AH Challenge: provide background story for my map (Alternate Cold War)

POD: 13 March, 1943. Hitler assassinated by the conspirators, Wehrmacht's coup against the Nazis succeed (don't ask me how, and yes, I know this has been done to the death).

europepod1943coldwar.png

(the map is a modified version of Qazaq2007's map of Europe in 1942)

I need a semi-plausible outline of major events that led to the end of this WW2. (I am playing with an idea for a timeline focusing on a space race between Germany and the US, but I need a semi-plausible setting.) The goal is to make it end in such a way that the borders/alliances match those on the map.

Dark Grey - Germany
Grey - German satellite states
Light Grey - German allies
---
Blue - Key NATO member
Light Blue - Minor NATO members
---
Red - the Soviet Union
---
White - Neutral countries


A few rules/hints:

- the year is 1956.
- WW2 ended in 1945. Separate cease-fire with the USSR had been signed earlier.
- Germany is no longer controlled by the Nazi party. That does NOT mean Germany is democratic. It is still semi-fascist in a more traditional sense of that word. NSDAP has been supplanted by a new ruling party which is ideologically close to fascism; what's absent is the fanatically racist ideology, the anti-establishment ethos, the totalitarian goals of radical re-shaping of the society, and the Nazi symbolism. On the other hand, the party remains strongly anti-communist and authoritarian with great emphasis on national unity and the military (of course, it's basically the Army's pet project).
- In the 1950's, the state ideology began to incorporate elements focusing on cultural unity (and superiority) of European nations and their shared hatred of Bolshevism and 'plutocratic Capitalism' in order to make itself more appealing to people in German satellites and allied countries.
- Relations between the German-controlled Europe, the USSR and the Western Allies (US+UK are the key members) are frosty to say at least.
- All three sides have nukes. Germany had its first nuclear test in 1949, the Soviets a bit later.
- Nukes have only been used against Japan by the US.
- Yes, the Baltic states are neutral. My idea is that their demilitarization/neutralization has been a part of the German-Soviet cease-fire agreement. Neither party is to control their political, economic and military development. Any aggression from either party against any of the three countries will result in immediate restoration of hostilities (basically they're a sort of OTL Austria).
- Greece and Italy are split between the West and the German-controlled Europe.
- Algeria is controlled by de Gaulle's Free French.
- Ignore the inner-German administration borders, they're there just for the show.
- That dark grey blot south of Odessa is German-administered territory (it's where their cosmodrome is going to be :) ).
- ... (if you have any questions concerning the map, just ask)


I don't need anything overly detailed, just a brief outline. It should be as plausible as possible within the limits I've just illustrated.

EDIT: here's just a few thoughts from the post below, consider them a food for thought:


Here's a list of things I've been thinking about. It's a bit incoherent, but maybe it will provide some inspiration, some things you could use and develop:

I.) What do we need to make the Western Allies agree with a negotiated end to the war?

-> I was thinking about a split between the US and the UK over strategy. What could precipitate such a split?

  • Operation Overlord must fail. It must, period. Once the Allies have a viable bridgehead in Europe, the war is lost for Germany. How could it fail?
  • After the failure of the D-Day landings, the Allies (especially the British) are obviously demoralized and reluctant to attempt another major landing in Western Europe. That will have grave consequences for their relations with the Soviets, which I'll get to later.
  • The British might push for more peripheral, smaller-scale landings in Norway and Greece, and they might also want to step up the pressure in Italy. The Americans are likely to oppose these plans and instead push for build-up towards a "Overlord II".
  • The Americans may wish to postpone the second D-Day until the A-Bomb is ready and use the new weapon to either support the landing or to strike a decapitating blow against Germany (like, for example, by nuking Berlin the day before the invasion).
  • Now this is a tricky part - we need Britain to oppose the use of nukes against Germany out of fear of German retaliation. What does Germany have that could scare the Brits enough to opt out? I am thinking about a credible threat of a mass barrage of V2s fitted with chemical warheads against London and other British cities in range. What did the Germans have - sarin, tobun? It doesn't matter that it wouldn't accomplish anything in the strict military sense, or that the Allies could respond using their own chemical/biological/atomic weapons - the point is to make the British government believe that a continuation of the war could cause catastrophic losses to the British people.
  • However, the Germans would have to know about the threat of a nuclear attack and act in advance in order to be able to pose such a credible threat to Britain.
  • It may be easier for Britain to oppose the Americans in their determination to use nukes if Churchill is removed from the government after the D-Day debacle and if Labour Party forms the next cabinet. Without the British, it will be hard for the American government to continue in its hardline position.
  • With nukes out of the picture, a possible stalemate situation on the peripheral fronts, the Nazis eliminated by the Germans themselves, AND the Soviets out of the war (more on that below), the Allies might grudgingly agree with a cease-fire. No formal peace treaty, just a cease fire based on the status quo followed by a very on-the-brink Cold War situation.


II.) Why should the Soviets sign a separate cease-fire with Germany?

-> I see the Soviet leadership (=Stalin) as mostly pragmatic. Paranoid? Yes. Ruthless? Sure. Determined to defeat Germany? Of course. Suicidal? No way. Equipped with this assumption, I am contemplating following things:

  • Stalin's long-held fear was that the Western Allies were basically playing him and Hitler against each other, so when they're at each other's throats, the Imperialists will stab them both in the back. This was a part of the reason why Stalin made his wrong choices in 1941.
  • Now, with Hitler - the man who betrayed him - out of the picture, what will Stalin do?
  • Free of Hitler's meddling and the insane Nazi directives on how to administer the conquered territories, the German army's competence in the Eastern theatre is likely to improve. I won't get into any sort of discussion about how much, I don't have the expertise. But let's just say it does improve, and the major blunders of 1943 in the East are avoided. Maybe the Germans even win another major battle in Ukraine, inflicting several hundred thousand more casualties on the Red Army.
  • The Germans are retreating, but the losses they're inflicting on the Red Army are unacceptable and the progress of the liberation of the Motherland is frustratingly slow.
  • Stalin's fears of the USSR exhausting itself in this war resurface, along with his deep mistrust of the West. He wants results, but the Allies fail to deliver. The Invasion of Sicily in 1943 turns out to be a bloody and slow business, because the Germans have managed to evacuate enough of their men from Tunisia to effectively boost the Italian defences. The British designs on the Balkans are only fuelling Stalin's suspicions.
  • Finally, the D-Day fiasco and the failure to promise a new landing soon convinces Stalin that the West isn't taking this war seriously (what is a few tens of thousands dead on the beaches of Normandy compared to the millions lost on the Eastern Front?) and that the ultimate goal of the West is to weaken and exhaust the USSR.
  • For this reason, Stalin begins secret negotiations with the new German government. Negotiations are likely to drag for months.
  • The Allies will likely learn of this and step up their efforts in the peripheral theatres - Norway, Greece and Italy, where they finally reach the Gustav Line (which stops their progress). The goal is to keep the Soviets in the war.
  • The Soviets are not impressed. In late 1944/early 1945 they sign an armistice with Germany - but only after the Germans agree to evacuate all pre-1939 Soviet territory plus parts of pre-1939 Poland. The Baltic States are too important strategically to both sides, so they agree to leave them alone as a buffer - in practice this means the German army leaves them and the Soviets don't move in.
  • Needless to say, Stalin doesn't really believe the cease-fire will last. He wants to buy time, in which he can replenish, re-organize and re-equip his armies. If the Western Allies manage to weaken the Germans enough, he plans to re-enter the war.


So, this is basically it. I am sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes, but I am too lazy to proofread all this. English is obviously not my first language, so bear with me.
 
Last edited:
Hitlers death causes Operation Citadel to be called off. Stalin orders an offensive against the large German forces in the Kursk area, hoping to crush them and flatten out the line. The result is a bloody stalemate with high casualties on both sides and pretty much the same frontline. Meanwhile the Allies have successfully landed in Sicily as in OTL. Outraged by the Kursk debacle which is just one of a long line of failed summer offensives and seeing his western 'allies' benefitting once more from Soviet blood. The Germans send out peace feelers and he reluctantly accepts.

The resulting peace is not very popular for either side but manages to succeed in ending the war in the east. The frontlines revert to 1941 borders except the Baltic states who are left as a buffer, all prisoners are exchanged and Germany pays limited reparations for atrocities committed on Soviet territory. The reorganisation of the frontline as well as the fact that the majority of forces on the eastern front need to kept there. This allows the allies to advance up Italy much like OTL. They are held on a much stronger defensive line than OTL however.

Greece breaks out into open revolt like OTL, especially with the massive Soviet aid to anti-German partisans which Stalin is now supplying, the Allies manage to move in before the Germans and their Axis allies can restore order. The Pacific front largely progresses the same way. The stage is set for Operation Overlord, which is a disaster.

Whilst allied troops progress into French territory, the armoured divisions of Erich Von Manstein unleash a backhand blow which traps six Anglo-American divisions and blows the allied frontline wide open. By the end of 1944 the allies have been forced back across the channel leaving tens of thousands of prisoners. Churchill and FDR both face the chop. Prime Minister Eden realises that Britain is on the ropes, they face a serious manpower shortage after the Overlord debacle, the new electroboats are experiencing a thid happy time and the new German jets have forced a halt to the strategic bombing offensive. President Dewey is facing pressure to focus more resources on the war in Japan and is also experiencing flak from his isolationist veep Robert Taft and the right wing he represents. The German government is also successfully purging all Nazi influence whilst displaying the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, they are clearly a different Germany from the start of the war, not to mention a very handy bulwark against Stalins more superpower Soviet Union which stands to gain the most from continued the continuation of the European war and has already thrown the Japanese out of Manchuria.

With a heavy heart they agree to a peace which leaves Germany in control of Europe albeit very relaxed with most countries being left to their collaborationist regimes by completely by the end of 1946. In return Germany supplies singificant financial reparations to Britain as well as long leases on naval and air bases to the anglo-americans. The Pacific War ends soon after the German peace with the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido and the atomic bombing of Kokura.

------------

How's that? :)
 
How's that? :)

The problem is that those borders for Germany and the General Government are post-Barbarossa. The scenario above suggests in my reading that the peace stipulates a restoration of the pre-Barbarossa borders sans Soviet control of the Baltic States.
 
Here's a list of things I've been thinking about. It's a bit incoherent, but maybe it will provide some inspiration, some things you could use and develop:


I.) What do we need to make the Western Allies agree with a negotiated end to the war?

-> I was thinking about a split between the US and the UK over strategy. What could precipitate such a split?

  • Operation Overlord must fail. It must, period. Once the Allies have a viable bridgehead in Europe, the war is lost for Germany. How could it fail?
  • After the failure of the D-Day landings, the Allies (especially the British) are obviously demoralized and reluctant to attempt another major landing in Western Europe. That will have grave consequences for their relations with the Soviets, which I'll get to later.
  • The British might push for more peripheral, smaller-scale landings in Norway and Greece, and they might also want to step up the pressure in Italy. The Americans are likely to oppose these plans and instead push for build-up towards a "Overlord II".
  • The Americans may wish to postpone the second D-Day until the A-Bomb is ready and use the new weapon to either support the landing or to strike a decapitating blow against Germany (like, for example, by nuking Berlin the day before the invasion).
  • Now this is a tricky part - we need Britain to oppose the use of nukes against Germany out of fear of German retaliation. What does Germany have that could scare the Brits enough to opt out? I am thinking about a credible threat of a mass barrage of V2s fitted with chemical warheads against London and other British cities in range. What did the Germans have - sarin, tobun? It doesn't matter that it wouldn't accomplish anything in the strict military sense, or that the Allies could respond using their own chemical/biological/atomic weapons - the point is to make the British government believe that a continuation of the war could cause catastrophic losses to the British people.
  • However, the Germans would have to know about the threat of a nuclear attack and act in advance in order to be able to pose such a credible threat to Britain.
  • It may be easier for Britain to oppose the Americans in their determination to use nukes if Churchill is removed from the government after the D-Day debacle and if Labour Party forms the next cabinet. Without the British, it will be hard for the American government to continue in its hardline position.
  • With nukes out of the picture, a possible stalemate situation on the peripheral fronts, the Nazis eliminated by the Germans themselves, AND the Soviets out of the war (more on that below), the Allies might grudgingly agree with a cease-fire. No formal peace treaty, just a cease fire based on the status quo followed by a very on-the-brink Cold War situation.


II.) Why should the Soviets sign a separate cease-fire with Germany?

-> I see the Soviet leadership (=Stalin) as mostly pragmatic. Paranoid? Yes. Ruthless? Sure. Determined to defeat Germany? Of course. Suicidal? No way. Equipped with this assumption, I am contemplating following things:

  • Stalin's long-held fear was that the Western Allies were basically playing him and Hitler against each other, so when they're at each other's throats, the Imperialists will stab them both in the back. This was a part of the reason why Stalin made his wrong choices in 1941.
  • Now, with Hitler - the man who betrayed him - out of the picture, what will Stalin do?
  • Free of Hitler's meddling and the insane Nazi directives on how to administer the conquered territories, the German army's competence in the Eastern theatre is likely to improve. I won't get into any sort of discussion about how much, I don't have the expertise. But let's just say it does improve, and the major blunders of 1943 in the East are avoided. Maybe the Germans even win another major battle in Ukraine, inflicting several hundred thousand more casualties on the Red Army.
  • The Germans are retreating, but the losses they're inflicting on the Red Army are unacceptable and the progress of the liberation of the Motherland is frustratingly slow.
  • Stalin's fears of the USSR exhausting itself in this war resurface, along with his deep mistrust of the West. He wants results, but the Allies fail to deliver. The Invasion of Sicily in 1943 turns out to be a bloody and slow business, because the Germans have managed to evacuate enough of their men from Tunisia to effectively boost the Italian defences. The British designs on the Balkans are only fuelling Stalin's suspicions.
  • Finally, the D-Day fiasco and the failure to promise a new landing soon convinces Stalin that the West isn't taking this war seriously (what is a few tens of thousands dead on the beaches of Normandy compared to the millions lost on the Eastern Front?) and that the ultimate goal of the West is to weaken and exhaust the USSR.
  • For this reason, Stalin begins secret negotiations with the new German government. Negotiations are likely to drag for months.
  • The Allies will likely learn of this and step up their efforts in the peripheral theatres - Norway, Greece and Italy, where they finally reach the Gustav Line (which stops their progress). The goal is to keep the Soviets in the war.
  • The Soviets are not impressed. In late 1944/early 1945 they sign an armistice with Germany - but only after the Germans agree to evacuate all pre-1939 Soviet territory plus parts of pre-1939 Poland. The Baltic States are too important strategically to both sides, so they agree to leave them alone as a buffer - in practice this means the German army leaves them and the Soviets don't move in.
  • Needless to say, Stalin doesn't really believe the cease-fire will last. He wants to buy time, in which he can replenish, re-organize and re-equip his armies. If the Western Allies manage to weaken the Germans enough, he plans to re-enter the war.


So, this is basically it. I am sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes, but I am too lazy to proofread all this. English is obviously not my first language, so bear with me.
 
Hitlers death causes Operation Citadel to be called off. Stalin orders an offensive against the large German forces in the Kursk area, hoping to crush them and flatten out the line. The result is a bloody stalemate with high casualties on both sides and pretty much the same frontline. Meanwhile the Allies have successfully landed in Sicily as in OTL. Outraged by the Kursk debacle which is just one of a long line of failed summer offensives and seeing his western 'allies' benefitting once more from Soviet blood. The Germans send out peace feelers and he reluctantly accepts.

The resulting peace is not very popular for either side but manages to succeed in ending the war in the east. The frontlines revert to 1941 borders except the Baltic states who are left as a buffer, all prisoners are exchanged and Germany pays limited reparations for atrocities committed on Soviet territory. The reorganisation of the frontline as well as the fact that the majority of forces on the eastern front need to kept there. This allows the allies to advance up Italy much like OTL. They are held on a much stronger defensive line than OTL however.

Greece breaks out into open revolt like OTL, especially with the massive Soviet aid to anti-German partisans which Stalin is now supplying, the Allies manage to move in before the Germans and their Axis allies can restore order. The Pacific front largely progresses the same way. The stage is set for Operation Overlord, which is a disaster.

Whilst allied troops progress into French territory, the armoured divisions of Erich Von Manstein unleash a backhand blow which traps six Anglo-American divisions and blows the allied frontline wide open. By the end of 1944 the allies have been forced back across the channel leaving tens of thousands of prisoners. Churchill and FDR both face the chop. Prime Minister Eden realises that Britain is on the ropes, they face a serious manpower shortage after the Overlord debacle, the new electroboats are experiencing a thid happy time and the new German jets have forced a halt to the strategic bombing offensive. President Dewey is facing pressure to focus more resources on the war in Japan and is also experiencing flak from his isolationist veep Robert Taft and the right wing he represents. The German government is also successfully purging all Nazi influence whilst displaying the horrors of the concentration camps to the world, they are clearly a different Germany from the start of the war, not to mention a very handy bulwark against Stalins more superpower Soviet Union which stands to gain the most from continued the continuation of the European war and has already thrown the Japanese out of Manchuria.

With a heavy heart they agree to a peace which leaves Germany in control of Europe albeit very relaxed with most countries being left to their collaborationist regimes by completely by the end of 1946. In return Germany supplies singificant financial reparations to Britain as well as long leases on naval and air bases to the anglo-americans. The Pacific War ends soon after the German peace with the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido and the atomic bombing of Kokura.

------------

How's that? :)

Very good, as a start :) I see that in some things your thinking is close to mine, although some things seem a bit too stretched.

Germany showing its own concentration camps to the world - why would they do it? To make people hate them even more? They'd probably quietly get rid of the camps and bury all evidence of the planned "final solution". If some evidence still surfaced, they'd blame it all on the Nazi "excesses", but that's it, they wouldn't go beyond that. They'd likely soften up a great deal on their treatment of Jews, but they'd hardly just repeal all the anti-Semitic laws and readmit them into the German society. Can you imagine that? "Uh, we're sorry we tried to exterminate your race, it was a mistake and we sincerely apologize for that. We good? Great!" ;)

Good thinking about FDR not getting re-elected due to the Overlord debacle. That bit looks plausible to me.
 
Germany showing its own concentration camps to the world - why would they do it? To make people hate them even more? They'd probably quietly get rid of the camps and bury all evidence of the planned "final solution". If some evidence still surfaced, they'd blame it all on the Nazi "excesses", but that's it, they wouldn't go beyond that. They'd likely soften up a great deal on their treatment of Jews, but they'd hardly just repeal all the anti-Semitic laws and readmit them into the German society. Can you imagine that? "Uh, we're sorry we tried to exterminate your race, it was a mistake and we sincerely apologize for that. We good? Great!" ;)

The new German junta would benefit from images of starving Jews being fed and clothed as well as Nazis being hung. It would make it lok like Germany was being run by humans again, the enemy perhaps but humans nonetheless.
 
The new German junta would benefit from images of starving Jews being fed and clothed as well as Nazis being hung. It would make it lok like Germany was being run by humans again, the enemy perhaps but humans nonetheless.

I don't think the world was aware of what was really going on with the Jews by 1943. Sure, people knew they were being heavily discriminated against and treated as sub-humans, but not until 1944/45 had the real scope of the Nazi "final solution" become clear.

If the new German government actually revealed what the Nazis had been up to, they'd have shot themselves in the foot. It would be like them saying "Oh, you thought the Nazis were bad? Here is what they've really done!" And the answer would be "So, why didn't you stop them earlier? Why did you wait until you began losing on the battlefield, huh?"

Really, it's like if the Soviets under Khrushchev (or whatever the spelling of that name is in English; it's Chruščov in my language :D ) had publicized all the Stalinist crimes - the huge famine in Ukraine, all the mass deportations, the millions shot or starved to death in GULAGs, the purges, etc. Can you imagine the damage to the USSR's public image? No sane leadership in an undemocratic country would do such a thing. Which is why Khrushchev denounced Stalin in a secret speech, not publicly. Even in democratic countries it is often hard to come to terms with the past. How long it took for Western democracies to admit their crimes? (You know, the genocides of the Native American tribes, the crimes in Africa, India, South-East Asia, etc. Even today, most Czechs and Poles would frown if I told them that the mass deportation of Germans after WW2 would in fact be classified as pure ethnic cleansing in this day and age).


The new German government would probably blame all the known crimes (and mistakes) on the Nazis, but they'd hardly reveal anything new about them, out of fear of being seen as accomplices in those crimes (which they were).
 
Top