1940 peace: Soviet alertness?

[Equalist]

1940 British/German peace WIs seem to be really popular right now for some reason, but I've never understood why people would assume that the British would just happily sit out while the last remaining great european continental power gets butchered by Germany (and Japan in some instances), and why the US would get even more neutral than prewar.

A peace in 1940 is merely a pause until Germany invades the USSR, as even British politicians willing to make peace would understand that Germany would remain a huge threat to their interests, even more so if they take control of western USSR. What this POD would do is effectively allow the British to recoup their losses, actually put proper weapons into service instead of rushing older equipment to replace losses at Dunkirk (not all that likely though) and get the Commonwealth forces to North Africa or mainland UK, as I highly doubt that the British would accept a peace deal where they can't ensure their security.
By the way, what about the war with the Italians? Same treaty as with Germany?

Similarly, the fact that there's peace in Europe for the time being doesn't mean that the US won't implement their post-Fall of France military reforms and pre-mobilization plans, or send equipment that the UK sometimes bought itself, sometimes even according to prewar agreements. And the moment the UK goes to war again, the US will likely support them or even intervene.

So honestly I don't think that a 1940 peace POD would change how the war develops after Barbarossa, unless the Anglos prefer the taste of the Anglo-American/Nazi war.

The problem is that I posed my question in order to get an impression of how a German-Soviet war would have progressed without British belligerency. If I wanted to know how a German-Soviet war would have progressed with British involvement, I would have opened a history book.

 

[Michele]

Because you're ignoring the reality of Britain's very bad situation. Their finances are exhausted, they have no L-L ITTL, India is in revolt and demanding immediate independence, and they are out of allies beyond some of their white settler colonies. They're not really in a position to help the USSR without L-L and restarting the war isn't going to make them look good internationally, plus they have more to gain by letting the dictators beat each other senseless.

"India in revolt" is probably the Overstatement of the Week.

Apart from that, the general tone of this post is one of having one's pie and eating it.

Sure, in OTL Britain was in a difficult position and its economy was under strain (though claims that it was "exhausted" or, as we've seen other posters claiming in the past, "bankrupt", are exaggerations). Why? Well, because it was at war with Germany and Italy. Its armed forces were being built up at breakneck pace while having to make do with significant losses of materials, its lifeline was under U-Boot attack, and it was carrying out military operations from the European skies to Egypt, from Iceland to West Africa, in Ethiopia and in Greece, while neglecting to reinforce its Far East.

And what is the very point of this ATL? That Britain is not at war. Its capital's docks are not on fire, its merchant ships are not being sunk, its armed forces aren't committed all over the world.
That does affect the British position - positively.
The exception would be if Britain had accepted, by Germany, peace terms that carried huge war reparation payments, so heavy as to be a terrible burden on the British economy.
To which the British reply would have been, of course, "we are not amused, we'll carry on".

You want Britain out of the war so that Dolph can triumph over the Eastern subhumans? Then sorry, but you can't have Britain laboring under wartime conditions. Either eat the pie, or keep it, you can't have both.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

"India in revolt" is probably the Overstatement of the Week.

Apart from that, the general tone of this post is one of having one's pie and eating it.

Sure, in OTL Britain was in a difficult position and its economy was under strain (though claims that it was "exhausted" or, as we've seen other posters claiming in the past, "bankrupt", are exaggerations). Why? Well, because it was at war with Germany and Italy. Its armed forces were being built up at breakneck pace while having to make do with significant losses of materials, its lifeline was under U-Boot attack, and it was carrying out military operations from the European skies to Egypt, from Iceland to West Africa, in Ethiopia and in Greece, while neglecting to reinforce its Far East.

And what is the very point of this ATL? That Britain is not at war. Its capital's docks are not on fire, its merchant ships are not being sunk, its armed forces aren't committed all over the world.
That does affect the British position - positively.
The exception would be if Britain had accepted, by Germany, peace terms that carried huge war reparation payments, so heavy as to be a terrible burden on the British economy.
To which the British reply would have been, of course, "we are not amused, we'll carry on".

You want Britain out of the war so that Dolph can triumph over the Eastern subhumans? Then sorry, but you can't have Britain laboring under wartime conditions. Either eat the pie, or keep it, you can't have both.

Well I was countering the Pollyanna perspective of the previous post. Britain has it's challenges and India is a huge one, because they were furious about being brought in the war without their consent in 1939 and once peace was reached they were going to push for independence and would not accept being involved in a restarted war. That severely limits British ability to get back into the war. As it was IOTL Britain was coasting on loans from Belgium and South Africa by the end of 1940, so they were basically bankrupt and only able to continue funding the war on credit, as Cash and Carry meant they needed gold to pay for the imports from the US that sustained them.
If they make peace they are back to a peacetime military budget to conduct rearmament after the severe material losses in Europe. Good luck with that. Sure they lack the damage of wartime, but in peacetime they can't run a wartime economy or budget, which was utterly unsustainable anyway, while Belgium wouldn't be able/willing to make loans to them, while South Africa probably wouldn't be financing their rearmament in peacetime either (not that they could beyond a few months). Plus from a finance perspective the way Britain was going about spending was extremely wasteful due to their desperation, so in peacetime they take the financially smart approach, which takes quite a bit longer to bear fruit. So Britain isn't going to be in a position to reenter the war for years, especially if they decide to sell the USSR military equipment in 1941.

Not only that, but with a peace deal where Germany still occupied Europe Britain has lost it's primary trade partners and has to reorient it's trade network globally, which is going to cause a recession at home and resulting loss in tax revenues. It's not a good situation even without the expenses of OTL.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Honestly, I cannot say what the altered state of affairs would change from OTL.

A post Fall of France armistice end of the fighting in the west in mid 1940, Gives Germany 12 months (more or less) to prepare for Barbarossa, like historically, but unlike historically, there are no battles, lesser (NOT no occupation) troops tied down, not just in France, but Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. And in the removal of losses to air-raids, the removal of submarine operations in fuel terms, and the opening of the doors to world trade, and we have a much stronger Germany than in OTL. If the Soviets are NOT getting any help via the Baltic and Arctic, the Soviets are worse off than in OTL.

All that being said, however, does this really mean that the Germans are strong enough to win?

So I'm going with, the Soviets eventually manage a "Pyrrhic victory", that leaves the UK in a much better post war situation than OTL, but a Germany that is exhausted but otherwise mainly intact, while the battleground nations of Eastern Europe and Western Russia a gutted wasteland that takes decades to put back together again. Maybe the Soviets can invade/conquer Germany (though I doubt this outcome), but they cannot hold it, and it would then be as ruined as their own territory and all of Eastern Europe.

OTOH, if over in the East, Japan sees a golden opportunity to hit Stalin from behind, while keeping good relations with the British empire, all bets are off. I seem to recall reading something or other, years ago, about the Japanese having had troops in Russia at the end of WWI, and that before the USA forced them to withdraw, they had discovered mineral riches in occupied/protected Siberia. Can anyone tell me just what form these "mineral riches" existed in Eastern Siberia, that the Japanese may have discovered/coveted?

All in all, an interesting thread and premise. An interesting followup thread, might be the state of the world after such a war, regarding the British Empire...

 

[Michele]

A post Fall of France armistice end of the fighting in the west in mid 1940, Gives Germany 12 months (more or less) to prepare for Barbarossa, like historically, but unlike historically, there are no battles, lesser (NOT no occupation) troops tied down, not just in France, but Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. And in the removal of losses to air-raids, the removal of submarine operations in fuel terms, and the opening of the doors to world trade, and we have a much stronger Germany than in OTL. If the Soviets are NOT getting any help via the Baltic and Arctic, the Soviets are worse off than in OTL.

All that being said, however, does this really mean that the Germans are strong enough to win?

So I'm going with, the Soviets eventually manage a "Pyrrhic victory",

Well, you haven't made a great case for this outcome.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Well, you haven't made a great case for this outcome.

True enough.

Like I said, I'm leaning towards the Soviets winning, sans a second front opening up in the east, because the Germans don't have the manpower to conquer the USSR. In OTL it took the RED army just under 4 years to grind the Nazi's into tiny pieces, so in an ATL where the Germans have some advantages over OTL, but no more manpower (or not all that much more, in terms of first rate troops), and while they DO have more fuel, they DON'T have better logistics. On the Soviet side, they have far fewer trucks than in OTL, and therefore will be longer off the mark finally wearing down the Germans and then driving them out, and this weaker logistics capability for the Soviets is going to be operating on even more wrecked nations, even to get to Germany.

 

[Father Maryland]

I think that under treaty the UK should have to accept the same blockaded rules they applied so no convoys or naval trade with the USSR. Also in this case the Japanese can trade freely with the Ducht for oil and so don't need to go south. They will probably go north. So a USSR that cannot import any material has to divide it's forces will surely fight to the end but I don't see how they could manage the equivalent to Bragation ITTL. The absolute best they could get would be an tie after losing most of its west.

What? The US embargo and sanctions were the result of the IJA's war in China and the Japanese occupation of French Indochina. Neither seems likely to have changed and so both the US and Japan are well on their way to fighting. Going north ultimately doesn't really add much to Japan. The real treasure troves in terms of Russian natural resources are more towards Western/ Central Siberia and Japan has no chance whatsoever of ever sending a single platoon there.

The same rough factors and the same rough pressures are in place near ensuring that the Japanese choose to go south to grab the resources they feel they need to become self sufficient. The Japanese really can't afford to try and seize the DEI while leaving the Philippines in American hands in their rear. That means to get the DEI the Japanese need to neutralize the Philippines.

 

[Ramontxo]

US sanctions will not apply to the Ducht and after a 1940 peace they will be effectively part of the Great Reich de facto o even de jure. If the POD is no ww2 (the British and therefore the French cave up to Hitler Poland invasion) the Netherlands would be super worried about Japan and go out of their way to propitiate them. In both scenarios Malayan rubber etc would also been available.
And in RL the going North option was actually very much defended by some of the Japanese decision makers. ITTL I don't see them going south and make war against the commonwealth and the Whole undistracted RN for something no one is denying them

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Like I said, I'm leaning towards the Soviets winning, sans a second front opening up in the east, because the Germans don't have the manpower to conquer the USSR.

This to a certain extent depends on whether or not the Germans insist on brutalising the Ukrainians and other peoples in areas they overrun. They were after all welcomed as liberators to start with.

 

[Father Maryland]

This to a certain extent depends on whether or not the Germans insist on brutalising the Ukrainians and other peoples in areas they overrun. They were after all welcomed as liberators to start with.

To some extent the Nazi's based their plans on the idea of the Ukraine being a massive bread basket with far more food then people. The Germans built there plans around being able to confiscate said grain to feed their armies and the Reich in general. Of course when they actually occupied the Ukraine they found that Stalin's industrialization and urbanization policies had lead to a vastly larger Ukrainian population then the Nazi's had expected. The Nazi's being the Nazi's decided the solution to the problem was just to confiscate the grain and let the Ukrainian cities starve into oblivion. Even if there less personally brutal these policies are pretty much guaranteed to set off the Ukrainian populace.

 

[Father Maryland]

US sanctions will not apply to the Ducht and after a 1940 peace they will be effectively part of the Great Reich de facto o even de jure. If the POD is no ww2 (the British and therefore the French cave up to Hitler Poland invasion) the Netherlands would be super worried about Japan and go out of their way to propitiate them. In both scenarios Malayan rubber etc would also been available.
And in RL the going North option was actually very much defended by some of the Japanese decision makers. ITTL I don't see them going south and make war against the commonwealth and the Whole undistracted RN for something no one is denying them

The US (and quite possibly the Brits) aren't going to let the Germans effectively occupy the DEI peace or no peace.

The US will in any case as a result of any European armistice continue with military expansion policies like the "Two Ocean Navy Act". With Germany securely in control of Western and Central Europe the US might just panic enough to go even further and begin something like the outright build up of the early war.

At a minimum I would expect all the possessions of the occupied European nations to be occupied by American forces rather quickly. Any idiot can figure out that if the Germans can get their hands on the European Caribbean colonies they can use them for U boat and bomber bases to attack the US.

You'll be looking at a "Fortress America" like situation as like as not.

 

[Ramontxo]

Fair points

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

This to a certain extent depends on whether or not the Germans insist on brutalising the Ukrainians and other peoples in areas they overrun. They were after all welcomed as liberators to start with.

I remember reading about that in school. Wasn't there even talk of arming them, and other Russian POW's, and having them fight alongside of the Axis armies? IIRC, Hitler forbid this, right? I agree that NOT plundering the Ukraine is the better option, not taken historically because of the ongoing food shortages that were looming large in Germany's future in OTL. ITTL however, the blockade is lifted after under a single year, and is gone for about a whole year before TTL Operation Barbarossa.

To some extent the Nazi's based their plans on the idea of the Ukraine being a massive bread basket with far more food then people. The Germans built there plans around being able to confiscate said grain to feed their armies and the Reich in general. Of course when they actually occupied the Ukraine they found that Stalin's industrialization and urbanization policies had lead to a vastly larger Ukrainian population then the Nazi's had expected. The Nazi's being the Nazi's decided the solution to the problem was just to confiscate the grain and let the Ukrainian cities starve into oblivion. Even if there less personally brutal these policies are pretty much guaranteed to set off the Ukrainian populace.

Good read on OTL.

For me, having the Nazi's behaving better than historically, is something that I cannot really condemn, but also cannot really quantify, either, and so will leave out of my own speculations.

Thus, I'm still going with the Nazi's still loose in the end, but that end will come later, at a much higher cost to the USSR, and will be unlikely to be anywhere near as bad on Germany as OTL. And again, if the UK is smart and doesn't re-enter the war, by the time the Nazi-Soviet war wined down, neither are going to be in a position to go to war with the British anytime soon.

I'll ask this, without gaining allies above OTL, when do you see the Soviets either driving the Axis out, or cutting a deal with them? Could the longer and less economically impaired Reich actually bring to fruition some of its Wunderwaffe and make their total defeat and conquest impossible/too costly?

If TTL's Nazi-Soviet war goes on a couple three more years, what kind of weapons of war would each side be fielding in 1946?

Or in 1947-1948?

Would indeed the Soviets still be able to win more than a Pyrrhic Victory in that time frame, or am I wrong in that the Soviets would indeed be the winners of such a war?

 

[fasquardon]

I remember reading about that in school. Wasn't there even talk of arming them, and other Russian POW's, and having them fight alongside of the Axis armies? IIRC, Hitler forbid this, right? I agree that NOT plundering the Ukraine is the better option, not taken historically because of the ongoing food shortages that were looming large in Germany's future in OTL. ITTL however, the blockade is lifted after under a single year, and is gone for about a whole year before TTL Operation Barbarossa.

The real problem the Germans have is that they just don't have the supply lines to send everything to the front that is needed, so to fight they absolutely must plunder the locals. That would have had to happen in massive scale even if the army hadn't been infected with pre-Nazi ideas about Slavic inferiority and Nazi ideas about German racial superiority. The result? I just don't see how the Germans can avoid committing a mass of horrors without taking a decade or so to build up the sort of logistics train they'd need, as well as the cultural changes needed to manage relations with the local population better.

Whatever ideas the people in Berlin may come up with, if the supply train and culture of their army can't support them, they're not gonna happen.

fasquardon

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

If the Soviets know that the atom bomb is possible and that the Americans and Brits are beginning to explore the idea, they might just develop, out of desperation, a crash program deep in Siberia and, irrespective of horrific radiation casualties on workers and scientists alike, get a very dirty bomb ready much faster. The question of delivering the bomb over Germany would be a difficult one, but I recall that in the 1930s the Soviets were working on very high altitude, long distance planes, a project that was dropped. Even without such a delivery system, the Soviets could use the bomb against German troops and supply concentrations near the front lines. Of course the Germans would try to respond with nerve gas but I wonder how well that would work in vast wilderness areas where Soviet troops could be spread out more easily than the more highly mechanized German armies.

 

[jsb]

The real problem the Germans have is that they just don't have the supply lines to send everything to the front that is needed, so to fight they absolutely must plunder the locals.

Would this apply if the KM can be fully committed to Baltic and even moved via Med to the Black sea to support and provide logistics?

The problem is that the OP is very open to a very wide range of situations,

Assuming a negotiated peace between the UK ... in 1940/1941

From RN killing anything more than 4or 13 miles offshore and demanding that France is freed to lying down and accepting becoming an Axis puppet....the change will effect everything else.

 

[andys]

This to a certain extent depends on whether or not the Germans insist on brutalising the Ukrainians and other peoples in areas they overrun. They were after all welcomed as liberators to start with.

Given how insane the Nazis thoughts on who was and who wasn't "Aryan", perhaps they get it into their heads that the Ukrainians are really Aryans. Them being welcomed as liberators might reinforce this idea and thus the population isn't brutalised.

 

[BELFAST]

An interesting idea to say the least.
Germany saves a lot of resources and gets it pows back and can now trade by sea again.
Stalin will think the British and French have betrayed him.
There may even be a power struggle in the Soviet union or more purges as Stalin gets more and more paranoid.
While this puts the Germans in a better post in some ways. It leaves a lot of problems unsolved.
Germans have very poor intel on Soviets union. this does not know the basic structure and the numbers of troops etc.
The big problem the invasion of the Soviet Union is rail logistics. Horse and trucks were useful for the 20km or 30km near a railhead.
More trucks put more pressure in logistics to supply fuel for them. More troops on the eastern front make logistics worse again.
In the mud and snow tracked vehicles were often the only ones that could move.
Knocking the British and French out of the war will make think he can beat the Soviets quickly. It could also delay improvements to Germans tanks and aircraft for overconfidence from easy victories.
With a peace deal with the British and French no forced labour from Western Europe.
long term the Germans get bogged to on the eastern front fora very long time.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Given how insane the Nazis thoughts on who was and who wasn't "Aryan", perhaps they get it into their heads that the Ukrainians are really Aryans. Them being welcomed as liberators might reinforce this idea and thus the population isn't brutalised.

Kind of hard to do that when the plan was a smash and grab for food and Ukraine was the breadbasket.

 

[Drizzt]

What are the chances Hitler might not even invade the USSR to being with?
I know most TLs here feature one always happening regardless of the outcome in the West, but consider that without viewing things from our perspective, that if the UK peaces out in 1940 then as far as any downtimer is concerned "The War" is over. Germany is no longer at war with anyone. There'll be jubilant celebrations everywhere in Germany at having undone/revenged/overcome Versailles, etc etc. If Hitler cashes in his chips now, he'll have won.
Sure we all know how obsessed Hitler was with destroying the communists, but it wouldn't be the first time a dictator put political expedience over his "principles". It's not like Germany had any territorial claims on the USSR, all it's 1914 borders were restored and then some.