Could Wiemar Germany Have Won WW2?

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

I think this board has more or less come to the conclusion that the Nazi's contradictory and, quite frankly insane war aims made it impossible for them to "win" WW2, simply because of how much devastation they'd inflict in "winning". That said, would it perhaps be easier for the Wiemar Republic to beat Britain and France, with Soviet support?

Here's what I'm thinking: At some point in the 20's or early 30's, the Wiemar leadership comes to the conclusion that the only way to keep Germany from falling to either Fascists or Communists is to crack down hard on both groups. So they go ahead and impose some sort of dictatorship that harshly punishes internal dissent, but keeps to some sort of center-leftist economic orthodoxy (surely it's not necessary for an autocracy to tack to the extreme left or right on economics, right?) To appease the German public, the Wiemar leadership combines ultra-nationalistic propaganda with a highly conspicuous military buildup. To provide raw materials for this rearmament, Berlin increases its economic and military cooperation with the Soviet Union, exchanging industrial technology and the like for oil and other resources they need for their military. Stalin agrees to this both to aid his own country's industrial development and in the hope that a second European War would bleed his enemies dry and enable him to continue the USSR's development in peace.

Although the Germans do everything reasonably possible to keep their cooperation with the Soviets under wraps, British intelligence uncovers the truth anyway, and they begin to mobilize alongside France and Poland (who's especially terrified to be facing enemies from East and West). War commences around 1940 or so, with the Germans and possibly the Soviets invading Poland in order to ensure a well-protected supply line between them. The Allies respond with a bombing campaign, and, at Churchill's insistence, the RAF hits the oil refineries at Baku. (He'd been considering this in OTL, when the Allies only assumed the Germans and Soviets to be allied. ITTL, that is in fact the case).

The Soviets had been planning to sit out the conflict between Germany and the Western democracies, but the attack on Baku convinces Stalin that that's not an option, and that his best course of action involves finishing the war quickly, before Allied bomber forces become even more effective. As a result, Allied defenders in Belgium are blindsided by an influx of Soviet troops alongside the expected Germans. Even without a flanking maneuver through the Ardennes (which only happened IOTL because of Hitler overruling most of the Wehrmacht's commanders), the defense of France becomes an Allied rout. Moderate Allied success in persuading Mussolini to intervene against Germany evaporates in the face of this defeat, and Italy remains neutral. Europe now lies at the mercy of the German-Soviet alliance.

Assuming events develop this way, what would happen next? America would almost certainly intervene to put a stop to what they'd see as a Communist Europe (and the American public sees little difference between the Socialist Germans and the Communist Russians), and both Italy and Japan could be persuaded to join the Allies with some effort, which gives the coalition a number of strategic options. A Balkan front could be opened, with Italian, British and American troops landing in Albania to threaten the oil refineries in Romania, possibly with Greek and Yugoslavian support. British and Indian troops could invade the Caucasus from Iran to try and take Baku by land, although there's not much hope of drawing the Turks in when their cities are made of wood and in range of German bombers. Alternatively, a Far Eastern Front pitting British, American and Japanese troops against the Soviets and the Chinese might be in the cards. It's the ultimate geopolitical quandary: can a coalition that dominates the world-island of Eurasia be defeated by the powers along its periphery? My guess is probably, but without nuke spamming it would take decades, and the result would make our WW2 look like a water fight. What do you guys think?

Luath · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
I think this board has more or less come to the conclusion that the Nazi's contradictory and, quite frankly insane war aims made it impossible for them to "win" WW2, simply because of how much devastation they'd inflict in "winning". That said, would it perhaps be easier for the Wiemar Republic to beat Britain and France, with Soviet support?

Here's what I'm thinking: At some point in the 20's or early 30's, the Wiemar leadership comes to the conclusion that the only way to keep Germany from falling to either Fascists or Communists is to crack down hard on both groups. So they go ahead and impose some sort of dictatorship that harshly punishes internal dissent, but keeps to some sort of center-leftist economic orthodoxy (surely it's not necessary for an autocracy to tack to the extreme left or right on economics, right?) To appease the German public, the Wiemar leadership combines ultra-nationalistic propaganda with a highly conspicuous military buildup.

Err... Aren't the French going to come down hard on something like this, Treaty of Versaille? Why a military buildup that would be blatantly obvious, why not a campaign against the Far right/left?

To provide raw materials for this rearmament, Berlin increases its economic and military cooperation with the Soviet Union,

Why would they do that, if their against communism why would they want to work with the Soviets?

exchanging industrial technology and the like for oil and other resources they need for their military. Stalin agrees to this both to aid his own country's industrial development and in the hope that a second European War would bleed his enemies dry and enable him to continue the USSR's development in peace.

Although the Germans do everything reasonably possible to keep their cooperation with the Soviets under wraps, British intelligence uncovers the truth anyway

I would have thought that alarm bells would be going crazy as soon as the military buildup emerges

, and they begin to mobilize alongside France and Poland (who's especially terrified to be facing enemies from East and West). War commences around 1940 or so, with the Germans and possibly the Soviets invading Poland

So... their not Nazi but there acting like them?

in order to ensure a well-protected supply line between them. The Allies respond with a bombing campaign, and, at Churchill's insistence

How and why was Churchill elected?

, the RAF hits the oil refineries at Baku.

In 1940 nothing had the range in the RAF [I think]

(He'd been considering this in OTL, when the Allies only assumed the Germans and Soviets to be allied. ITTL, that is in fact the case).

The Soviets had been planning to sit out the conflict between Germany and the Western democracies, but the attack on Baku convinces Stalin that that's not an option, and that his best course of action involves finishing the war quickly, before Allied bomber forces become even more effective. As a result, Allied defenders in Belgium are blindsided by an influx of Soviet troops alongside the expected Germans. Even without a flanking maneuver through the Ardennes (which only happened IOTL because of Hitler overruling most of the Wehrmacht's commanders),

Er yeah, if theres no Hitler how can the changes he imposed happen anyway?

the defense of France becomes an Allied rout. Moderate Allied success in persuading Mussolini to intervene against Germany evaporates in the face of this defeat, and Italy remains neutral. Europe now lies at the mercy of the German-Soviet alliance.

Assuming events develop this way, what would happen next? America would almost certainly intervene to put a stop to what they'd see as a Communist Europe (and the American public sees little difference between the Socialist Germans and the Communist Russians), and both Italy and Japan could be persuaded to join the Allies with some effort, which gives the coalition a number of strategic options. A Balkan front could be opened, with Italian, British and American troops landing in Albania to threaten the oil refineries in Romania, possibly with Greek and Yugoslavian support. British and Indian troops could invade the Caucasus from Iran to try and take Baku by land, although there's not much hope of drawing the Turks in when their cities are made of wood and in range of German bombers. Alternatively, a Far Eastern Front pitting British, American and Japanese troops against the Soviets and the Chinese might be in the cards. It's the ultimate geopolitical quandary: can a coalition that dominates the world-island of Eurasia be defeated by the powers along its periphery? My guess is probably, but without nuke spamming it would take decades, and the result would make our WW2 look like a water fight. What do you guys think?

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

Luath said:
Err... Aren't the French going to come down hard on something like this, Treaty of Versaille? Why a military buildup that would be blatantly obvious, why not a campaign against the Far right/left?

They didn't IOTL, they thought themselves too weak. After WWI, the French were looking at a demographic and industrial disadvantage vis a vis Germany, and weren't interested in fighting another war without help. Even with British support, their OTL plans were mostly defensive.

Luath said:
Why would they do that, if their against communism why would they want to work with the Soviets?

I could've explained this a bit better. Wiemar Germany and the Soviets collaborated on a number of issues during the 20's, with the Soviets allowing the German military to train on their soil, among other things. Just because the German government doesn't want to fall to communists doesn't mean that they can't work with them. Likewise, the Soviets won't always back the communist (they backed the KMT to some extent, I think).

Luath said:
I would have thought that alarm bells would be going crazy as soon as the military buildup emerges

Sure, and it did IOTL, but that didn't stop the Allies from sitting on their hands until too late. Remember, the French don't have the confidence to stand up to Germany on their own, the US is isolationist, and so are the British to some extent. There's plenty of vacillation to go around.

Luath said:
So... their not Nazi but there acting like them?

Yes and no. They're militaristic and highly nationalistic, but they don't have a lot of the more 'out there' eccentricities of the Nazis. That's really the point here; these Germans are the polar opposite of the one's from CalBear's TL, which was what inspired me to write this. They're not interested in imposing an agrarian, racially-motivated dystopia on the planet, they're willing to cooperate with foreign communists even if they don't want their own to take over, and they have better-defined war goals. In this case, they probably want Britain to return their African and Asian colonies along with some other concessions (reparations? lol). Remember, there's plenty of ways you can be militaristic or nationalistic that don't require you to be Fascist, or even right-wing for that matter.

Luath said:
How and why was Churchill elected?

I didn't explain this well as I said before, but with the bogyman of the hour being a leftist Germany, the Conservatives will enjoy more political success than they did IOTL, and whether or not Churchill is PM (I don't think it's necessary one way or another), he'll still exert a lot of influence on British strategy.

Luath said:
In 1940 nothing had the range in the RAF [I think]

I'm not sure myself, but the Allies were weighing that as an option during the Winter War, so I was assuming it was possible. My guess is they could reach it from Greece if the Greeks allowed that.

Luath said:
Er yeah, if theres no Hitler how can the changes he imposed happen anyway?

Which changes? I said that they weren't attacking through the Ardennes.

Overall, I think you're overestimating the aggressiveness of the Western Allies. The Germans ITTL aren't a lot more in-your-face with their rearmament than the Nazis IOTL, and they probably skip a lot of the minor provocations that built up to war IOTL, like annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia. The Allies had reasons for not intervening against Hitler earlier, and most of those reasons are equally valid here. Germany just has a lot more latent strength than France does, and Britain's army is too small to make up the difference.

JRScott · Oct 27, 2012

Without first fixing their economy it is doubtful they could win WW2. Seeking stronger economic ties to the Soviets is a possible way of fixing their economy but it also means they would be in danger of essentially becoming a Soviet satellite state.

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

JRScott said:
Without first fixing their economy it is doubtful they could win WW2. Seeking stronger economic ties to the Soviets is a possible way of fixing their economy but it also means they would be in danger of essentially becoming a Soviet satellite state.

That's true, and certainly within the realm of possibility. Actually, the first idea I had for this involved the Soviets keeping out of all the fighting until much later, when the Anglo-Americans begin their counterattack. At that point (45? 46?) the Soviets intervene in the vein of Richelieu bringing France into the 30 Year's War, preventing German defeat in order to counterbalance the Americans. That would make Germany a Soviet puppet, without question.

Keep in mind that my thoughts regarding this divergence are flexible ones - the scenario I described in the OP is merely one way that things could go, and I'm open to others. That said, I'm guessing the Germans beat the British and French even without Soviet support or an attack through the Ardennes. The Allied strategy was simply fucked up.

Jurgen Wullenwever · Oct 27, 2012

they probably skip a lot of the minor provocations that built up to war IOTL, like annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia.

The pre-war issues with bringing some ethnic German areas fully into the German state was major stuff, from a nationalistic viewpoint. Attacking a mostly non-German Poland is not (unless you are bent on those OTL policies that should be avoided here). Getting Südtirol from Italy would be important for this Germany, unlike Hitler's.

they have better-defined war goals. In this case, they probably want Britain to return their African and Asian colonies along with some other concessions

Do they really want to sacrifice an entire new generation on the battlefield for such small rewards?

Deleted member 1487 · Oct 27, 2012

Quick comment:
The German-Soviet cooperation was dying before Hitler took office, both the Reichswehr and Red Army were wary of trusting the other too much, so there really won't be much to hide, as the program will peter our after 1933 rather than being formally cancelled suddenly.

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipetsk_fighter-pilot_school

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

Jurgen Wullenwever said:
The pre-war issues with bringing some ethnic German areas fully into the German state was major stuff, from a nationalistic viewpoint.

Well, it's a balancing act the Germans are running here. They can only provoke the West so much before things get hot, and they'd rather have better weapons for that than a slightly larger population; propaganda-wise, they'll substitute military victories for the reunification of the German people, at least until the war is over. Ensuring success against the Allies is this government's priority, especially since WWI was such a meat-grinder. But still you're right, they'd probably handle the border adjustments as soon as they finished off the French and could be assured of some momentary safety from the British.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:
Attacking a mostly non-German Poland is not (unless you are bent on those OTL policies that should be avoided here). Getting Südtirol from Italy would be important for this Germany, unlike Hitler's.

I was assuming that the Germans and Soviets would find a rail connection to be safer than shipping stuff through the Baltic, especially if the Allies win the race for Norway, which I think is slightly more likely ITTL. As for South Tyrol, they'd probably make a grab for that if and when the Italians declare war.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:
Do they really want to sacrifice an entire new generation on the battlefield for such small rewards?

The French sacced a generation for Alsace-Lorraine, that's not much more sensible. Also, they might have fooled themselves into thinking they could win before the US intervened, in which case the sacrifice wouldn't be that big anyway. No one in OTL Germany expected the British to keep fighting after France fell.

Edit: @wiking: Thanks for the links, I didn't know all of that. I suppose the best chance of making the liaison work out would be to butterfly away the Soviet backing of the German communists. Maybe if they were somehow less effective ITTL, the Soviets would be less interested in them?

JRScott · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
That's true, and certainly within the realm of possibility. Actually, the first idea I had for this involved the Soviets keeping out of all the fighting until much later, when the Anglo-Americans begin their counterattack. At that point (45? 46?) the Soviets intervene in the vein of Richelieu bringing France into the 30 Year's War, preventing German defeat in order to counterbalance the Americans. That would make Germany a Soviet puppet, without question.

Keep in mind that my thoughts regarding this divergence are flexible ones - the scenario I described in the OP is merely one way that things could go, and I'm open to others. That said, I'm guessing the Germans beat the British and French even without Soviet support or an attack through the Ardennes. The Allied strategy was simply fucked up.

Barbarossa was one of the great errors the Axis did in WWII. Hitler didn't have the army and materials needed to take Stalin out. The other great error was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Stronger ties to the Soviets though would prevent a Barbarossa as Stalin would probably be readily selling the oil to Germany. After all its in Stalin's favor if the British Empire falls as much as in Germany's.

If given such stronger ties, Germany less needs Japan and in fact may never have signed a treaty with Japan in such a case, in fact the Axis could realign to be Germany-Italy-Russia. Japan still trying to carve out an empire of its own, the higher German tech traded to Russia would enable Stalin to better defend his territory in the far east particularly bomber/fighter technology.

Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor then would not have Germany and Italy declaring war on the United States as they have no treaty in such a case. This means the USA enters into a war against Japan but not against the Axis.

Britain would probably evacuate some of the Royal Family to Canada as in this scenario it is very likely Britain will fall to the Axis. The war against Japan will be much more intense as the resources for things like D-Day etc would be put into the Pacific instead of the Atlantic.

Britain would probably fall in 43 with a joint Axis invasion of Great Britain, if the evacuation was successful then the Royal Family is in Canada. 44 is mostly mop up of British forces in the Med and Middle east. A new African campaign by late 44 into 45. Russia once Britain falls will concentrate on Japan's territory in Asia mainland, China and possibly India and southeast Asia. Japan will not be able to defend these effectively due to its war with the United States.

The US would still probably drop the bombs on Japan, the cost of invading the mainland is just to great. Japan will unconditionally surrender but with the danger now posed by a stronger Axis it is not likely they would remain a separate country, becoming more or less a US Territory along with much of the Pacific islands. Eventually possibly becoming one or more states.

Australia oddly enough was already looking for stronger ties to the USA during this time OTL, and its possible they could choose to become a territory as well, especially in the fast of a much larger Soviet and German block. They could even petition to just outright join the United States especially with the fall of England. It would add essentially 7 new states. This is more out of the need for protection than anything else, and the need for stronger American ties as a result.

Other pacific territories in such a TL could become states as well like the Philippines, Indonesia etc. Its largely either stay with the Americans or be dominated by the Soviets or Germans. American resources that were poured into Europe post WWII would be going to the Pacific mostly and possibly to Canada and Mexico. Its possible that Canada could join the United States as well in such a world, essentially ending the monarchy, no doubt like Australia they'd join as full fledged states.

Give it 10 years though and Germany will ultimately betray Stalin....after he's had time to sufficiently build up his forces, naval, air force, army etc. This means Stalin will face German jet fighters, jet bombers etc. It would be a nasty war, and I could see the American block just quietly sitting it out. Seeing the effect of the Nuclear weapons on Japan, I don't think Hitler would use them first, he'd have them though. The moment Stalin used a nuke though, Hitler would reluctantly allow chemical and nuclear weapons to finally be used.

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

JRScott said:
If given such stronger ties, Germany less needs Japan and in fact may never have signed a treaty with Japan in such a case, in fact the Axis could realign to be Germany-Italy-Russia. Japan still trying to carve out an empire of its own, the higher German tech traded to Russia would enable Stalin to better defend his territory in the far east particularly bomber/fighter technology.

Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor then would not have Germany and Italy declaring war on the United States as they have no treaty in such a case. This means the USA enters into a war against Japan but not against the Axis.

Why would Italy have to join this alliance? Mussolini's still in power, hates communists, and thinks too much of his military. He probably figures that his troops can hold the Alps against the Germans long enough for the British and Americans to come to his support. Besides, the British will be promising Italy all sorts of ridiculous stuff in exchange for their backing. Granted, the Italians did get burned at Versailles, so my guess is Mussolini stays neutral until it's clear who's winning, then moves in for the kill. As for Japan, that's trickier. They're not allied with the Germans or Soviets, so they can still trade with the US and the Dutch East Indies, which obviates a lot of the reasons they took on the Allies. China might be a sticky issue there, but the Allies would surely be willing to overlook that in exchange for a Far Eastern Front. The Japanese alone would be no match for the USSR, obviously, but there'd be British, American and Australian troops in the theater before too long if they go down that road. It'd probably be seen as easier than invading Fortress Europe, at least.

JRScott said:
Britain would probably evacuate some of the Royal Family to Canada as in this scenario it is very likely Britain will fall to the Axis. The war against Japan will be much more intense as the resources for things like D-Day etc would be put into the Pacific instead of the Atlantic.

Britain would probably fall in 43 with a joint Axis invasion of Great Britain, if the evacuation was successful then the Royal Family is in Canada. 44 is mostly mop up of British forces in the Med and Middle east. A new African campaign by late 44 into 45. Russia once Britain falls will concentrate on Japan's territory in Asia mainland, China and possibly India and southeast Asia. Japan will not be able to defend these effectively due to its war with the United States.

Britain might be more likely to fall under these circumstances, but I don't see how it's likely. This Axis is even more deprived nautically than the original, since there's probably no Italian leg of the alliance. Even if they still had that, though, there's no hope of beating the RN, and an overly aggressive U-boat campaign would make sure America enters the war. Plus, the campaign would almost certainly fail in the face of a convoy system and more advanced anti-submarine tactics. Britain's not going anywhere without nukes or something ASB. Still, you're probably right about the Middle East, my guess is that the next front would be either Iran or the Balkans; might depend on whether or not the Italians join the Allies.

JRScott said:
Give it 10 years though and Germany will ultimately betray Stalin....after he's had time to sufficiently build up his forces, naval, air force, army etc. This means Stalin will face German jet fighters, jet bombers etc. It would be a nasty war, and I could see the American block just quietly sitting it out. Seeing the effect of the Nuclear weapons on Japan, I don't think Hitler would use them first, he'd have them though. The moment Stalin used a nuke though, Hitler would reluctantly allow chemical and nuclear weapons to finally be used.

Uhh...There's no Hitler here, that's part of the point of the TL. As for a German-Soviet war, I'm not sure how likely that is, or when it would happen. I think a 1920's POD is too late to prevent Germany from being rabidly anti-Semitic, so Einstein probably flees to the US anyway and Manhattan goes off without a hitch. Given that premise, how long would it take the Germans to get their own nukes? Looking this far forward imparts too many possibilities to sort through. Still, you are the first person to try and consider the implications of my scenario, so thanks for that.

Edit: I just looked at the distance from Baghdad to Baku, and it's only 570 miles, easily within the Vickers Wellington's 2550 mile range. Greece is out, but the British could bomb Baku from Mesopotamia if they were so inclined (i.e. crazy).

Deleted member 1487 · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
I think a 1920's POD is too late to prevent Germany from being rabidly anti-Semitic, so Einstein probably flees to the US anyway and Manhattan goes off without a hitch. Given that premise, how long would it take the Germans to get their own nukes? Looking this far forward imparts too many possibilities to sort through. Still, you are the first person to try and consider the implications of my scenario, so thanks for that.

Einstein did not work on the US bomb project, he just wrote a letter to Roosevelt about it. Most of the German-Jewish scientists wouldn't have left Germany even with increased anti-Semitism, but no Hitler or Nürnberg laws. Liberals (socialists and communists) may well flee with an authoritarian right wing government that cracks down on them, but there is no guarantee about that without Hitler promoting active violence against them, firing them from their jobs, and obviously building up for war.

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

wiking said:
Einstein did not work on the US bomb project, he just wrote a letter to Roosevelt about it. Most of the German-Jewish scientists wouldn't have left Germany even with increased anti-Semitism, but no Hitler or Nürnberg laws. Liberals (socialists and communists) may well flee with an authoritarian right wing government that cracks down on them, but there is no guarantee about that without Hitler promoting active violence against them, firing them from their jobs, and obviously building up for war.

How long would that delay the Manhattan Project? More to the point, how likely would it be that the Allies try using nukes to win the war? After all, they'd probably need that kind of destructive power to beat this Axis within any reasonable time-frame. It'd be a tough decision for Truman (If the project gets pushed back too long, then FDR's hypertension is still there waiting to bump him off) and whoever's running Britain to make.

Deleted member 1487 · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
How long would that delay the Manhattan Project? More to the point, how likely would it be that the Allies try using nukes to win the war? After all, they'd probably need that kind of destructive power to beat this Axis within any reasonable time-frame. It'd be a tough decision for Truman (If the project gets pushed back too long, then FDR's hypertension is still there waiting to bump him off) and whoever's running Britain to make.

Without German scientists defecting to Britain and the US its hard to say. The US might well start one on their own, but without people like Einstein horrified by the concept of Hitler getting the Atom bomb first, it might well eliminate said pressure if the German leader looks more reasonable. Also the loss of talent would easily add a year or more to bomb research, but that assumes the US would start on time in this scenario.

Frankly your scenario in the OP makes little sense at all. If war were to come to Weimar Germany it most certainly would not be the result of the Allies discovering Lipetsk. German-Soviet cooperation was never enough to cause more than a minor political scandal that could be quickly smoothed over, as when Germany was pretty much caught in mid 1920's rearming their navy (Lohmann Affair), a much bigger scandal than doing research in the Soviet Union, which was simply dealt with by firing their admiral of the Reichsmarine, Hans Zenker:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohmann-Affäre_(Weimarer_Republik)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Zenker

Without Hitler there really isn't going to be pressure to build an atom bomb, especially without German physicists moving the the US and Britain.

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

wiking said:
Without German scientists defecting to Britain and the US its hard to say. The US might well start one on their own, but without people like Einstein horrified by the concept of Hitler getting the Atom bomb first, it might well eliminate said pressure if the German leader looks more reasonable. Also the loss of talent would easily add a year or more to bomb research, but that assumes the US would start on time in this scenario.

Frankly your scenario in the OP makes little sense at all. If war were to come to Weimar Germany it most certainly would not be the result of the Allies discovering Lipetsk. German-Soviet cooperation was never enough to cause more than a minor political scandal that could be quickly smoothed over, as when Germany was pretty much caught in mid 1920's rearming their navy (Lohmann Affair), a much bigger scandal than doing research in the Soviet Union, which was simply dealt with by firing their admiral of the Reichsmarine, Hans Zenker:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohmann-Affäre_(Weimarer_Republik)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Zenker

Without Hitler there really isn't going to be pressure to build an atom bomb, especially without German physicists moving the the US and Britain.

Okay, I think this is another case of me having this idea and rushing to post it without making everything as clear as it could. For starters, I'm postulating a lot more cooperation between the Germans and Soviets. More to the point, though, I didn't mean to say that the war started as a direct consequence of that, just that it increased tensions irreversibly. Frankly, I think it would take a lot of work to NOT have another Franco-German war, regardless of what else happens. But no, it wouldn't just be because of what the British find, the Germans would start it themselves as soon as they feel confident, and the Allies may or may not force the issue before that.

As for a lack of impetus for building an atomic bomb without Hitler, I'm guessing the British and Americans would feel a little more motivated once the Axis starts running roughshod over half of Eurasia, and their initial bombing campaigns aren't likely to have as much of an impression against an intact Luftwaffe that isn't diverted away to Libya or the USSR.

Maybe I should go fix up my OP, it's drawing a lot more criticism than genuine interest.

Deleted member 1487 · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
Okay, I think this is another case of me having this idea and rushing to post it without making everything as clear as it could. For starters, I'm postulating a lot more cooperation between the Germans and Soviets. More to the point, though, I didn't mean to say that the war started as a direct consequence of that, just that it increased tensions irreversibly. Frankly, I think it would take a lot of work to NOT have another Franco-German war, regardless of what else happens. But no, it wouldn't just be because of what the British find, the Germans would start it themselves as soon as they feel confident, and the Allies may or may not force the issue before that.

I don't mean offense, but you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of the interwar period politics and attitudes in Europe. Assuming that Hitler just doesn't rise to power there isn't going to be more cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union, just less, as the Soviets were courting the Poles and French, who were getting pretty socialist. Britain in fact was more worried about France and the Soviet Union than Germany until Hitler started throwing his weight around before the Munich conference. The French and Germans were not on the war path at all before Hitler took over and even with a right wing dictator, including the general/politician von Schleicher, who wanted a military dictatorship in Germany head by himself, wouldn't provoke a war with France. In fact starting another war in Europe was profoundly difficult all things considered until Hitler pushed until the Allies had to either fight or lose all credibility as world powers. Seriously; had they not fought over Poland they would no longer be considered world powers by any other nation, seriously threatening their national security. So any other dictator in Germany that didn't push the French and British to the point of political irrelevance would not have caused a war. There was in no war any inevitability to WW2, it had to be actively sought by Hitler and the Nazis.

And no German leader in Weimar Germany other than Hitler and his ultra-nationalist psychos were actually interested in war, certainly not the German military, who panicked when Hitler declared he wanted them ready for war in 1941-2 at the Hossbach conference. That directly resulted in Hitler having to find ways to remove most of the military leadership from power, because they stood in the way of his war plans. So a military dictatorship would have even been much more pacifistic than Nazi Germany. I cannot name a single alternate German leader that would actual start of war with France and Britain when they felt confident of winning, because they never would feel confident of winning and because they thought a war would weaken them too much relative to the Soviet Union, who they never, ever trusted even in the hay-day of German-Soviet cooperation.

Under no circumstances would any other German leader start a war in Europe after WW1. They might use clandestine and then overt rearmament to toss off the ToV and re-write some borders, but they were not going to fight again, as they had no wish, nothing to gain, and everything to lose from fighting another war that they would be even less prepared for than in 1914.

TRH said:
As for a lack of impetus for building an atomic bomb without Hitler, I'm guessing the British and Americans would feel a little more motivated once the Axis starts running roughshod over half of Eurasia, and their initial bombing campaigns aren't likely to have as much of an impression against an intact Luftwaffe that isn't diverted away to Libya or the USSR.

Maybe I should go fix up my OP, it's drawing a lot more criticism than genuine interest.

The British couldn't fund their own program and didn't have the talent to do it by themselves until the US did it first and gave them all the help they needed after the war.

The US is not going to be as threatened by a war without the Nazis in charge of Germany and Roosevelt would lack the knowledge that the bomb is possible without the European scientists who fled from Germany and who pioneered atomic research in Germany writing him to tell him about the threat. So without that motivation to even try, the US wouldn't even know that it is something to work on nor that the threat even exists.

Also the Axis would not exist as an alliance without Hitler, as other German leaders would not ally with Italy because the lack the admiration for Mussolini, nor would they ally with the USSR, who is the ideological enemy of the Prussian/right wing/conservative Germany, especially the leadership that would exist without Hitler.

So there wouldn't even be a war in the first place for the US to get worried about.

TRH · Oct 27, 2012

Hmmm...and this setup doesn't even work with a communist Germany, since that could easily have been reason enough for the French to take action and preempt a domino effect throughout Central Europe. I guess this really doesn't work as an idea. My knowledge of history isn't as, well, encyclopedic as most of the other people on this board, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. This was really just a knee-jerk reaction to re-reading that CalBear TL, and it was apparently an ill-considered one. My apologies.

Deleted member 1487 · Oct 27, 2012

TRH said:
Hmmm...and this setup doesn't even work with a communist Germany, since that could easily have been reason enough for the French to take action and preempt a domino effect throughout Central Europe. I guess this really doesn't work as an idea. My knowledge of history isn't as, well, encyclopedic as most of the other people on this board, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. This was really just a knee-jerk reaction to re-reading that CalBear TL, and it was apparently an ill-considered one. My apologies.

No need to apologize. Posting ideas and getting push back is how we learn. My first several hundred posts were totally uniformed and my first TLs were (and lasts ones probably aren't much beter) awful from a historical perspective. I've found this board a great source for learning because all of the people willing to explain to me what I've gotten wrong!

JRScott · Oct 28, 2012

With an improved economy and no Hitler there would be no WWII in any sense of the word. Stalin would take the Baltics and possibly Poland but the appeasement of France and even Britain would allow him to take them without starting a full fledged war.

Germany would probably still invade Austria, to reconnect their nation but the appeasement powers would allow it. However such invasions would probably stop there. Instead of the other historic invasions they'd probably help the Soviets take Poland.

Europe's war then pretty much ends without much real fighting, England is never attacked.

Italy though it would like to expand will find its war against Greece floundering without a German alliance.

Japan would still be trying to carve its empire. Stalin would be fighting them in the Far East and the United States would be fighting them in the Pacific. I do not believe FDR would do the same level of cooperation with Stalin he did with Churchill OTL.

Stalin would probably devote more forces to taking China, Manchuria, etc than OTL as he's not fighting Germany. Assuming reasonable tech trade Germany provides him with bombers/fighters that while not jets are more advanced than the Japanese ones. In fact no Hitler probably means no German jets for another decade at least.

No Hitler probably means no German Nuclear Weapons research, which means no bomb for the allies or the axis. The US-Japan war would end with mostly a stalemate with Japan confined to their main islands. I don't believe the USA could take Japan. However the cost in lives will be astounding. You'd have a virtual blockade, which means increased famine and pestilence in the main Japanese islands and probably steady bombardment of most coastal cities by the US battleships.

England with no European war is able to easily reinforce its holdings in India and Southeast Asia against Japanese attacks. The transfer of British naval assets to the Pacific in such a case would alleviate much of Australia's worries. There would be cooperation from British and US forces in the Pacific.

Operation Olympic would probably be a go since no bomb. Though the cost would be heavy the beachhead would be secured. Operation Coronet would probably follow. More Americans will die in Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet than in any other war time operation including the Civil War.

Japan would fall to British and American Forces probably in late 46 or early 47. Her population will be decimated. Probably a quarter the size of the pre war years. Her industry smashed. Her cities mostly leveled. The price paid in Olympic and Coronet are going to make the American people less interested in supporting rebuilding Japan, she'll essentially become a third world country.

The lack of nuclear weapons means the world is a lot less safe. Another major war will break out in the next 10-15 years probably in Europe but possibly in Southeast Asia as the Soviets attempt to take what Japan had desired. Korea would fall, as there is no deterrent to keep Soviets from invading. China would probably overrun Vietnam and most of the southeast. China I believe would be communist. China could well be looking for some payback on Japan too, and especially if the US and UK abandon Japan after the defeat might well invade and occupy Japan.

As evil as Nazi Germany was they probably accelerated technology at least a decade perhaps two ahead of pace in many fields including aerospace, medicine, synthetic fuels, etc. Many advances in those fields will probably be delayed at least a decade perhaps two because most countries are not willing to push the edge as much as Nazi Germany did, especially in some unethical medical experiments of the time.

Remicas · Oct 28, 2012

TRH said:
Even without a flanking maneuver through the Ardennes (which only happened IOTL because of Hitler overruling most of the Wehrmacht's commanders), the defense of France becomes an Allied rout. Moderate Allied success in persuading Mussolini to intervene against Germany evaporates in the face of this defeat, and Italy remains neutral. Europe now lies at the mercy of the German-Soviet alliance.

How could you know ? If they attack straight through Alsace, they're going to run into the Maginot line, and if they attack through Belgium but not the Ardennes, (like the oiginal nazi plan was) then it's exactly what the French were expecting (more, demanding), and will have to face the best French troops with their best equipment, and better suplied and without the shock of the German breakthrough at Sedan like OTL.

I'm not saying the Franco-British forces are going to win singlehandly, but it could result to a defeat for Germany, or if they win it will be more, more costly. And the battle of France wasn't that easy for the german to begin with.

Shard · Oct 28, 2012

I think what would happen in Asia that the USA will SUPPORT Japan, not starting economic sanctions and all that.

Justification?
USA want's to counter SU power, before they grow big and powerful (Germany feared the exact same thing would happen when Russia built railroads and Industrialized)
So: USA support for Germany+Japan, to counter SU.

Germany is going to unite with Austria peacefully - The Austrians were essentially OK with Hitler annexing them.

The USA has to essentially start a cold war with SU, and it's going to be a longer slug than the previous one.

No war with Nazis = SU not damaged as badly.

Decolonization - Significantly slower as compared to OTL
(Military not completely screwed up, no Hitler to make things look obscene...)

Nukes - Still discovered, but slower.
The only way to really avert Nukes would be to avert modern Physics.

Science continues apace but military uses continues at a slower rate.
Dude, we have plenty of people NOT dying,starving and being dead in Europe. (Like 62-78 million not dead, and even more people not having rebuild their economy from scratch - like 3.5% of of world's population died, not even considering immediate aftermath.)

Overall: OTL WW2 averted,skip straight to Cold War, European(And Westerners) better off in general. Nuke still discovered.

Could Wiemar Germany Have Won WW2?

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487