AHC: Different German Partition

With a pod no earlier than 1944, get Germany to be partitioned like this:

sachsen.PNG

sachsen.PNG
 
Puh. Maybe the victors (or at least Stalin) decide that Germany will be definitely partitioned (OTL the status of the partitioning was a bit fuzzy) and he wants the soviet puppet to be larger (the majority of those expelled from east of Oder/Neisse ended up in West Germany) so in this TL Stalin decides to keep that population in his sphere.

As for hamburg, that's a tough one. Stalin wouldn't mind some port facilities an the North Sea, but Churchill most definitely would, so any beforehand agreement would be difficult.
Perhaps the soviets made a drive for Hamburg instead of Berlin. For that we would have Hitler to retreat elsewhere (possibly the "Alpenfestung") as long as he is in Berlin the Soviets will most likely go there, too. Heck, even the simple status of Berlin as the capital will make it a more enticing target.
Well, assuming that with the Fuhrer lurking in the mountains and being currently out of reach for the soviets Stalin decides that having a North Sea port is important enough to press the issue there, and when Germany finally surrendered they make some ad-hoc modifications for the occupation zones and Hamburg gets a soviet sector. (while the rest of the internal german border ends up suspiciously OTL looking ;))
 
Poland comes out of the war in really bad shape in this scenario. Furthermore, I don't expect Stalin to give up the chance of acquiring at least a good portion of East Prussia - Poland will at most get half of the region as in OTL.

So, we need some way for Stalin to convince the Western Allies that Poland, one of the victors in the war against Nazi Germany, and having suffered terribly, should nevertheless lose a third of its pre-war territory to the USSR with only minimal territorial gains in the west.
 
So, we need some way for Stalin to convince the Western Allies that Poland, one of the victors in the war against Nazi Germany, and having suffered terribly, should nevertheless lose a third of its pre-war territory to the USSR with only minimal territorial gains in the west.

Perhaps with the argumentation that territories east of the Curzon Line might not warrant any (or at least much) compensation due to not too much poles living there anyways, so East Prussia and maybe the odd bit of Upper Silesia would suffice.
And/or they perform the population exchange by population analogies (x million poles will be 'resettled' from former eastern Poland so lets nip off german territory to match that number)

With the area in question firmly in soviet hands I don't think there is much of a need for Stalin to convince the Western Allies at all.
And if need be, he could always play dumb, bide his time etc. (like "the extradition ot the germans from East Prussia already takes up all available capabilities. We can't continue until the displaced pupulations have been properly settled in." and so on, to delay things until it's a fait accompli)
 
You got it backwards. It was Stalin, NOT the Western Allies, who was supporting Polish demands for Odra-Nysa line. Which is not suprising, as it guaranteed continuing Polish-German enmity - which allowed USSR to play arbiter and distracted Poland from lands lost to USSR. Remember, that OTL it was expected that after the end of ocupation period, there'd be a single Germany - the partition into GDR and W. Germany only took place after 1947.
 
You got it backwards. It was Stalin, NOT the Western Allies, who was supporting Polish demands for Odra-Nysa line. Which is not suprising, as it guaranteed continuing Polish-German enmity - which allowed USSR to play arbiter and distracted Poland from lands lost to USSR. Remember, that OTL it was expected that after the end of ocupation period, there'd be a single Germany - the partition into GDR and W. Germany only took place after 1947.

I'm just trying to cook up some reasons for this ATL borders to become feasible. And part of this is, among others, that Stalin decides early (say 1944 but keeps it secret) that he wants to have a east german satellite of decent size and power, even at the expense of not compensating Poland (with the baltic nations getting an even worse deal it wouldn't be too surprising)
 
I decided to give Konigsberg to Poland, because it wouldcompensate at least a bit not having Silesia.

And for Hamburg, suppose the Soviets forced the allies to partition an important city in their occupation zone as the Soviets had to do so with Berlin.
 
I'm just trying to cook up some reasons for this ATL borders to become feasible. And part of this is, among others, that Stalin decides early (say 1944 but keeps it secret) that he wants to have a east german satellite of decent size and power, even at the expense of not compensating Poland (with the baltic nations getting an even worse deal it wouldn't be too surprising)

You are being anachronistic here. Nobody in 1944 foresaw the Cold War or a partition of Germany. Germany splitting into a "West" and "East" was a result of the Allies and Soviet Union not being able to agree on things, and the US and UK agreeing to a common economic reform in their zones to jump start the German economy. Nobody had the intention of dividing up Germany.

Giving Silesia and Prussia to Poland was compensation for Stalin taking Poland's western lands. That compensation was the only thing that made Stalin's move palatable. Only giving Poland East Prussia is likely not enough. Perhaps Poland is also able to keep other areas in the east where Polish population is fairly high, like around Lvov?

Furthermore, by giving Poland Konigsberg, Stalin will not have a year round ice free port on the Baltic Sea. It's why Stalin wanted it. An extra port for Poland doesn't give Poland much to compensate for its losses, and Stalin loses a major prize.
 
Just noticed Hamburg was not part of a capitalist Germany. That basically means the Red Army had to occupy it instead of the Americans.

That is not going to happen. FDR wanted the major ports so that the US Army was not dependent on anyone for sea supply access. In fact, originally the US wanted to occupy the northern part of Germany and not the southern precisely so that the US could quickly withdraw its troops, but the preparations for D-Day didn't take that into consideration. Instead, it was agreed the US would occupy the ports postwar instead.

There is no way the US is going to agree to not having those ports.
 
You are being anachronistic here.

Stalin wanted to have a buffer zone of satellite states in eastern Europe, which has nothing to do with any unforeseen cold war. Adding a part of Germany into that buffer doesn't seem that strange to me.

And for while nobody could foresee the cold war in 1944 the Allies (at least Churchill) and the Soviets were at least a bit wary of each other anyways (Churchill pondered about invading the Balkans instead of Italy so that the Soviets wouldn't gain too much ground there)
 
Giving Silesia and Prussia to Poland was compensation for Stalin taking Poland's western lands. That compensation was the only thing that made Stalin's move palatable. Only giving Poland East Prussia is likely not enough. Perhaps Poland is also able to keep other areas in the east where Polish population is fairly high, like around Lvov?

The problem is that the Russians would want something instead, and I Poland to have Prussia, so what are the options? All of Korea? Hokkaido? A communist Finland? A communist Greece?

Furthermore, by giving Poland Konigsberg, Stalin will not have a year round ice free port on the Baltic Sea. It's why Stalin wanted it. An extra port for Poland doesn't give Poland much to compensate for its losses, and Stalin loses a major prize.

They already have the port of Klaipeda which also is an year round ice free port, and that in OTL they used for a military port.

Just noticed Hamburg was not part of a capitalist Germany. That basically means the Red Army had to occupy it instead of the Americans.

Not necessarily. IOTL, Allies didn't occupy Berlin, and they got a part of the city. Why can't the soviets claim the same for Hamburg?

That is not going to happen. FDR wanted the major ports so that the US Army was not dependent on anyone for sea supply access. In fact, originally the US wanted to occupy the northern part of Germany and not the southern precisely so that the US could quickly withdraw its troops, but the preparations for D-Day didn't take that into consideration. Instead, it was agreed the US would occupy the ports postwar instead.

There is no way the US is going to agree to not having those ports.

IIRC, the British were the ones who controlled Hamburg, not the Americans. But supposing the Americans don't want the Russians to have a share of Hamburg, then the Russians should be able to deny the Allies the right to have a share of Berlin.
 
Stalin wanted to have a buffer zone of satellite states in eastern Europe, which has nothing to do with any unforeseen cold war. Adding a part of Germany into that buffer doesn't seem that strange to me.

Except that the reason the Soviet Union wants a buffer is that everyone is afraid that Germany will try to conquer Europe for the third time. In 1944, the idea is to have buffers to protect you from Germany. Not buffers to protect you from the US.
 
The problem is that the Russians would want something instead, and I Poland to have Prussia, so what are the options? All of Korea? Hokkaido? A communist Finland? A communist Greece?

I think your questions simply point that having this map make sense is going to be very hard.

They already have the port of Klaipeda which also is an year round ice free port, and that in OTL they used for a military port.

I believe that city became part of East Prussia before WWII actually began. So if all of East Prussia goes to Poland, so does this. Of course, Stalin could incorporate that back into Lithuania (now part of the USSR) if he wanted. But how much of a port is it compared to Konigsberg at the time? Konigsberg is much more of a prize.


Not necessarily. IOTL, Allies didn't occupy Berlin, and they got a part of the city. Why can't the soviets claim the same for Hamburg?

I think Berlin being the capital of Germany was a very strong reason why everyone wanted an occupation sector. There is no reason any other part of Germany would need occupation by all powers deep inside the occupation zone of another. For that matter, why would you want to make your occupation troops utterly dependant on the good will of the other occupation powers unless absolutely necessary? Having West Berlin cut off from the other occupation zones were certainly a pain for the Western Allies.

IIRC, the British were the ones who controlled Hamburg, not the Americans. But supposing the Americans don't want the Russians to have a share of Hamburg, then the Russians should be able to deny the Allies the right to have a share of Berlin.

You are correct. I confused Bremen and Hamburg. Sorry. Of course, now someone needs to explain why the British want to give the Soviets a major port on the North Sea. Perhaps even more implausible.
 
Top