Peace in Our Time

[jgack]

I seem to remember a documentary I saw on the history channel several years ago that was talking about the post-Stalin Soviet Union. In it I seem to remember them talking about how when Beria became leader he wanted to stop supporting East Germany and let it do whatever it wanted to because he considered it a liability the Soviet Union could ill afford. Now, I have several questions: 1st, did anyone else see thisor am I remembering things I never saw again? 2nd, Did this actually happen or is the history channel making documentaries of things that never happened again? 3rd, if it did happen and it had succeeded, what would have happened? Would Germany have reunited 30 someodd years early? Would the Cold War have ended? Would the Soviet Union survive long into the future? Would the U.S. and Soviets have landed on the moon earlier and today be colonizing Mars or would the abscence of hostilities have resulted in no space race? Post your thoughts. Thanks

[Leo euler]

I'm thinking Germany would have quickly reunited. I believe East Germany's main purpose was basically as the USSR's huge forward base in Western Europe to act as a buffer or a springboard for the USSR to conveniently attack. So in that sense perhaps it was their most valuable satellite. I really don't know a great deal about the history over there, but I've looked at a couple of alternate WWIII scenarios, and using East Germany to seize all of Germany (and perhaps beyond) seems to have been a prime goal of the USSR.

If they let go of it, I'd say that would be a major shift in their satellite policy. I would bet Germany would soon reunite afterwards in the absence of aid or political "moral support" from the USSR. Especially if the USSR and the other satellites just flatout stopped trading with them.

I still think there would be a space race, unfolding largely as it did in OTL.

[Susano]

1952 Stalin made his famous "Stalin Not", in which he DID offer reunifcation of Germany... under UN-overwatched Elections, and kept neutral by treaty, kind aliek Austria. USA and USSR already were discussing an election schedule, but it was due to the initaitive of Chancellor Adenauer (teh traitor), who wante dto focus on teh "West Integration" of (West) Germany that it did not happen. Grrhmpfgrr....

1953 it took Sovjet troops to restore order in Germany after a workers uprising... nothing nearly as brutal as Hungary 56 or the Prague Spring, teh Sojets wer emostyl asssiting the East German security forces, but still, it ws the first uprising of its kind in the East Block. Esepcialyl after this Beria did see East Germany as a liability indeed.

Still... at this time the GDR was stillkinda thriving compared to later decades. Even if abandoned by the USSR, the regime could have survived for quite some time, unless there was a direct Western intervention. And I dont know if the USSR coudl allow THIS - other states in their block could get funny ideas...
Besides, Wets GErmany had no army yet back then, and Im not sure wether USA; France, GB would invets ressoruces in such an adventure. hell, France and GB woudl surely not even be intersted in an united Germany, en contraire.
So, come to think of it, the SED regime in the East might even get some Frenc and British monetary backing in this case.

So, we would see the more or less historical route route... the GDR survives as dictatorical Eats Germany, destroying its own economicla abse with iinefficent command economy. Maybe, without USSR backing here, the efefcts already begin to show in the 80s. So, at best, maybe a reunifcation 5 years earlier...

Then again,w ithout USSR influence, the SED might actualyl manage it to create an own Eats German identity, killing the chance of reunifcation :/

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Susano

1952 Stalin made his famous "Stalin Not", in which he DID offer reunifcation of Germany... under UN-overwatched Elections, and kept neutral by treaty, kind aliek Austria. USA and USSR already were discussing an election schedule, but it was due to the initaitive of Chancellor Adenauer (teh traitor), who wante dto focus on teh "West Integration" of (West) Germany that it did not happen. Grrhmpfgrr....

Why was this unsuccessful? Germany became a stable prosperous nation, tied to NATO.

If you mean he was unsuccessful in that Germany didn't develop nukes and restart the Drag Nach Osten....

[Susano]

WEST Germany became a peropseorus country (NATO? Yeah, that was a disadvantage, but with the Iron Curtain, a necessity). The East was sold out by Adenauer. So, if you only want to make degeneratory comments, simply shut up!

[Steffen]

Adenauer prevented Stalin to lure West Germany out of the western camp into the zone of influence of the communist world. The idea of a neutralizing Germany like Austria falls flat as Germany is a bit bigger than Austria, and is the axis of advance into western Europe.
And what kind of idiot does it take to believe STALIN allowing free elections? Free elections, like in the GDR.

And the Stalin note gives a hint: A "peaceful" and "democratic" germany. But the communist definition of peaceful is quite different from ours. For the reds, the Soviet Union pursued it´s goal of peacefulness when invading Afghanistan.
because they spread their ideology with it that leads to ultimate peace.
With democratic, they usually mean the rule of the workers and peasants.
with the final abdomination, the "people´s democracy".

Because peace and democracy have -according to their way of thinking- nothing to do with political actions- do we declare war or not, do we extend the franchise or not,
but with the rule of marxist ideology and way production.

the neutrality of the reunited germany would have been of the same quality as the influence of the western allies in the affairs of the soviet-controlled countries in Eastern Europe.

Strategically, the advantage would have been on the soviet side. In an all-out war, they would first encounter the weak german forces, and only then the NATO, which has its frontier at the Rhine.
Without being well-cemented into a geostrategic bloc, not very much could prevent the Soviets from overrunning the country- or "coming to aid" against a "neo-fascist" system. So appeasement against the bolshevik hordes would have become the rationale of german politics. IMHO, you wouldn´t have had neutrality, but finlandisation.

[Susano]

Right, because you know, it all ended up in catastrophe for Austria or Finland... who ended up as communsit ruled sovjet vasalls...only that, well, they didnt. That is why Stalin also said elections under UN supervision. Its not like he simply amade a statement and that was it, a ssaid, USA and USSR already were engaged in negotiations, so your argument is kidna flat, and, well, wrong.

And because the USSR would hav ennecessarily lattacked like they did IOTL?
It are the 50ies. USA would have far more likely attacked. Stalin was still fightened that a deep incursion into Russia like done by the Nazis could happen again. It was HIM who wanted a neutral belt between West and East, HE wanted security from teh West given this Way. A neutral belt Jugoslavia-Austria-Germany-Finland, meaning nearly nod irect Iron Curtain Border, except soem 100 km Norway/USSR.

So stuff your Empire of Evil nonsense.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Susano

Right, because you know, it all ended up in catastrophe for Austria or Finland... who ended up as communsit ruled sovjet vasalls...only that, well, they didnt. .

Yes, and that´s because a strong NATO, and specifically american commitment to the defense of democracy deterred the Soviet Union. and a strong NATO required a (western) germany, prosperous and solidly placed along the other countries. And the point with austria and finland is that western germany was much bigger, geographically and in terms of population, and strategically in a different position.

Originally Posted by Susano

That is why Stalin also said elections under UN supervision.

oh, stalin said it? oh, that changes all. it´s unthinkable that a respected world leader of his reputation would try to defy the UN with rigging an election. Appeasenik.

Originally Posted by Susano

And because the USSR would hav ennecessarily lattacked like they did IOTL? .

Again, no because IOTL we did what was neccessary to deter the SU. And that was not singing "give peace a chance" or substituting realism with moral self-righteousness but by creating the Bundeswehr, placing it in the NATO structure, and ending century of enmity with our neighbours by pushing for economic and political cooperation in the built-up of european institutions.

[QUOTE=Susano]
It are the 50ies. USA would have far more likely attacked. [QUOTE=Susano]
WTF?
A breathtaking argument. Are you sure that you´re not sliding between different AH worlds?

Originally Posted by Susano

It was HIM who wanted a neutral belt between West and East, HE wanted security from teh West given this Way. A neutral belt Jugoslavia-Austria-Germany-Finland, meaning nearly nod irect Iron Curtain Border, except soem 100 km Norway/USSR..

and for purely defensive reasons, he amassed a large army along the the inner-german border, supplied communist guerilla in the world, invaded countries like afghanistan...
just because he wanted to be left in peace

Originally Posted by Susano

So stuff your Empire of Evil nonsense.

i´ll stuff it right up your...

[Susano]

... seeing the obvious nonsens of your post, Illr efrin fromf urther comments. Geez, how far history can be rewritten...

But yes, if it makes you happy, NATO always were the good guys, and only because of the good guys (who only happened to be inferior in conventional weapons throughout the cld war [okay, maybe not by the 50s, but you made a general statement] and thus had tor ely on having more nukes) the evi, evil USSR could be hold in check... you keep believing that.

Besides, if NATO deters USSR not to atatck neutral countr liek Austria Finland, then this wouldnt apply to Germany? Yeah right, I rest my case...

[Steffen]

Illr efrin fromf urther -
oh you speak klingon?

I think you confusing something. If a strong alliance deters a superpower which follows a brutal, and often murderous ideology from overrunning two weak, unimportant neutral countries, you automatically suppose that a decisively weakened alliance could come up with the same level of deterrence.

[Susano]

Decisvely weakened? By the lack of teh Bundeswehr? I think you overestimate our armed forces, Steffen. Of course the USSR was the worse choice, but the western block was not exactly Utopia, either, so your black/white presentation really annoys me... nothings black/white.

The USSR was whatever, but it surely was not stupid. Do you really think USSR would have riked WWIII? Historically, when teh world came close to it, Kennedy pushed for it... and the Sovjets retreated.

And of course STalin was no saint - in fact he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. However, as long as he had his neutral cordon he couldnt care less what happend to Germany, weher it was democratci or communist. Dont forget he only just recently had won supremacy in East Europe. For the time being he was content with it (and well, one year later he died, heh), and he wanted to secure his gains.
Dont automatically asume that every evil person is automatically a lunatic madman... as said balck/white thinking again.

There oif course ha sbeen some historical research into it. Intersetingly, it appears to me that while most German historians dismiss the Stalin Note as a Stalinian attemp to backstab the West, most international historians hold it true. And if you ask me, that is because the Germans ar enot entirely unbiased in this.

Furthermore, Adenauer WAS a dubious character. He did have contacts wit the French-collbrationist circles of "Rhinish Seperatists" in the years bewteen the war. It might even have been his AIM to exclude the east.

[Steffen]

.[/QUOTE]Decisvely weakened? By the lack of teh Bundeswehr? I think you overestimate our armed forces, Steffen.[/QUOTE]


Susano, the Bundeswehr with its cold war strength of 480.000, was certainly one factor, but we also shielded western europe geographically.


.[/QUOTE]Of course the USSR was the worse choice, but the western block was not exactly Utopia, either, so your black/white presentation really annoys me... nothings black/white.[/QUOTE]

1. yes, I think the NATO where and are the good guys,
2. I think that sometimes it can lead to very wrong conclusions if the tendency to find shades of grey everywhere overrides the ability to identify blackness.


Furthermore, Adenauer WAS a dubious character. He did have contacts wit the French-collbrationist circles of "Rhinish Seperatists" in the years bewteen the war. It might even have been his AIM to exclude the east.[/QUOTE]

the most dubious aspect in the "rhenish speratism" seems to be that not two people involved have the same memories about it. One group wanted to split away from the Reich, others only from Prussia, and seperation (in an administrative sense) was discussed in high governmental circles during the Ruhrkampf, a situation where the Mayor of Cologne and President of the Prussian Staatsrat was surely involved.

It is true that he disliked the Prussian attitude, but AIMING to exclude the east is far-fetched to say the least.

[Steffen]

Couldn´t resist...

the text says: All marxism leads to moscow

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Susano

WEST Germany became a peropseorus country (NATO? Yeah, that was a disadvantage, but with the Iron Curtain, a necessity). The East was sold out by Adenauer. So, if you only want to make degeneratory comments, simply shut up!

Okay, I was a little over the top, and you're right, times were hard for East Germany.

But let's remember that this is 1952. It's less than ten years since WW2 ended; any agreement would have required the consent of the great powers that are still occupying Germany, and they would have been extremely leery. They, unlike Adeneuer, would also have the final say.

So had Adeneuer accepted, the West would've said, "shut up", to be blunt. No one was willing to trust Stalin over this.

The other question is how much trust did he gain. Remember, Adeneuer was the first one to reject Stalin's offer, which helped the US view him as a firm ally.

I suspect that if we're trying to unite Germany, 1953, when there was a revolt in the GDR, might be a better time.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Susano

... seeing the obvious nonsens of your post, Illr efrin fromf urther comments. Geez, how far history can be rewritten...

But yes, if it makes you happy, NATO always were the good guys, and only because of the good guys (who only happened to be inferior in conventional weapons throughout the cld war [okay, maybe not by the 50s, but you made a general statement] and thus had tor ely on having more nukes) the evi, evil USSR could be hold in check... you keep believing that.

Err, umm, I gotta say, this confuses the hell out of me. Of course the US relied on having nukes; what use would a large army be?

During the 1980's, the US finally gained a military superiority in conventional weapons as well.

Besides, if NATO deters USSR not to atatck neutral countr liek Austria Finland, then this wouldnt apply to Germany? Yeah right, I rest my case...

Of course, Austria was neutralized by an agreement between teh two powers and was rather small, and Finland did become a bit of a soviet "vassal". The term Finlandization refers to Finnish policy in this period.

[Paul Spring]

It are the 50ies. USA would have far more likely attacked. Stalin was still fightened that a deep incursion into Russia like done by the Nazis could happen again. It was HIM who wanted a neutral belt between West and East, HE wanted security from teh West given this Way. A neutral belt Jugoslavia-Austria-Germany-Finland, meaning nearly nod irect Iron Curtain Border, except soem 100 km Norway/USSR.

That is so completely ridiculous that I feel obligated to respond.

The US was going to attack the Soviet Union in the 1950s? We would send our powerful force of 10 or 12 divisions, perhaps supported by a few divisions from the UK, France, and West German, smashing eastward against the 100-120 divisions that the Soviets had deployed? That's exactly what our nefarious plans were.

The nuclear weapons of the US are the only reason that Stalin didn't keep his armies going to the Rhine, possibly further.

[Derek Jackson]

Stalin was an evil murderer but neither an idiot nor suicidal.

If he planned to attack the West why did he withdraw from potentially Strategically useful territory in Northern Norway and allow US forces into Berlin?

By the way if in counting the number of Stalin's victims you include those who died as a result of his crazy economics surely all deaths in WW2 in Europe ought reasonably be ascribed to Hitler. Hitler was, therefore, the bigger murderer.


If the Soviet Union had agreed a Neutal Germany then attacked it German forces (for ALL of Germany by the way) would have fought and NATO would have piled in pretty damn quick.

I think that it is reasonable to conclude that the Soviet Union thought it would be safer with a buffer zone.

This would have turned down Cold War tensions A LOT.

Query would a United Germany have been accepted as neutral if it had joined the European Cold and Steel Community which in OTL eventually became the European Union

[Steffen]

hm. I´d say its more of a question if the EGKS comes into existence or not: creating a supra-national steel and coal board makes sense only when most (read: practically all) producers take part.
And in the early 50s, everybody firmly attributed steel with military production. And i would bet that the soviets would have cried "violation of the neutrality! military-industrial complex!"

[BurningWickerman]

Originally Posted by Steffen

the text says: All marxism leads to moscow

I find that so amusing, especially considering Marx was German born and lived in England.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by BurningWickerman

I find that so amusing, especially considering Marx was German born and lived in England.

Yes, we are market leader in exporting dangerous ideologies.