1939: Nazi Germany jointly occupied by Great Britain, France, and Soviet Union

One of post-1900 AH scenarios that I found quite interesting is the one where the Nazis were nipped in the bud. My preferred choice is in September 1939, when the majority of Wehrmacht was busy in Poland.

So, assuming that Great Britain and France immediately throwing the bulk of their armed forces into the relatively undefended Germany:
- How long would it take for the British, French, and Soviets to occupy the whole Germany? Before or after the end of 1939? (here I guess Stalin will eagerly join the party and declare outright war on Germany)
- What would the Allies (minus Americans) do to Germany in the aftermath? Depose the Nazi government? Dissolve Germany for good and balkanize it?
- How would Fascist Italy react? What would Benny do?
- How would this affect the Second Sino-Japanese War and the incoming Pacific War?
- How would the ATL WWII be played out? My bet is Great Britain, France, United States, Nationalist China vs. Soviet Union, Communist China, Imperial Japan. Dunno about Italy, Spain, Hungary, and other Fascist European states...
 
1. It depends on when the offensive actually starts, but if the Siegfried line is breached quickly before the Germans can redeploy their troops from Poland, I can't see them lasting more than a few months. And I can definitely see Stalin stabbing Hitler in the back to push deeper into Euorpe.

2. Dismantling Germany is defiitely plausible, since the French even suggested doing this after ww1. However, if an allied-soviet war starts in a short while, then one of the sides (if not both) might try to recreate an united Germany as a puppet/ally.
The problem is that if Stalin wants an ocuppation zone in Germany he needs access through Ploand, and the issue of Poland has the poetential to send the soviets and westerners on a collision course very quickly after the conquest of Germany

3. Italy will continue to be opportunistic and look for an occasion to jump into the action. Fighting against the Soviets makes more sense from an ideological point-of-view, while fighting against the allies makes more sense from a strategic pov. The same is valid for other "revisionist" countries such as Hungary or Bulgaria.

4. The Sino-Japanese war might contiune undisturbed. The larger pacific war however might be butterflied away completely.

5. The United States will probably want to stay out of this as long as possible since they have no clear simpathies for either side. In China, the irony is that the local communists are actually less likely to ally with the Soviets then the nationalists are. Especially if Japan is a soviet ally (Mao was more strongly anti-japanes then Chiang)
Japan hovewer can allso go either way. I doubt they would refuse England if it would offer them a renewal of the old alliance.
 
I'd say that if France and the UK look like they're winning, Italy will accept the colonial concessions that the French were offering and pile on as well, seeking to split off Austria and puppetise it, and that the remains of the Little Entente would probably take the opportunity to pile on Hungary.

It's actually unclear to me what Stalin would do. He was very cautious in the post war era, so I suspect he may wait long enough that he actually gets minimal gains, particularly as the eventual German collapse may be very rapid when they run out of munitions and spare parts.
 
Hitler would not have invaded Poland without the M-R Pact. It's entire purpose was to prevent a situation where Germany would be at war with the Soviets and the Allies (even more so, Hitler thought such a pact would prevent Britain and France from honoring its guarantee over Poland). Without the M-R Pact, it is very unlikely Hitler would attack Poland.

Stalin could always betray Germany, but it's a big gamble. The secret protocols of the Pact make it obvious that Stalin wanted to partition Poland - making any deals with the Allies much harder. Furthermore, it would reveal Stalin is not a reliable diplomatic partner. Not only did he undermine the Allies by agreeing to the M-R Pact to begin with (even though he was discussing alliance with them), he subsequently betrayed that very same Pact.

In any case, the Allies and USSR will win decisively very soon. The Allies are not very ready in 1939, but the west wall has very little. A determined offensive with the troops immediately available to France should get the French to the Rhine very soon. Whether they can cross the Rhine in force quickly depends on how the Germans respond. In any case, the Allies are well positioned for 1940. They have good defensive boundaries at the Rhine and possibly the Ruhr and other parts of western Germany. German units do not have any respite to re-equip and incorporate the lessons from the Polish campaign. They are immediately on the defensive. If the quick French invasion prompted Stalin to not occupy eastern Poland, then it's possible even a rump Polish state still exists in SE Poland.

In such a scenario, the Germans might quickly sue for peace before much happens. Certainly if the Soviets declare war, Germany will want to capitulate as soon as possible to prevent the Red Army from occupying German soil (and the Poles will want that too to prevent the Red Army from occupying Polish soil).

For balance of power reasons, I don't think the Allies (or Poland) would want to see Germany destroyed at this point. They need balance against the Soviets. But they definitely need to weaken Germany. Czechoslovakia would be restored. Austria would be detached, or perhaps even combined with all of Southern Catholic Germany. Something needs to be done to keep peace in Central Europe.

In any case, British and French prestige is restored. The Soviets become the only real threat to Europe. Italy, Spain, and the Balkans all join the French in an anti-Bolshevik front (not alliance) wary of Soviet power. But likely no war. Finland and the Baltics retain their independence. There is no war in Europe for at least another 10 years or more.

In the Pacific, Japan slogs on against China. With nothing to divert the European powers, Japan will not risk expanding the war. Eventually the Allies and the US increase their support to the Nationalists with the intention of forcing the Japanese to negotiate peace. At some point in the 1940s, Japan has a government that agrees. Japan withdraws from China, but keeps Manchukuo. As part of the terms, Japan only surrenders land once Nationalist (never Communist) forces arrive. They then withdraw. Mao gains nothing. Chiang Kai-shek is a national hero. Soon after, he destroys the Communists and goes after the warlords. By 1950-1955, China is probably completely unified. At which point, China works with Japan to encourage the Europeans to leave their Asian colonies.

By the mid-1950s, things are so different, it becomes hard to predict what would happen.
 
The Soviets aren't getting an occupation zone. No damn way.

Meh.it's unlikely the Allies could truly stop them if they wanted to occupy Eastern Germany. Besides, the Soviet-hate of the Allies is somewhat overexgerrated. Germany was always regarded as the greater threat, and the Soviet Union has has diplomatic a trade relations with the French and British for over a decade now. While Poland will be a sticky issue, the Allies likely won't press it immediately and will likely not achieve much in their initial talks.
 
Some problems with your scenario:
1. Stalin is pretty damn paranoid, and if the industrialization of Soviet Union continue uninterrupted by Barbarossa, the general war in Europe is practically unavoidable by mid-to-late 1940s.
2. Why the Soviets would let the Communist Chinese lose?
 
Some problems with your scenario:
1. Stalin is pretty damn paranoid, and if the industrialization of Soviet Union continue uninterrupted by Barbarossa, the general war in Europe is practically unavoidable by mid-to-late 1940s.
2. Why the Soviets would let the Communist Chinese lose?

I think Stalin would be smart enough to "settle accounts" with Japan and expand in Asia before he picks a fight with an unravaged Europe that still outweighs him significantly.
 
There's a TL somewhere describing in detail how the Allies could have breached Germany's western defenses while the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland, but I don't know how far it extends into the alternate-WWII.
 

iddt3

Donor
Some problems with your scenario:
1. Stalin is pretty damn paranoid, and if the industrialization of Soviet Union continue uninterrupted by Barbarossa, the general war in Europe is practically unavoidable by mid-to-late 1940s.
2. Why the Soviets would let the Communist Chinese lose?
1. Stalin is also pretty damn cautious, and the entire point of the MR pact was to avoid what is probably about to happen, a common European front against the USSR. In those circumstances Stalin is unlikely to seek war. I don't see how soviet industrialization makes war inevitable either.
2. Because Stalin was closer (Or at least more interested in having influence with)? to Chaing then to Mao
 
Last edited:
Top