Operation Barbarossa, 1950

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by IchBinDieKaiser, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. IchBinDieKaiser Casual Historian

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    California
    The Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact was suppossed to last 10 years, signed in August of 1939, it would last untill August of 1949. What if Hitler had decided to keep that pact with the soviets? He would not have to divide troops between two fronts.

    This is part of a timeline I'm working on that includes a German victory in ww2. The PoD is FDR getting assasinated in Miami, Florida in February of 1933. Because FDR was not there, the U.S. went through a even worse stream of leaders. Because of a prolonged depression and conflicts at home, the U.S. stays out of WW2. Japan also does not attack pearl harbor because during the administration of Huey Long, the U.S. sold the Phillipines to Japan.

    Anycase, that is the Rough idea.

    So Hitler only has to fight a war against Britain. The Nazis don't win the battle of Britain, but eventually, with fighting in the North Sea, The Atlantic, and North Africa, Britain sues for peace in 1943. Britain hands over Egypt and Palistine to Germany. This gives the Axis powers access to oil in the middle east. For the next 7 years they prepare for a massive invasion of the Soviet union, and in march of 1950, it happens.

    How likely is any of this? Could a Barbarossa in 1950 be more successful? Remember, this is a very rough timeline.
     
  2. Kome Shhh, don't wake Maria

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Germany doesnt really care bout Africa, it would probably go to Italy.
     
  3. Astrodragon Coffee-seeking Dragon

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    UK - Oxfordshire
    Stalin attacks Germany in 42 or 43. He has no intention of keeping to the pact any longer than he has to.

    Especially since the Germans have no way of paying for the raw materials he is supplying - they got out of this in 41 by attacking Russia!
     
  4. Mike Stearns Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    If Barbarossa is delayed until 1950, then the Germans have enough time to develope nukes. I shudder to think of what will happen to the Soviets when that happens....
     
  5. Typo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    ummmm that's kinda inplausible, for all sorts of reasons ranging from the election of Huey Long to American dislike/fear of japan

    basically we'll be back to the old debate on whether the USSR will attack Germany first, and how long the Uk can hold out on its own.
     
  6. Kome Shhh, don't wake Maria

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    The soviets have spies and their own nuclear program, if Germany gets nukes the soviets will soon after words.
     
  7. Emperor Norton I Calbear's Love Child

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Location:
    North
    Its not really implausible. What FDR did was hold the floodgates on the radicals. Because of him, neither fascists nor communists nor socialists came to power nor led any revolution nor gained increasing support. Without FDR, Long does have a reasonable chance or gaining the office and had plans to do so. He had populist appeal. Though if he is President, he may put in place policies that will get the US out of the Depression as well.

    The selling of the Philippines may be a little unrealistic, but the US and Japan really were good friends before the war.
     
  8. Typo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    The US and Japan were -never- good friends after the whole invasion of Manchuria thing.

    And while FDR was no doubt an able politician, the firmly rooted US democratic political system did far more than him in keeping out the radicals.
     
  9. Emperor Norton I Calbear's Love Child

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Location:
    North
    Perhaps not, but they had maintained amiable relations before that, and maintained acceptable relations even after that, though relations began to grow more and more heated as Japan expanded itself into an Empire.

    What FDR and the New Deal did was basically cut the legs out from under the radical movements. They ran on the failure of the previous system and their way as the better way, and that is what got people to follow. But with recovery, this message all evaporated. Without recovery, dissent would have continued to rise and its not unrealistic to think that a revolution or some outbreaks of rebellion or a coup could have occurred or one of these radicals could have gotten elected (even Hitler was elected to begin with).
     
  10. Typo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    FDR getting shot isn't going to butterfly away the Japanese Empire
    Hitler was able to run a campaign with his goons beating up the opposition in the streets because Germany was a nation which spent 10 years as a semi-democratic republic, the US was one with centuries of democratic traiditon and whose raison d'etre was democracy. Would there have been dissent and radical movements before recovery? Probably, but those would have been moderated once they reach a certain level in the government.
     
  11. Redbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Copenhagen , Denmark
    In OTL the Red Army was in the middle of a huge expansion plan when German attacked in June 41. In short everything was in chaos in the Red Army, and Hitler probably couldn't have chosen a better time to attack (well May 41 - perhaps).

    If the Red Army is left alone it will have a fair chance to complete its expansion plan by mid 42 (See David Glantz – Stumbling Colossus) , which will mean 500 + Divisions equipped with modern materiel like T34s and KV1s by the thousands. What Stalin would have used such a formidable force for we will never know, but it would have given him a realistic option of rolling westward, and even have it coincide with the decisive battles over Britain. I would even imagine Churchill being willing to practically any bargain with Stalin if that could have him join the war against Germany, and as long as a huge uncommitted Red Army is standing east of Germany there is no reason for Britain to surrender. I doubt the Germans could have starved Britain to submission by 43 through a PoD after 1940.

    Hitler probably had no clue about the Red Army’s expansion but on the contrary thought it was a question of kicking in the door and the whole house would come down. So even if Stalin stays put while Hitler finish off Britain the Germans are likely to severely underestimate the Soviets if/when they decide to roll eastwards. A Wehrmacht with its latest major experience against a British opponent would be very sharpened in the air and at sea, but feel that its 1940 tactics and materiel are quite sufficient. The Red Army will still not be an example of flexible and smart doctrines, but with all staff positions manned, equipment present and with doctrines implemented in reaction to the German successes of 1939-40 the Wehrmacht is likely to find a reinforced concrete wall where they thought it just was a simple garden fence.

    But in 20-20 hindsight the Germans should have offered Britain just about anything to get a peace agreement/armistice by 1940. I wonder what the British Government would have reacted to this after July 1940:


    • Germany and the British Empire agree to a peace agreement reinstating all normal political and commercial contacts
    • Germany recognize/support Britain taking control of all French overseas positions
    • Germany withdraw from Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium (Swedish iron ore really isn’t needed after France was taken)
    • Vichy French will be thrashed if they protest
    • The British Empire will not support the Soviet Union in case with war with Germany or its allies
    • Germany promise to resurrect Finland, the Baltic States and Poland to their 1939 borders after the Soviet Union is defeated and order reestablished
    • Germany will guarantee the British (incl. French), Dutch and Belgian Empires, also against possible Japanese or Italian demands. If necessary the Germans ambassadors in Rome and Tokyo will shine their moons to Mussolini and Hirohito respectively. If the British feel like taking the Italian colonies, Germany will turn a blind eye.
    • Hitler politely, and slightly drooling asks, if Princess Elisabeth, alternatively Princess Margaret would be interested in marriage? If so, the King can have Eva Braun.
    Regards
    Steffen Redbeard
     
  12. DuQuense Commisioned Officer CSN

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Florida ,CSA
    The US promise to grant Philippine independence in 1945 goes back to pre WW1. No way the US could get away with selling the Philippines to anyone.
    Mussolini would have something [a Lot:D] to say about this Idea.

    In 1941 Russia was busy building the new Stalin Wall in Russian occupied Poland, In May and April the Gun's and Equipment was pulled from the old wall and prepared for shipment.

    Advance Barbarossa 6 weeks and the old wall is still operational.

    Delay the War 6 months, and the new Wall would have been ready.
    Not that the wall [either one] could have stopped the Germans, But it would slow them long enuff for the Russian's rear troops to be ready
     
  13. B_Munro Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    I'm not sure how serious to take any of the "non-joke" ones, but a lot of these are pretty questionable. The second one is an offensive bribe: the UK wasn't in the war to grab French territory. And German withdrawal from Belgium and the Netherlands is pretty insignificant if they hold northern France. As to claims they will restore Poland _after_ they defeat the USSR, they can promise to give free pedicures to everyone in England as well while they're at it. Promises of future good intentions from a nation which has so consistently broken it's promises in the past are worthless. (And of course, UK promises of noninterference in a German-Soviet war are equally worthless once they're going at it hard and heavy). As for guarantees of the British Empire, against who? it's like a Mafioso offering a guarantee that your store won't burn down, for a small price. It's not like Germany can make the Japanese can do squat they don't want to.

    Now, if we have a no-Churchill scenario and the Germans actually pull out of France and the Low Countries, bag and baggage, we might get a negociated peace. But there's one little problem here: Hitler thought he was _winning_, and as such he's never going to give up his control of western Europe. Nor was he going to wait till 1950: he's increasingly unhealthy, and he has no intention of dying before his victory over the USSR.

    Finally, the UK is likelier to get a bomb first than Germany.


    Bruce
     
  14. Redbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Copenhagen , Denmark
    I quite agree, that seen from OTL 1940-41 none of the "proposals" are very realistic, but my main point is, that no price really is too high for Germany, if it can bring peace with GB before Barbarossa, and if that can bring victory in Barbarossa.

    It is of course true, that GB did not enter WWII to grab French or any other territory, but neither did they in WWI, and they still ended up getting control over a lot of territory (German colonies).

    Anyway, a British government seriously considering a peace with Germany will probably be a government focussed on Imperial interests, and not defending obscure European states not big enough to swing a cat around in. In such a context I would not exclude that the British could be tempted to be partners a "new world order" where GB can not only consolidate but expand the Empire outside German spheres of interest.

    And next I will claim that British foreign policy never had creating a European balance as a goal. That was the instrument to secure no serious threats to the Empire - preserving the Empire was the main goal. As creating the European balance is down the drain in 1940-41, the next-best instrument to preserve the Empire could be a "new world order" deal with Germany (the alternative is having Stalin defeat Hitler and take Europe!). And please remark that this does not implicate any British nazis or nazi sympathy, only a very strict adherence to traditional British policy of "Empire first" - and of course Hitler realising what kind of job defeating the Soviet Union is. The last precondition probably is the toughest nut to crack.

    Churchill probably did not have any idea either, at least intially, that defeating the nazis would mean sacrificing the Empire, but at least he played along well enough after that was obvious.

    Regards

    Steffen Redbeard
     
  15. Milarqui Bloguero de Historia Alterna

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Between Madrid and Granada
    Hitler was never elected as Chancellor of Germany. He did get a 33% of votes once, but that was the maximum the Nazi Party would ever get. He was picked as the Chancellor because there were some that thought that Hitler could be controlled from the center-right parties and thus they would manage to restore some order without having to do it themselves (Hitler only had 2 Nazis on his first cabinet). The problems started when he managed to get a law through the Bundestag that prevented others from ousting him, which was what those who had wanted to control him would have done if he had gotten out of control.