AHC: Have Germany partitioned after WWII

The challenge is to have the allies decide that it's simply too dangerous to have Germany live on in any form ie no East or West Germany. Germany has to be partitioned by Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Poland and the USSR. I'm assuming the US would have no interest in permanently administering part of Europe.
 
The challenge is to have the allies decide that it's simply too dangerous to have Germany live on in any form ie no East or West Germany. Germany has to be partitioned by Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Poland and the USSR. I'm assuming the US would have no interest in permanently administering part of Europe.

The USSR would technically be controlling an exclave. Exclaves are weird and don't make sense. Poland would take the lion's share of German soil as revanchism takes hold in the year after the war's close.
 
Well... everything about this challenge screams "impossible". Mostly because if destruction of German power is the goal, splitting off any territories that can be justified or gotten away with (Saarland, Dutch claims as per Bakker-Schut plan, maybe Sorbian-inhabited lands to one of the neighboring Slavic countries) and then establishing a reduced puppet Germany or two is a more efficient way of doing so than actually partitioning it, at which point the Germans have nothing to lose and are much more rebellious. Besides, the great powers didn't actually believe, and couldn't conceivably be so stupid as to believe that the German national identity is somehow dangerous in and of itself.
 
Well... everything about this challenge screams "impossible". Mostly because if destruction of German power is the goal, splitting off any territories that can be justified or gotten away with (Saarland, Dutch claims as per Bakker-Schut plan, maybe Sorbian-inhabited lands to one of the neighboring Slavic countries) and then establishing a reduced puppet Germany or two is a more efficient way of doing so than actually partitioning it, at which point the Germans have nothing to lose and are much more rebellious. Besides, the great powers didn't actually believe, and couldn't conceivably be so stupid as to believe that the German national identity is somehow dangerous in and of itself.

There could be a number of other reasons for partition. With regards to the Paritions of Poland, there's a quote I can't quite remember properly that went along the lines of when a country is politically unstable it's neighbours have to partition it to ensure their own security.
 
Kaliningrad today is a Russian exclave. It was formerly Konigsberg

Exclaves don't make much sense on a map though, even with Kaliningrad. This would be an exclave awfully far from the USSR mainland too. May as well absorb Poland into the USSR if you're going to control a tiny exclave that you have to go through Poland to get to in the first place.
 
Exclaves don't make much sense on a map though, even with Kaliningrad. This would be an exclave awfully far from the USSR mainland too. May as well absorb Poland into the USSR if you're going to control a tiny exclave that you have to go through Poland to get to in the first place.

We have planes and Kaliningrad has a port
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHistoryTeacher
Exclaves don't make much sense on a map though, even with Kaliningrad. This would be an exclave awfully far from the USSR mainland too. May as well absorb Poland into the USSR if you're going to control a tiny exclave that you have to go through Poland to get to in the first place.

Eh, you do remember that USSR annexed Baltic states - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? The fact that today Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave doesn't mean that it was separated from the rest of the Soviet Union when it was created. The Soviets didn't need to go through Poland to get there. They had free way through Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic.
 
The challenge is to have the allies decide that it's simply too dangerous to have Germany live on in any form ie no East or West Germany. Germany has to be partitioned by Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Poland and the USSR. I'm assuming the US would have no interest in permanently administering part of Europe.
Allied leaders get high in Potsdam and decide its a good idea to do this. 20years later the next generation of Germans decide its time to break these chains. Europe is more poor and much more unstable, so ripe for Soviet influence.
 
Partitioning Germany does not mean making it poor. It just means breaking it into several parts. Basically, this means going back to a pre-1866 or pre-1815 situation.

Germany was rather prosperous by the standards of the times when it was not united yet.

There were very real american plans for this. It's only the cold war that changed the plan and decided the US to recreate a united western Germany in order to contain the USSR.
 
Well, firstly, it WAS partitioned - into East and West Germany. To avoid the union of the 3 western zones into West Germany, you have to remove the threat of the Soviets. Have fun with that. Possible, mind, just tough.

If the Soviet threat were eliminated (probably by having a more open reformer replace Stalin at the end of WWII, which is not trivial), then the French, Americans and Brits might not merge their respective zones.

Then transatlantic tensions (why?) mean the US zone stays separate from the British and French ones. Maybe.
 
The Greater German Reich was partitioned into West Germany, East Germany, Austria, the Czech half of Czechoslovakia, Poland and Kaliningrad after the war.

Sorry, I'm just being a pedantic jerk. :p
 
Top