Alternate Cold War scenario

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Winner, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. Winner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    Czech Rep., EU
    Feel free to comment and post your thoughts :)

    [​IMG]

    I started this on a different forum, so here are few other contributions:

     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
  2. Krix Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    The borders of divided Poland are completely implausible.
    Upper Silesia and Pomerania remaining in German hands is implausible.
    The Eastern Poland lacks both population or any resources to function as state.
    No removal of Germans from invaded countries is implausible.
    Poles lost more population and more territory in OTL and yet they decided to pursue the population transfer, despite the economic consequences. The desire to prevent repeat of German invasion and atrocities was stronger then economic considerations.
     
  3. Xen Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Republic of Appalachia
    Why? Is it any more implausible than the borders of OTL Germany, Korea or Vietnam? The short answer is no!

    Not in an alternate scenario especially with a divided Poland. In spite of your negative response the only thing about the map that is implausible is a unified German nation. The allies were pretty determined in 1945 to carve Germany up into as many as three to four seperate states.

    Maybe you would like to educate us on what is the bare minimum population needed to function as a state. I am really interested in this, please fill us in.

    For once I agree. Germans are going to be expelled from territory they invaded, no ands ifs and buts about it. All four of the major allies agreed on this.
     
  4. Mulder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    The wonderful Rhineland
    But Germans were not expelled from either Belgium or Denmark in OTL.
     
  5. DireSituation Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    Tis a good ATL. It's unlikely with the POD, but still plausible if one looks at the broad picture.
     
  6. Krix Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    The Germans there didn't classify local population as untermenschen, and German minorities didn't assume the role of Nazi master race.

    The short answer is yes, since they are based on eastern border of Poland that was established in 1945 while the POD is in 1944. Also unlike Germany or Korea or Vietnam they don't contain any significant population, industry and so on, also they are completely un-defendable.

    Not really, Upper Silesia was the important for German arms industry and keeping it in German hands was considered foolish by Allies due to experience of Second World War. Also Allies agreed to territorial changes on western Polish border well before 1944.

    One that allows for successful competition with its divided part. I am afraid that this proposed state not only would be dwarfed by its divided part by terms of population, industry, but due to fact that it is almost completely rural territory, and a few of its cities are right on its border.

    Besides in 1944 there was already a government of national unity and Soviets grabed power only by 1947-well too late for any two states to developed.

    The proposal that "Polish government refuses military transfer to Soviets" would be rejected by both Allies, implausible since Polish military worked with Red Army in OTL, and Soviets had 500,000 strong Polish army of their own at their disposal.
    No serious politician in the West would deny Soviets their influence in post-war decision making over Germany-they relations at that point were quite good, and especially Americans were not interested in hostilities(and people like Patton didn't really matter in politics).
     
  7. Xen Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Republic of Appalachia
    The way I took it and the way it appears to be written is the border is established along where the Soviets and Allies met, not some pre-existing condition so therefore the border is similiar to what we have in Korea.

    Eastern Poland is not annexed into the Soviets because the Soviets wanted a buffer to the capitalist West Poland.


    However I also suggested that they break Germany up into several states, if Upper Silesia is part of a smaller German state. The allies could also break down all the industry in Upper Silesia.


    This would sort of being like the Confederate States winning the American Civil War. It would be interesting for you to tell them they could not successfully compete with its divided part in the north because it is dwarfed in terms of population, industry and due to the fact it is almost completly rural territories and most of populous cities are south of the border. Got it;)

    So the Soviets control one portion of the country and will install what ever government they wish and if the west is unhappy with the government in their portion they will force an election and maybe even fudge the poll numbers a little. The west was not beyond that.

    I can agree to this too. Perhaps by breaking Germany down into numerous states (like I said three or four) and have them all "Austriaized" would be a better solution.

    I truley think if the allies performed this much better we will likely see the Soviets more willing to negotiate the control of Eastern Europe. In my no Cold War TL, the Soviets allowed Eastern Europe what ever form of government they wanted under internationally supervised elections and a promise made good not to interefere with the domestic politics of Eastern Europe. In return Eastern Europe was neutralized and became a group of Soviet protectorates which gave the Soviets influence on the foreign policies of their neighbors. Not a perfect solution by any means but certainly more agreeable.
     
  8. The Kiat I'm going to Nixonland!

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    The Left side of the State.
    Not so sure about the plausablility, but I like the map :)
     
  9. Mulder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    The wonderful Rhineland
    It is impossible to "austriaize" any component of germany save maybe bavaria. places like hesse, mecklenburg, thuringia or baden never had any national identity while austria had one (although extremely undedeveloped until 1945) the best example for this is the otl situation in 1990. East Germany and West Germany wanted to unify immediately since there was no seperate identity at all.
     
  10. Kneze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    this map only seems possible if Valkyrie was successful
     
  11. Eurofed Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Some considerations:

    I indeed agree that this map looks more likely if Valkyrie is successful, esp. as it concerns having the Iron Curtain at the Vistula instead of the Warta or the Oder. If we pick the PoD of the Anglo-Americans making a decisive move for Berlin and Vienna, this surely moves the Iron Curtain to the Oder-Neisse or the Oder, or maybe the Warta, but the Vistula is pushing it. However, I also acknowledge that the sequence of PoDs that the OP assembled to justify the outcome seems plausible.

    If the Soviets never reach within Germany-Austria, it wholly makes sense that they do not get an occupation zone there and Germany keeps Pomerania and Silesia (and actually I make strong objections to the fact that the map gives pre-war German Upper Silesia to Poland). IOTL the occupation zones in Germany-Austria and the Oder-Neisse border were only really finalized at Potsdam and were greately shaped by the military facts on the ground, any previous agreements in merit were vague and provisional. Roosevelt and Churchill were never really interested in giving the Soviets a foothold in Germany or the Poles Pomerania and Silesia, as far as they were concerned, the German-Polish issue would have been setled by giving East Prussia to Poland. As far as they were concerned, the issue of ending German threat would be settled by enforcing vigorous Allied control and reshaping of German society with denazification, democratization, disarmament, "deprussianization", and an political-military protectorate on Germany. Moreover, ITTL the Soviets never occupy Pomerania and Silesia, there is no flight of the German population, the Anglo-Americans would loathe to stage a large-scale ethnic cleasing of an area under their administration that has no Polish population and never was Polish in the last millennium. It is indeed even very questionable whether they would let the Czech stage mass ethnic cleansing of the Sudentenland in a Czechia under their control, but in Eastern Germany it is outlandish.

    In all likelihood, if they get a free hand in Germany, they are going to enforce something much like the Roosevelt plan. I.e. Germany (including Austria) would be divided into several occupated zones, Hanover, Hessen, Bavaria, Austria, Prussia, and Saxony. The original intention would be to make them into separate nations, however, they would gradually change their intention, as the Cold War gets heated, anti-German animosity dies out, and the invaluable contribution of Germany to the Western bloc becomes clear.

    Therefore, I propose that ITTL the division of Greater Germany in allied occupation zones lasts a bit longer, then they are gradually allowed to unite in a single nation, under Allied protectorate that is then gradually lessened. Say the various zones are allowed to unify in 1955, after various referendums indicates that this is the will of the people, Germany is given back autonomy in internal affairs, and in 1960 is allowed autonomy in foreign affairs and to rebuild an army (within the strict bounds of the NATO/EU framework, of course). Austria remains part of the German nation because the Western Allies never get much interested into treating it differently from the rest of Germany, without Soviet occupation the Austrians are never moved to develop a neutral separate national identity to escape it, and vote for reunification.

    The presence of a West Poland makes Stalin willing to keep trans-Vistula East Poland as a separate satellite to claim rival legitimacy to rule the Polish nation, and it looks viable. At the very most, Stalin might give Lwow back to East Poland to buffer it, i.e. to use Curzon Line "B", not "A", as the Soviet-East Poland border, but it is unlikely.

    I would point out that while a Communist Finland makes a lot of sense ITTL, like the division of Iran, Stalin would also likely keep hold of Finnmark and annex it to Finland. In Asia, while Stalin would indeed try to recoup the loss of Central Europe by making a stronger, earlier push to take control of Manchuria, conquer all of Korea before the Americans land in South Korea, and perhaps even to make the planned landing in Hokkaido and set it as a Communist North Japan. Howeve, such blatant Soviet land-grabs would push the Anglo-Americans even more into a Cold War mood. So we may expect the Americans to make a stronger effort to support the GMD in the Chinese Civil War, and if the Soviets take full control of Manchuria, the Chinese Nationalists would never try to reconquer it, which crippled their military chances against the Chinese Communists. So in all likelihood the Chinese Civil War ends into division of China into Communist North (which makes no Sino-Soviet split as the Soviets entrench their control) and a Capitalist South, with the demarcation line at the Yellow River. The North Korea-South Korea dynamic gets played out between the two Chinas ITTL. Without support from the PRC to the Vietminh, the French crush the Viets with American support.

    Also, if ITTL the Western Allies advance further east in Germany, they would do so in northern Italy, too, and so beat the Yugoslav Communists to Gorizia-Gradisca, Trieste, and Istria, too. As a result, surely Gorizia, Kars, Trieste hinterland, western Istria, which was majority Italian, and quite likely even all the Julian March would stay with Italy. Even IOTL the Allies were not willing to hand Trieste back to Yugoslavia, they had poor relationships with the Yugoslav Communists, they would have even less reason to hand back the Julian March if they reach it first, control all of it, and Yugoslavia remains a Soviet satellite. The 1919 border is rather better strategically than the OTL 1947 one against an hostile Soviet bloc. Quite likely Italy keeps the pre-war border with Yugoslavia (which was internationally recognized) or something close to it.

    I would also point out that ITTL, with the need to keep a stronger Greater Germany under control and to exploit its potential for NATO against a more aggressive Soviets, France would get more reason to go ahead with the EDC/EPC European military-political integration when the Americans start to pressure for German rearmament. So ITTL we may easily see a more federal EU getting an integrated European army and political integration from the start in addition to the EEC economic integration. If this be the case, we may easily see a strong EU be born in 1955-60.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
  12. Eurofed Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Here, I've edited the 1971 European map with what I deem necessary adjustments (the Italo-Yugoslav border has been retraced by hand, so it may not be exact, but it is supposed to be the 1919 one or something close to it).

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Citizen Samuel Infantile

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    "Hell is a city much like London"
    Anschluss with a POD after 1944? Are you crazy?
     
  14. Eurofed Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Over the long term, Americans and Western Europeans are not going to keep Germany and Austria separate against their will any more than they did or would with Hanover and Bavaria, or West Germany and East Germany. And without Soviet occupation, a separate Austrian national consciousness or Austrian neutrality (which are strongly interwined) never develop.

    Do not think of this as something that would happen in 1946 or 1948, think it as something that happens in 1955-1960, as part of the gradual reunification and autonomy of the various occupation zones in Greater Germany, quite likely as part of its integration in a strong early EU. For the first several years after WWII, Germany would look rather like this, and Austria would be one zone among several, nothing special:

    [​IMG]


    This is the original plan that the Western Allies developed for Germany on their own, and would follow, if they do not need to take heed of the Soviets. Of course, over the years, as anti-German animosity dies down, the "new" Germans look like they have genuinely reformed to peaceful democracy and loyalty to the Western bloc, and the Soviet threat looks more and more like the overriding concern, there shall be more and more willingness to allow the various German zones to recover national unity and poltical autonomy, within the strict bounds of the NATO/EU framework of course, and there is no reason why Austria, Hanover, Saxony, or Bavaria would not be part of the process, if the Soviets do not control any of them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2009
  15. Krix Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    The map is taken from Wikipedia and is original creation. It doesn't follow the actual changes proposed from Allies.
    That was never the goal of Valkyrie group. In fact it couldn't be since the term of Iron Curtain was invented much later after their attempt to keep German occupation of Central and Eastern Europe by killing Hitler and making deal with Western Allies(which they wouldn't make).

    Incorrect. The territorial changes were decided long before by the Allies. Some changes were last minute like Szczecin or deciding or giving Lower Silesia but the Oder River was decided long before fights on German soil.

    A simple glance into diplomatic materials from all Allied conferences will prove this to be incorrect. In all talks there was no opposition whatsoever to Silesia becoming part of Poland. Not to mention nobody wanted to give East Prussia to Poland, since Stalin demanded and was given Konigsberg as warm water port early on. The parts of East Prussia were very small and not considered a compensation for its eastern losses, nor enough to secure its safety from Germany. Really-all of this is freely available thanks to US government who published the documented talks and conference material on the net. I really sugggest you read it, as it will give you an influence for more plausible AH scenarios.
    There would be no ethnic cleansing but population transfer just like in OTL.
    Parts of Upper Silesia was already part of Poland before WW2 and like in its other parts where German minority organisations assisted Nazi invasion and overwhelmingly took part in atrocities-Germans would be transferred away. Just like in Czechoslovaki.
    As to your claim of no Polish population-I am afraid that again you have to reach for historical material on that subject. There were milions of Poles in Silesia, mainly in Upper Silesian part, but also in cities like Wrocław(known as Breslau) where for instance the local minority engaged in resistance against the Nazis during the war.
    As to claim "ever was Polish in the last millennium" -that is a gross historical ignorance. Polish kings resigned the dynastic right to inherit Silesia in 1348, however parts of Silesia were restored to Polish kings in 1645 in the Opole region, until bought back by Habsburgs in 1666.


    All in all your claims and propositions are implausible, and reflect lack of historic knowledge. I suggest you read the contents of Allied talks that are available on the net, they will surely enlighten you as to the possible decisions and changes that are possible.

    This link contains most of them, with a search function
    http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/

    I hope you will enjoye it, and in future we can patricipate in fun realistic AH scenarios :)
     
  16. Pikers3 No republic please, im British

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    Location:
    Londres, United Federation of Europe
    i cant see Britain or France allowing Germany & Austria to unite as it would make Germany way to powerful. Also it would seem to the public that all Germany can be united. This would cause Italy, Belguim, Denmark and the Czech federal Republic to be very worried as the German populations in those countries would now have a option to be annexed to Germany. I can imagine the only countries that would be for a greater Germany would be Spain, Sweden and Portugal. As in the rest of Europe, America and Canada there would still be some anti german feeling.
    Uniting Austria with Germany is not the same as uniting Hannover & Germany. Austria was never part of the united Germany and they had their own empire. I think Austria has been distinct from Germany/Prussia for at least 500 years.
     
  17. Citizen Samuel Infantile

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    "Hell is a city much like London"
    The difference between Austria and Bavaria is that Austria was a nation that had only ever been part of Germany from 1938-1945. Britain and France opposed German reunification in 1990 OTL, how do you think they would react to Anschluss in the 60's?
     
  18. Hanzo Петро́ Дяче́нко

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Most Serene Republic of Venice...I wish
    Becuase the HRE never happend at all :rolleyes: And Bavaria too was a independant nation for a set amount of time (1806-1871) and even when it was absorbed into the German empire continued to have it's own monarchy and such.
     
  19. Eurofed Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Don't forget that ITTL we still have British and French troops in Germany throughout the Cold War, Germany would still be "economic giant, political dwarf" throughout the Cold War, its economy, foreign policy, and military kept under close rein by the NATO and EU framework. In all likelihood, either the last Allied control powers are phased out at the end of the Cold War, or Germany is soon subsumed into a strong quasi-federal EU framework, as it would have happened if the EDC/EPC had been successful, which it quite likely with a united Germany. France would be even more eager to apply their "if you can't cripple them, harness them" strategy. As for the British, they would have their usual misgivings about a strong French-German EU, true, but about the Americans, as long as NATO keeps a firm rein over Germany, and they have their troops in the country, they would not really worry.

    There is a big difference, however. Austria is a purely German land, and its unity with Germany proper does not threaten their rights of any non-German nation or minority. Indeed I would absolutely expect that the Allies make it very sure that any irredentist movement about South Tyrol or the Sudetenland has to be crushed hard within Germany as one of the precondition to give back Germany any political autonomy. But it would not be any really different from OTL, where such movements have been strongly marginalized to the far right fringes in Germany & Austria. The Allies have free rein as the occupation government of Germany for a considerable tiem, they can easily enforce the meme that irredentism on Italian and Czech stuff is a neo-Nazi thing and a no-no. Moreover, in all likelihood, this Germany is strongly bound within a NATO/EU framework where Italy, Belgium, Czechia, Demmark would all have clout. In all likelihood, Germany remains something of a NATO/EU quasi-protectorate throughout the Cold War, with its army under the direct control of a Pan-European high command and not its national government (as it was in the EDC/EPC project). But IMO only South Tyrol and Sudetenland might theoretically be a concern, the numbers of the German minority in Blegium and Denmark always were so pitiful that they failed to sustain any significant irredentist movement in the interwar period.

    According to OTL example, it would be quickly fleeting. If a good thing can be said about American national character, it is that they are demonstrably very quick to forgive a vanquished enemy that is a gracious loser. As soon as the Germans look like they are reformed and make themselves useful against the Soviets, the Americans would soon become the greatest sponsors of giving them a reliatively loose rein.

    This is historically untrue. Austria was part of the HRE just like the rest of Germany, and whatever one may rightfully think about the horrible abuse the Nazis did of it, the Anschluss was in all evidence a national unification carried with the support of the vast majority of the people. And anyway, the Allies have a quick and reliable democratic way to settle the issue for good, named a referendum under their supervision. Without Soviet occupation, it would in all evidence go just like Saar.

    More like between 1866 and 1918.
     
  20. Citizen Samuel Infantile

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    "Hell is a city much like London"
    The HRE was never a centralised nation-state. Austria was independent of Germany before WW1, after WW1 and before and after WW2. The only period of its history when it has ever been part of Germany itself has been during the Nazi regime. This is why anschluss is never an option post '45.