should have been more than happy to stuff a bunch of Catholic Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Slovenes, and anyone else into Ethiopia. Still wouldn't make up for how there were more Italians in New York than Africa.

IIRC it was German East Africa that was planned for resettlement of part of Slovenians. After regaining it from British anyway...


And IIRC they planned to resettle Czechs into Siberia.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Seek75

...You know what? Nevermind. It doesn't seem like you actually understand what I'm saying, because you keep applying the same logic that I've already pointed out doesn't work.

Likewise it seems that you think alternate history means anything goes when human nature and the way war works does not lead to such conclusions. Simply waving arms frantically shouting "ATL! ATL!" doesn't cover for crude realities like the Nazis entirely lacking the capability to win against the USSR based on their own goals.

Originally Posted by abc123

They made atrocities against Greeks because they were fighting partisan resistance and against Italians because of that too and because they were feeling betrayed by their most trusted ally, not because they wanted to exterminate them.

Officially quite a few of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust were "anti-partisan sweeps" too.

Originally Posted by Clandango

Do I need to again repeat how they were invading allies that were showing signs of trying to switch sides? Something I rather doubt they would be doing if the unified crusade from the Axis succeeded in destroying communism, though they would likely just keep it alive east of the Ob or Urals.

Except that the unified Axis Crusade of 1941-2 wasn't able to destroy Communism, and this was the Axis at its most realistic peak relative to the Soviets.

Originally Posted by kalamona

They were not happy to engage in atrocities, they were germans. Just check out the BW doings in Kosovo or Afghanistan.

No, they were quite happy to engage in atrocities. Das Herrenvolk were encouraged to be thieves, butchers, and rapists.

[usertron2020]

This is why I post many of my discussion groups in ASB...

Even if the proposal isn't ASB, it saves you all the "THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN!" posts.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

It's only contentious because trolls refuse to accept that some movements lose wars because they really don't have a way to win them. This would have been a fine discussion thread in the ASB forum, but not in the Post-1900 forum where plausibility is required. People, the Nazis can't win in the USSR for very straightforward reasons, handwaving is not an answer to this. Especially since the Nazis "winning" in an ASB 1941 scenario will be more horrid than a 1943 "win" in that the Nazis are stronger and have more room to do what they want to do. And yes, this forum is seeing another wave of Nazi-philes trying to obscure this and to handwave everything, that's not a reason to not keep pointing this out until the wave subsides.

Don't accuse folks of being trolls because they disagree with you.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by kalamona

They were not happy to engage in atrocities, they were germans. Just check out the BW doings in Kosovo or Afghanistan.

Uh, what?

You SO need to explain what you meant by this, and I mean the next time you log in.

If you don't, I'll go with what I think you meant.

[KACKO]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The Nazis in establishing the Reichskomissariats of Bohemia und Moravia.

Actually it was Protektorat Bohmen und Mahren.

[kalamona]

Originally Posted by CalBear

Uh, what?

You SO need to explain what you meant by this, and I mean the next time you log in.

If you don't, I'll go with what I think you meant.

Hm, pretty self explaining i tought, but:

If you speak about atrocities committed by german forces in ww2, mostly the partisan-related actions come into my mind.

Guerilla warfare is a bitch - and especially doing such against the germans, a nation, culture obsessed with order and consequences.
The important part are the consequences: they made the rules (or there is a rule made by someone) and they mean it: you have to pay a fee, if you wash your car front of your garage and ten civilian will be shot for every german killed by partisans - same thing: you have to pay a fee and 10 civilian will be shot. Or check a more recent and BW (!!!) errr... missdoing: attack against military with stones is still an attack, so they shot back with live ammo (Kosovo).

So, they were not "happy to engage in atrocities". They are just an expectable bunch.

[DrakonFin]

Originally Posted by TranscendentalMedication

I often see Nazi victory maps where Finland gets the entire Kola peninsula, but I've seen a lot of people shooting that idea down - that's valuable Nazi plunder after-all.

The Soviet Union was full of valuable Nazi plunder. The problem is that even in victory the Germans would be hugely overextended. And that is why I think Finland would get Kola together with a big chunk of Eastern and Far Karelia: for the Germans there is interest in the peninsula because of naval bases and minerals, nothing more. As long as the Reich can establish as many military installations on the coast as it likes and it has the economic rights to use the local mineral resources the way it sees fit, it is of no consequence whether maps say the peninsula is German or Finnish.

Cut off from a Greater Finland, Kola is basically a barren, Arctic island. As logistics would anyway run through former Murmansk and the Finnish railway network, it would save the Germans a lot of hassle to make it a Finnish responsibility to make things work in the area.

So, this is how I see the Kola area ITTL: nominally Finnish, run by the Finnish state bureaucracy. Major ports designated German bases under military administration. Large industrial and mining estates lorded over by German companies with far-reaching rights and privileges even vis-à-vis the Finnish state. Industrial upper management German, middle management often Finnish or possibly Scandinavian. Two-tier system for workers, Finnic ordinary workers, Russian slave labourers.

For the majority of its inhabitants, a dystopian hellhole dominated by back-breaking work, the seemingly ever-present bitter cold and increasing pollution, the only ironic respite and diversion being found in the numerous minor international bureaucratic squibbles being waged as a running battle between the different German and Finnish authorities in charge of life and death. In other words, much to be preferred as a living area to many other locales under the Greater German Reich.

[b12ox]

Originally Posted by DrakonFin

The Soviet Union was full of valuable Nazi plunder. The problem is that even in victory the Germans would be hugely overextended. And that is why I think Finland would get Kola together with a big chunk of Eastern and Far Karelia: for the Germans there is interest in the peninsula because of naval bases and minerals, nothing more. As long as the Reich can establish as many military installations on the coast as it likes and it has the economic rights to use the local mineral resources the way it sees fit, it is of no consequence whether maps say the peninsula is German or Finnish.

Cut off from a Greater Finland, Kola is basically a barren, Arctic island. As logistics would anyway run through former Murmansk and the Finnish railway network, it would save the Germans a lot of hassle to make it a Finnish responsibility to make things work in the area.

So, this is how I see the Kola area ITTL: nominally Finnish, run by the Finnish state bureaucracy. Major ports designated German bases under military administration. Large industrial and mining estates lorded over by German companies with far-reaching rights and privileges even vis-à-vis the Finnish state. Industrial upper management German, middle management often Finnish or possibly Scandinavian. Two-tier system for workers, Finnic ordinary workers, Russian slave labourers.

For the majority of its inhabitants, a dystopian hellhole dominated by back-breaking work, the seemingly ever-present bitter cold and increasing pollution, the only ironic respite and diversion being found in the numerous minor international bureaucratic squibbles being waged as a running battle between the different German and Finnish authorities in charge of life and death. In other words, much to be preferred as a living area to many other locales under the Greater German Reich.

Why finland should gat anything from the Nazis. They took some grab for themaselves from the Russians thanks to Barbarossa but then they refused to cooparate in Leningrad. The germans planned to unite the Army Group North with finish troops to secure northen objectives and the finnish just stopped. It added much to the problems in the north, the more so that the Finns where intergrated in the big plan If I were Hitler I would give nothing to Finland.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by kalamona

Hm, pretty self explaining i tought, but:

If you speak about atrocities committed by german forces in ww2, mostly the partisan-related actions come into my mind.

Guerilla warfare is a bitch - and especially doing such against the germans, a nation, culture obsessed with order and consequences.
The important part are the consequences: they made the rules (or there is a rule made by someone) and they mean it: you have to pay a fee, if you wash your car front of your garage and ten civilian will be shot for every german killed by partisans - same thing: you have to pay a fee and 10 civilian will be shot. Or check a more recent and BW (!!!) errr... missdoing: attack against military with stones is still an attack, so they shot back with live ammo (Kosovo).

So, they were not "happy to engage in atrocities". They are just an expectable bunch.

So German troops committed atrocities because they were Germans and atrocities are okay as long as you let everyone know that collective punishment is the rule of the day?

That's what I thought you meant.

Kicked for a week.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Officially quite a few of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust were "anti-partisan sweeps" too.

I know that.

[CalBear]

Oh, as a BTW not related the reason for your kick, there is a rather dramatic difference between killing hostages and reacting with deadly force to deadly forces (and if you don't think rocks can kill you, you would be mistaken).

Originally Posted by kalamona

Hm, pretty self explaining i tought, but:

If you speak about atrocities committed by german forces in ww2, mostly the partisan-related actions come into my mind.

Guerilla warfare is a bitch - and especially doing such against the germans, a nation, culture obsessed with order and consequences.
The important part are the consequences: they made the rules (or there is a rule made by someone) and they mean it: you have to pay a fee, if you wash your car front of your garage and ten civilian will be shot for every german killed by partisans - same thing: you have to pay a fee and 10 civilian will be shot. Or check a more recent and BW (!!!) errr... missdoing: attack against military with stones is still an attack, so they shot back with live ammo (Kosovo).

So, they were not "happy to engage in atrocities". They are just an expectable bunch.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by b12ox

Why finland should gat anything from the Nazis. They took some grab for themaselves from the Russians thanks to Barbarossa but then they refused to cooparate in Leningrad. The germans planned to unite the Army Group North with finish troops to secure northen objectives and the finnish just stopped. It added much to the problems in the north, the more so that the Finns where intergrated in the big plan If I were Hitler I would give nothing to Finland.

Well, it makes sence, but somehow I dont think that Hitler will nitpick after sucessful Barbarossa. IMO he will want to relieve part of burden of occupation from Germany, so why not give Kola and Karelia to Finland if Finland guarantees military bases for germany and mining for German companies...

[DrakonFin]

Originally Posted by b12ox

Why finland should gat anything from the Nazis. They took some grab for themaselves from the Russians thanks to Barbarossa but then they refused to cooparate in Leningrad. The germans planned to unite the Army Group North with finish troops to secure northen objectives and the finnish just stopped. It added much to the problems in the north, the more so that the Finns where intergrated in the big plan If I were Hitler I would give nothing to Finland.

The Finns stopped after their 1941 attack phase because they had made their objectives. You have to remember that Finland had its own goals in the war, it was not some mindless German puppet. Responsible governments and military leaders make responsible decisions. And in many ways by early December 1941 the Finnish units taking part in the attack had reached the limits of their offensive capabilities and thus naturally settled on the defensive for the winter. As a matter of fact, one might well claim it was was the Germans who didn't manage to link up with the Finns north of Leningrad.

But to the matter at hand. Like I tried to explain in my post, after the USSR has been beaten, Germany has taken a bigger bite than it can swallow. We have to think about the limits of how much Germany can realistically occupy and keep pacified when setting up any "Nazi victory maps". If the post-war Nazi leadership, with Hitler or not, have even an iota of sense they try to cut their losses where they can and leave peripheral areas to be administered by their minor allies.

That is not to say that I would wholly discount the idea of the Nazi leadership wanting to grab Kola directly for the Reich. It is certainly possible, even likely. But I think the extent of the post-war Finnish expansion into the former Soviet areas is a question of politics. As Germany now has a lot of things on its plate, the secondary question of the Finnish borders will be settled by diplomatical horse-trading between Helsinki and Berlin. And I believe Helsinki could offer a good enough deal to make Kola at least nominally Finnish, with all the "goodies" going to Germany. It is simply more beneficial to Berlin than the prospect of having to run and administer this Arctic (de facto) island without Finnish input.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by b12ox

Why finland should gat anything from the Nazis. They took some grab for themaselves from the Russians thanks to Barbarossa but then they refused to cooparate in Leningrad. The germans planned to unite the Army Group North with finish troops to secure northen objectives and the finnish just stopped. It added much to the problems in the north, the more so that the Finns where intergrated in the big plan If I were Hitler I would give nothing to Finland.

Well, it's not like the Nazis were ever faithful allies to the Finns, what with selling Finland down the river to the Soviets in the M-R Pact. Finland managed to turn Soviet errors into preserving its own independence no less than twice, and it did so without any real allies to speak of. Which speaks rather well of Finland, rather poorly of the Reich, and very little for the Soviets who invaded Finland both times.

[b12ox]

They had no choice. They had to sign whatever the Soviets wanted to make them happy. They had a war in Europe ahead. Hitler was not a babysitter.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by b12ox

They had no choice. They had to sign whatever the Soviets wanted to make them happy. They had a war in Europe ahead. Hitler was not a babysitter.

On the contrary, they did have plenty of choices. Lithuania, for instance, had its destiny decided for it by Hitler, going from his sphere to the Soviets, in exchange for a Soviet border on the Bug, as opposed to the Vistula. Hitler was no babysitter, he was a vicious, evil, cruel man. And the exact opposite of a friend to Finland.