A limited Barbarossa 1941

[Spewing_Love_Nozzle]

The big thing we are all forgetting is that neither Hitler nor any other Nazi would ever offer this deal. It would weaken the USSR, but not kill it. There would still be a possibility that someone could use revanchism to rise to power and mobilize the population for the sole goal of trying for round two... sound familiar? To get this scenario, either the Nazis are not in charge, Hitler has totally taken leave of his senses, or the USSR is in such a total state of internal upheaval that this deal is the mortal blow that would make Russia stay down for decades to come.

I'm of two minds about this. Stolfi argues rather convincingly (IMO) that Hitler had a 'siege ring' mentality in Barbarossa which is evidenced by his conscientiousness about reducing salients and settling encirclements before moving forward. Stolfi also argues that a more-direct and earlier thrust on Moscow would have ended the war in Hitler's favor, but his 'siege ring' psychology prevented an attack with such a tenuous situation on the southern flank. If that is true, then he might have seen tearing off a section of Russia containing something like 40% of their European population and much of their farmland as evil sufficient for the day, especially as while Barbarossa remained possibly successful in it's ultimate goals until probably September, it was creakier and creakier as time went on. So I could see him being amenable to the idea, but perhaps he was pressured to push on to a decisive victory instead. In the end, he tried to ride two horses with his hybrid strategy, and it fell apart, whereas committing to either one fully would have likely succeeded. Feels like there is a lesson in there, somewhere.

 

[thaddeus]

maybe they are inspired with Vichy France arrangement and invade to impose the same terms on USSR? so they could occupy the Baltics, Belarus, and perhaps only as far as Odessa in the south? holding territories further east until military equipment is turned over? (beyond what was captured and destroyed during initial stages)

clear the Baltic and Black Seas of any Soviet warships (sunk or ceded to KM)

not sure if the first 4 or 5 months of Barbarossa would force the Soviets to accept a deal like that? maybe they need to capture Leningrad too?

According to Chris Bellamy, Stalin was willing to accept worse terms.

The big thing we are all forgetting is that neither Hitler nor any other Nazi would ever offer this deal. It would weaken the USSR, but not kill it. There would still be a possibility that someone could use revanchism to rise to power and mobilize the population for the sole goal of trying for round two... sound familiar? To get this scenario, either the Nazis are not in charge, Hitler has totally taken leave of his senses, or the USSR is in such a total state of internal upheaval that this deal is the mortal blow that would make Russia stay down for decades to come.

they had accepted Vichy regime to maintain hold over the French colonial empire since they could not reach it themselves? believe they would consider that a success at the time?

if they could force delivery of some huge percentage of Soviet oil production? and surrender of their fleet and aircraft? that might suddenly have more appeal than land mass? (even if, at some future date, they scheme to have both?)

 

[elkarlo]

That's the point: If he doesn't know for sure, he'd better be careful. Well, he wasn't.

He thought he was supporting Germany in a new WWI. Where Germany woukd be exhausted and couldn't harm the USSR. Not going to lie, he must have shat himself when France fell like it did

 

[Anchises]

Before I'd read Absolute War I would have been the first to disagree with you here.

But ya. The truth is Germany did have a path to winning WW2.

fasquardon

I saw an interesting documentary once:

It was about the immediate aftermath after the Fall of France. They interviewed an old french lady (who was a young french girl back then) and she basically said:

Look, of course it wasn't nice to see the Germans parade through Paris. But they were better and won this time around.

What I am trying to say: Even in 1940, the Nazis weren't the Nazis we are talking about today. Sure, they were racist, antisemitic, warmongering and treaty breaking thugs but they weren't the Auschwitz/Vernichtungskrieg/ultimate evil guys that they turned out to be after invading the SU.

If the Germans don't start terror bombing the British Isles and make a reasonable peace offer things might develop radically different from OTL. Sure, Great Britain won't immediately accept the peace offer but if Germany isn't antagonizing them as hard as IOTL and pulls of a "Barbarossa raid"?

Hitler/his ITTL replacement might be seen as the new Bismarck... Just reinstating Germany to its rightful place in the world yada yada...

It was the obsession of the top Nazis with total war and total victory and their delusions of grandeur that spared us thisnfatw IOTL.

Have people like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Best

in even more influential positions (say Best joins the NSDAP much earlier) and peace in 1941 is not unlikely.

 

[Anchises]

He thought he was supporting Germany in a new WWI. Where Germany woukd be exhausted and couldn't harm the USSR. Not going to lie, he must have shat himself when France fell like it did

Yes, I think so too. Stalins ideal scenario probably was a long drawn out Great War 2: Electric Bogaloo. In his mind he would have been probably able to snatch desired territories while the rest of Europe is busy massacring each other.

And then when the war is over, he was probably hoping for renewed instability and socialist/communist uprisings. Think the Spartacus uprisings but with a powerful Soviet Union to back them.

Stalin was hoping to be the "laughing third", which would be an awesome TL by the way. Germany is unable to replicate Fall Gelb and only manages a partial victory. A new war of attrition unfolds and Stalin gets to play his cards....

 

[fasquardon]

And then when the war is over, he was probably hoping for renewed instability and socialist/communist uprisings. Think the Spartacus uprisings but with a powerful Soviet Union to back them.

Stalin believed that war was an important component in bringing about world revolution. So he wasn't just hoping - he was absolutely convinced of it.

And arguably he was right. It's hard to see China going Communist without WW2, or Russia Communist without WW1, and it's hard to see many attempted revolutions happening either.

What I am trying to say: Even in 1940, the Nazis weren't the Nazis we are talking about today. Sure, they were racist, antisemitic, warmongering and treaty breaking thugs but they weren't the Auschwitz/Vernichtungskrieg/ultimate evil guys that they turned out to be after invading the SU.

If the Germans don't start terror bombing the British Isles and make a reasonable peace offer things might develop radically different from OTL. Sure, Great Britain won't immediately accept the peace offer but if Germany isn't antagonizing them as hard as IOTL and pulls of a "Barbarossa raid"?

The demonization of Nazis (as with the demonization of Stalinism) certainly gets in the way of understanding the real mechanics of evil. But even if the Germans score quick victories on every front, I just can't see them avoiding colossal atrocities. At minimum the Jews will be forced to move to some godawful part of the world with insufficient infrastructure like Madagascar, and most of them will die. And since there wouldn't be a war interfering with the efficient "processing" of all the Jews of Europe, I rather suspect that even more people would die in such a Holocaust.

Not to mention that the Nazi occupation of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is liable to be all kinds of dysfunctional. The Nazi policies for these regions had such a disconnect with reality that I have a hard time not sliding into worse brutality than they'd already reached by the end of 1941.

Of course, if Germany scores a number of quick victories on all fronts and then kills a few million in brutal ethnic cleansing, but eventually classifies most of the conquered Slavs as "Slavicized Arayans" or at least mixed race mongrels who are no worse than the French, that does reduce Hitler's kill count pretty substantially. Combine with some good publicity, and we could see historians seriously debating whether the Nazi crimes were any worse than the crimes of the British Empire.

Of course, that's assuming Germany is stable after his death. Nazi Germany was so messed up and adversarial in its organization that I don't think that's necessarily true.

The Nazi order was based on bad ideas, and that just doesn't end well.

It's not. Germany was trying to get the Japanese to attack the USSR and Britain, not the US. The Japanese asked the Germans what they would do if Japan attacked the US at one point (IIRC in April 1941 or so), but there wasn't pressure on Japan from Hitler to attack the US. Besides the Japanese never needed or wanted German permission for anything, they just asked if Hitler would support them if they fought the US, but were still planning on war even if he had said no.

Know any good sources on this?

fasquardon

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Know any good sources on this?

fasquardon

Specifically on this issue? Not really, but a good start is Kershaw's Hitler bio.

 

[Max Sinister]

This is a myth. Stalin was working feverishly with his team to try to stop the Germans by hook or by crook. We know this because we have the paperwork and multiple witnesses.

(Question, where does the myth of Stalin's breakdown come from? Was it Khrushchev?)

Khrushchev might have lied or not (can you prove it?), but we know how fast the Wehrmacht advanced in the first weeks and how many prisoners they made. This fits the story that Stalin a) had built a system where nothing worked without him and b) he refused to do his work.

No need to defend Stalin.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

If Hitler takes a chunk of the USSR and then gets peace out of Stalin, it probably includes a neutral USSR, an entirely fascist Europe with the possible exceptions of Switzerland (which would be an absolute quagmire for Hitler) and the UK (which would be devastated but eventually sue for peace and get it.) This means a vastly different postwar world (yeah, no shit.)

First up, the USSR will be scrambling to stay afloat after the ass-kicking from the Nazis. Forget fucking around in Europe; they will be lucky to meddle in Asia. Especially when the US still defeats Japan, probably on schedule if not sooner (perhaps without the atomic bomb) and no doubt backs Chiang in China enough to send the CCP back to whatever hole it crawled out of. This means Korea lasts a few months and is full-on capitalist, probably developing a bit like OTL across the peninsula as does China with both bring functioning but noticeably corrupt democracies. China probably only eclipses a billion people in the 21st century.

America probably dominates all of east Asia while the Nazis fight with insurgent Communists in Southeast Asia. The Nazis dominate Europe and the Americans also run amok in the Americas, battling both fascism and communism. Congress probably has a liberal Joseph McCarthy who hates Nazis, and anything outside the political center is deeply feared for decades - Reaganomics is a nonstarter when it’s linked to Nazism. HW or someone more moderate dominates the 80s and no one thinks of touching unions - no one wants to be a Nazi.

Assuming the USSR survives, it lasts longer than the Reich but neither survives to the 90s and the US becomes the undisputed global hegemon. Europe is a shithole; Asia becomes the nicest part of the world.

The most interesting wrinkle is decolonization - you can bet the UK won’t want to give up its colonies and will probably maintain many of them, and that may induce revolts. Also, the Reich will probably overtake many colonies of continental Europe, and putting down rebellions will be resource-consuming.

 

[sloreck]

If Barbarossa starts a little earlier (better weather and no Yugoslav distraction), a peace between Stalin and Hitler is possible by fall 1942 with the Germans shelling Moscow, or near encircling it. The terms involve the loss of territory like B-L, as well as reparations in terms of oil and raw materials. So here Britain faces Germany/Italy without the drain of an Eastern Front for Germany. With no Yugoslavia maybe no Greece/Crete. A white peace in the west is offered - Britain gets basically return to status quo antebellum, no restrictions, no colonial/imperial cessions etc. As this is considered, Japan acts and Britain is now facing war in the Pacific/SEA and no Nazi DOW against the USA. This makes the deal in Europe, as unpleasant as it is, reasonable. With 100% of attention of the Empire and the USA on Japan, things end sooner there.

The weakened USSR won't go in to Manchuria, the Kuriles, or Korea - to do so might mean conflict with the USA/UK. Southern Sakhalin would be interesting, since Stalin is seen as a facilitator of the Nazi victory in Europe and in no way an ally, I doubt the UK/USA would turn it over to him - he might try and seize but perhaps not.

As incompetent as Chiang's regime is, ITTL the communists don't win. I expect that some European colonies of the French and Dutch will be "managed" by the UK/USA at least for a time and eventually independent. Those with strategic value like the DEI, or in the western hemisphere will be tightly controlled especially in the latter case, by the USA. While these areas might remain nominally under control of the parent government, more likely a government in exile or direct US control. Nazi bases in Martinique are not happening. The Jews and Roma inside the borders of Nazi ruled areas are all dead, the non-Aryan (however that goes) folks in Eastern Europe are slaves or dead. I expect the Germans will pressure countries like Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria to give up there Jews and eventually they won't be able to say no. Those countries not allied with Germany who were neutral, like Greece, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey will need to walk a very fine line indeed with the Nazi neighbors close and frightening. In Western Europe and Scandinavia I expect that puppet regimes will be set up, some territorial acquisitions made, and of course military bases. Whether or not smaller countries like Denmark, Holland, and Belgium are absorbed hard to say.

As much as Stalin will hope for round two, I really don't see it happening. He has lost very productive territory as well as population, the reparations are costing him valuable goods for his own reconstruction as well as possible sale for real currency. His relationship with the UK/USA is strictly the enemy of my enemy is my friend, with zero trust. He will be busy trying to defend what he has, let alone take back what he has lost. Depending upon who takes over after Hitler, a desire to push at least to the Urals and "end the communist/Jew/Slav menace completely" may be forthcoming.

I expect nukes will happen, after all the push was the Nazi threat with their industrial capacity and scientists. If the situation is the USA/UK have atomic weapons, and the Nazis get them too (they have the resources now) but the Soviets don't - will the US/UK get in to it if the Nazis decide to use their advantage against the USSR before they get nukes??

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Khrushchev might have lied or not (can you prove it?), but we know how fast the Wehrmacht advanced in the first weeks and how many prisoners they made. This fits the story that Stalin a) had built a system where nothing worked without him and b) he refused to do his work.

No need to defend Stalin.

That was largely a function of surprise, lack of preparation by the defenders, and the inability of command to actually do much in the initial period due to the collapse in communications. Stalin could have been hard at work, but it didn't really matter given how screwed the border defenders were:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-battle-of-bialystok-minsk/

Western Front’s commander, Army General D.G. Pavlov (who was summarily executed for treason) was used, along with several other senior officers, as a scapegoat for Western Front’s rapid collapse. Unfortunately much post-war literature has continued with the idea that Western Front’s command failed in some exceptional way. In fact an in depth analysis of the state of the respective forces involved (especially the Soviet unit’s totally inadequate transport), the German Army’s operational technique and tactical combat proficiency, the speed with which the panzer corps’ could advance, and the unfavourable initial deployment of Soviet forces (which was largely due to the Stavka’s direct involvement), shows that Western Front never really had a chance. Even if Pavlov had immediately known the seriousness of the situation and issued appropriate orders (with his already crippled command and communication systems) it would have been very difficult to save the bulk of Western Front. Pavlov may not have been a brilliant commander but he was no worse than most of his generation. He was largely a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time; along with most of the other 671 000 Red Army soldiers in the Western Special Military District on 22nd June 1941.

 

[Spewing_Love_Nozzle]

The Jews and Roma inside the borders of Nazi ruled areas are all dead, the non-Aryan (however that goes) folks in Eastern Europe are slaves or dead. I expect the Germans will pressure countries like Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria to give up there Jews and eventually they won't be able to say no.

Very interesting post overall. Was Hitler that dead-set on actually exterminating the jews, or would he settle for the more typical expulsion? I ask because it seems likely that he could have demanded the USSR accept the Jewish population of Germany and his occupied territories. Given the very highly Jewish composition of the NKVD, I could see Beria and others pressuring Stalin to accept, if they thought it meant rescuing several million of their people. Basically: could a more canny Hitler have used the Jews as a negotiating chip for dealing with the heavily Jewish administration of the USSR instead of immediately jumping to genocide?

Also in the timeline you propose, what happens to the fence-sitter Franco? Is he totally iced out by both the Axis and Allies post-war?

 

[Anchises]

Stalin believed that war was an important component in bringing about world revolution. So he wasn't just hoping - he was absolutely convinced of it.

And arguably he was right. It's hard to see China going Communist without WW2, or Russia Communist without WW1, and it's hard to see many attempted revolutions either.

Of course he was right in principle. Stalin was just hoping for a scenario where vital parts of the Soviet Union wouldn't be devastated and where he could instigate revolutions in Central and Western Europe.

So in theory he had a correct assumption but his conclusions were disastrous. Feeding the Nazi war industry during some crucial (potential) turning points, to create a "revolutionary climate" turned out to be a big mistake.

The demonization of Nazis (as with the demonization of Stalinism) certainly gets in the way of understanding the real mechanics of evil. But even if the Germans score quick victories on every front, I just can't see them avoiding colossal atrocities. At minimum the Jews will be forced to move to some godawful part of the world with insufficient infrastructure like Madagascar, and most of them will die. And since there wouldn't be a war interfering with the efficient "processing" of all the Jews of Europe, I rather suspect that even more people would die in such a Holocaust.

Not to mention that the Nazi occupation of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is liable to be all kinds of dysfunctional. The Nazi policies for these regions had such a disconnect with reality that I have a hard time not sliding into worse brutality than they'd already reached by the end of 1941.

Of course, if Germany scores a number of quick victories on all fronts and then kills a few million in brutal ethnic cleansing, but eventually classifies most of the conquered Slavs as "Slavicized Arayans" or at least mixed race mongrels who are no worse than the French, that does reduce Hitler's kill count pretty substantially. Combine with some good publicity, and we could see historians seriously debating whether the Nazi crimes were any worse than the crimes of the British Empire.

Of course, that's assuming Germany is stable after his death. Nazi Germany was so messed up and adversarial in its organization that I don't think that's necessarily true.

The Nazi order was based on bad ideas, and that just doesn't end well.

Well IOTL the Nazis were pragmatic enough to allow the "subhumans" to fight for them:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army and other formations.

Lets work with the following assumptions (imho optimal non ASB ones for the Nazis):

- no Afrikafeldzug, no Battle of Britain
- no alliance with Japan
- "Barbarossa raid"
- Nazis manage it to negotiate peace deals with GB and the Soviets in 1941

West​

France:
- has to cede E-L
- has to cede Madagascar
- German troops withdraw
- de Gaulle is allowed to return
- free elections in the next few years
- reparations and military restrictions are to be negotiated in a new treaty between France and Germany
- maybe GB is allowed to station some troops in France as a major concession, somwhere not to close to the German border as "peace keepers" (?)

Great Britain:
- essentially a white peace territory wise
- Great Britain has to accept the "Madagascar plan" and is not allowed to blockade Germany

Belgium:
- probably becomes "independent"
- meaning no German occupation and a relatively independent government

Norway:
- similar to Belgium
- probably more voluntary SS recruitment because of the racial bogus

Denmark + Netherlands:
- bureaucracy and government are probably tightly controlled with a German "Aufsichtsverwaltung"
- the Germans have "racial interests" in both countries, so I think they might remain firmly in the German orbit

East​

- Germans annex territories
- Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic states as optimum for the Nazis
- maybe only parts of the regions mentioned above
- modified German-Soviet commercial agreement is enforced but even more loopsided and in favor of the Germans

If we have a situation like this, or a situation similiar enough I don't see what is supposed to stop the Nazis.

If they manage to get GBs approval to the Madagascar plan, GB won't be raising to much protest over TTLs Holocaust equivalent. The Allies ITTL weren't exactly covered with glory in regards to helping the Jews before the war. If the Nazis don't outright kill them with gas chambers, instead slowly letting them starve on a plague infested island while Britain watches, I don't think people would realize the montrous nature of the Madgascar plan. There is too much plausible deniability, too much uncomfortable questions about Western responsibility and too much deep seated antisemitism.

Personally I think the Nazis wouldn't necessarily aim at killing all of the Jews in Madagascar, in their perverse logic it would probably enough to "cull" them down to acceptable numbers, turning Madagascar into some tropical slave hellhole colony.

And in the East ? Imho the Nazis would quickly realize that the GPO is an impossible fantasy (and insanely evil but that wouldn't be clear to the Nazis). There would be an immediate need to connect the conquered territories with Europe, so we would see a MASSIVE slave labor fueled infrastructure construction project. The same is true for border fortifications with the Soviets. Due to the collectivized nature of Soviet agriculture it would be fairly easy for the Nazis to transform it into some kind of "semi-feudal latifundium slave labor" system. And resource extraction (coal, metals etc.) would be very slave labor intensive too.

So the "policy" in the East would probably turn out to be a massive colonial exploitation one with some genocidal elements but not to the extent that the GPO proposed. Einsatzgruppen would still run amok but without heavy fighting I don't think the Hungerplan would be realized. So the West would probably be aware about crimes but they would be viewed similar to the Holdomor.

 

[sloreck]

@Spewing_Love_Nozzle : Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were bound and determined to make at least any territory controlled by Germany free of Jews (as well as Roma), and Slavs being much reduced in number and being illiterate slaves. Given the Einsatzgruppen were active from the initial stages of Barbarossa, there is no reason to expect that the Jews of any parts of Russia where the Nazis are even in temporary control will have much chance of survival. If and when there is a peace in the west and if the Nazis have the option of putting the Madagascar Plan in to effect, the Jews of Western Europe and those of allies like Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria might have the dubious good luck of being sent there as opposed to a death camp or starving in place. In Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Russia) I expect between the killings that were active, starvation and disease in the ghettos you'll see a significant percentage of the Jews die. Shipping even the Jews of Western Europe and German allies to Madagascar, even if they are literally dumped ashore with the clothes on their back, is going to be a major logistic effort - so I wonder if the Nazis will not find extermination camps a cheaper option. Even under relatively "humane" conditions, the vast majority of Jews shipped to Madagascar will die enroute or after arrival.

As far as the Russians accepting "unwanted" Jews in German territory - get real. The fact that a number of "ethnic" Jews were still in various high positions in Russia does not make the government of the USSR a "heavily Jewish administration". Any Jews in any positions of authority in the USSR were not Jewish other than by ancestry. This was a frequent trope of the antisemites around the world "the Jews are running the USSR/are the power behind communism". Russia was a country with a very deep and wide history of antisemitism, from the farmer on the collective farm to the highest elements. On top of this, many/most of the Jews that Germany might "offer" to the USSR would be seen as contaminated by bourgeois capitalism. Stalin might take a few scientists or engineers, but other than that - nope.

 

[Spewing_Love_Nozzle]

@Spewing_Love_Nozzle : Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were bound and determined to make at least any territory controlled by Germany free of Jews (as well as Roma), and Slavs being much reduced in number and being illiterate slaves. Given the Einsatzgruppen were active from the initial stages of Barbarossa, there is no reason to expect that the Jews of any parts of Russia where the Nazis are even in temporary control will have much chance of survival. If and when there is a peace in the west and if the Nazis have the option of putting the Madagascar Plan in to effect, the Jews of Western Europe and those of allies like Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria might have the dubious good luck of being sent there as opposed to a death camp or starving in place. In Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Russia) I expect between the killings that were active, starvation and disease in the ghettos you'll see a significant percentage of the Jews die. Shipping even the Jews of Western Europe and German allies to Madagascar, even if they are literally dumped ashore with the clothes on their back, is going to be a major logistic effort - so I wonder if the Nazis will not find extermination camps a cheaper option. Even under relatively "humane" conditions, the vast majority of Jews shipped to Madagascar will die enroute or after arrival.

As far as the Russians accepting "unwanted" Jews in German territory - get real. The fact that a number of "ethnic" Jews were still in various high positions in Russia does not make the government of the USSR a "heavily Jewish administration". Any Jews in any positions of authority in the USSR were not Jewish other than by ancestry. This was a frequent trope of the antisemites around the world "the Jews are running the USSR/are the power behind communism". Russia was a country with a very deep and wide history of antisemitism, from the farmer on the collective farm to the highest elements. On top of this, many/most of the Jews that Germany might "offer" to the USSR would be seen as contaminated by bourgeois capitalism. Stalin might take a few scientists or engineers, but other than that - nope.

Interesting. Why would Jews dominating the USSR's secret security organizations be 'antisemitic'? Jews dominate Israel's secret security organizations today-- does saying that make someone anti-Semitic? Protestants dominated the American/English/German equivalents (who obviously were no choir boys), Han atheists dominated the Red Guards, etc etc etc. Are we to believe that it was utterly impossible for there to have been an anti-gentillic bias in the NKVD just as there was an obviously anti-semitic bias in other nations? That there was no sense of ethnic cohesion between the NKVD and the jews getting kicked around by Hitler and company? I have a hard time believing they had no agency whatsoever. Why would that even be wrong, or something necessarily immoral or outrageous if they tried to prevent their coethnics from being genocided?

 

[Max Sinister]

More recent research says: Mass killings of Jews (as in, several hundred thousands) by the infamous Einsatzgruppen started already before the Wannsee conference, in occupied Poland. Holocaust by bullets.

 

[sloreck]

One comment on this, then no more to prevent flames. Is a "Jew" someone who even though an atheist and communist (therefore relatively militant anti-religion of all sorts) who may have had one or two Jewish parents, who may or may not have been very observant? Is someone a Jew who identifies as such and has at least a cultural affinity, more likely some degree of observance? Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a famous American atheist, who at the age of four had been baptized in the Presbyterian Church - but was a militant atheist most of her adult life. So, was she a "Protestant"? Judaism is a religion, not a racial characteristic - I doubt very much that Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) would have been opening his arms to the Jews of Nazi occupied Europe, for exceptions noted before, any more than Stalin (a former Orthodox seminary student) would have been.

 

[PSL]

I love the scenario concept, but I always thought the holocaust of the JEWS was supposed to be a "dry run" for the elimination of the Slavic peoples?

 

[thaddeus]

they had accepted Vichy regime to maintain hold over the French colonial empire since they could not reach it themselves? believe they would consider that a success at the time?

if they could force delivery of some huge percentage of Soviet oil production? and surrender of their fleet and aircraft? that might suddenly have more appeal than land mass? (even if, at some future date, they scheme to have both?)

there were some indications of true Soviet air power? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_and_Soviet_air_operations_during_Operation_Barbarossa maybe crippling THAT becomes a concern? one of the German officers had visited aircraft engine works in USSR, those later were mooted as bombing target as Allied engines could not (at least easily) be made to work on Soviet aircraft and if complete Allied aircraft were sent to Soviets ... they were not being sent to another front.

 

[fasquardon]

Khrushchev might have lied or not (can you prove it?)

The archives are right there.

Of course, due to current political events, they're not accessible just at the moment.

No need to defend Stalin.

I am a passionate believe that it is important to hold people responsible for the crimes they actually committed, for the flaws they actually possessed and the ideas they actually believed in.

Just because someone is evil does not mean we should not look at them with a clear eye.

fasquardon