Allies defeat Germany in 1944, how does the peace play out?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Assuming that through a combination of worse choices by Hitler/German generals and better ones by the Allies result in the defeat of Germany in Autumn 1944, how would the peace deal change? Let's say for the sake of argument that the final lines in Germany fall roughly similarly to OTL between the Wallies and Soviets, perhaps more of north Germany in Wallied hands due to landing there towards the end after a more rapid German collapse, the Soviets taking Czechoslovakia entirely and parts of Bavaria as the Allies focus more on the north. Would the peace then be more harsh with Roosevelt still surviving for longer, how would the Allies handle not having had the Yalta Agreement among others that happened later in 1944 and in 1945, would the quicker collapse mean less bitterness, would the quicker defeat mean a less deadly Holocaust, and would the USSR be less damaged and more potentially threatening in a Cold War?
 
I can't see the peace being much different than OTL, other than the zones of occupation being different than OTL although I expect for practical reasons they would look much the same. A French zone might be smaller or non-existent depending on how much the French military gets in the fight. Unconditional surrender and de-Nazification were ALWAYS going to be in the cards, and on the Soviet side "revenge", looting the occupied countries (not just Germany), and installation of communist governments would still be in play.

Ending the war 6-8 months earlier would probably save most of the Jewish population of Hungary, possibly Romania Greek Jews had been deported/killed well before 1944. Those Jews, other than the Hungarians, who were killed after this POD (fall 1944) would also survive. A faster loss of the war also might mean even before the end, deportations were slowed as the Allies advanced east and west. In any case millions of Jews, Roma, and Slavs would have been killed by fall, 1944, so the revulsion would be the same, war crimes trials pretty much the same etc.
 
Assuming no pre 1944 changes in the Pacific, the biggest difference will be the Soviets occupying all of Korea and very likely Hokkaido.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming no pre 1944 changes in the Pacific, the biggest difference will be the Soviets occupying all of Korea and very likely Hokkaido.
Split Japan? Of course in terms of the invasion of Japan, the US provided the landing craft to the Soviets, so if they were worried about a Soviet occupied Japan, would they even provide them with enough lift capacity to make it possible?
 
A German collapse in 1944 - and we are not assuming successful WALKURE.

As I have argued before - the pool drains equally from all sides: if the Allies advance faster on one front, Germany will reinforce that front at the expense of others, and the Allies will catch up on those fronts. Thus the Allies end up meeting in central Germany as OTL.

Probable knock-ons:
  • Much greater Soviet involvement in the Pacific War. The Soviets overrun all Korea, and may land in Hokkaido, about May 1945. The Soviets would find American landing craft useful, but not essential; they attacked across water on several occasions with conventional small boats. (Across Kerch Strait, and onto the Estonian islands.)
  • The Manhattan Project may stop. Many of the key scientists in the MP had grave moral qualms about producing such a horrific weapon. These qualms were put aside because of the fear that Nazi Germany might develop the Bomb. By the time Nazi Germany was destroyed, the MP was close to completing the Bomb, and went ahead. If Germany goes down with about a year to go (actually 10 months), the idea of stopping will be much more cogent. Also, Communist influence may be mustered against continuing, and there were Communists in position to argue against.
  • OTOH, with the Soviet Union rolling toward Japan, and possibly even invading Hokkaido, Japan may surrender. The last fantasy of the hard-liners was that the US would invade, the Japanese would respond with giant banzai charges and inflict lots of casualties, and the "soft" Americans would be shocked into a negotiated peace. But even they couldn't persuade themselves that would work with Stalin.
  • Much reduced bloodshed and damage and expense. Germany much less heavily bombed. About 500K(?) more Jews survive.
  • FDR's re-election becomes a coronation. Churchill still gets the boot. I don't know what effect the time frame had on the Republican sweep in 1946.
 
I'm not sure if in fall, 1944 the Americans will have enough "spare" amphibious assets to give to the Russians. The Russians really had zero amphibious experience that would be useful in the Pacific. While Japan is seriously hurting in 1944, if they see a threat from the Russians they will be able to bring resources to prevent them landing on Hokkaido - the shift south has not happened yet and they have more aircraft and ships left. The US became "upset" with the Soviets pretty quickly after Germany surrendered due to not living up to agreements, so I can't see the US letting the USSR go further than they did OTL. Again, in fall, 1944 the Kwantung Army is not as stripped out as it was a year later. Sure the Soviets would crush them with armor, but that would need to be pulled from Europe, and transported east and the Kwantung Army of fall, 1944 wil slow them down more.
 
You know where the butterflies really show up with a 1944 victory? A Kreisau Circle wank, especially for Helmuth James von Moltke. The CDU becomes arguably even stronger than TTL with their addition.
 
Not having agreed upon clear endgame conditions would favor the Soviets, who were better at fait accompli politics. It's really possible they end up in control of a greater part of Germany and Eastern Europe. However, things would stop somewhere, as the Western leaders will insist on having that conference ASAP, and certainly well before handing out pieces of Japanese-held territory or of Japan proper.
The Soviets would be in a better (for them, i.e., more threatening) position for the Cold War, yes.
All the bitterness is obviously there. The Germans had already done their worst in earlier years as far as the Soviets are concerned. The French might resent less because of the disappearance of the last year of occupation, the Dutch because they wouldn't be nearly starved to death in the winter of 1944, etc., but those are minor players and minor factors. The Nazi golden pheasants still deservedly hang.
And yes, of course all the people murdered by the Germans after the summer of 1944, the Hungarian Jews for instance, all the victims of the death marches, or of the underground factories, would survive, therefore the Holocaust would be somewhat less bloody.
 
Will FDR live longer without the pressure of running a war on his shoulders? I wouldn't expect him to make it to the end of his next term with his health but it could be possible.
 
The situation of Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia will be significantly different, as well as the situation in Yugoslavia. I assume that a concentrated attack to Germany proper to speed up their collapse would partially come at the expense of Soviet Balkan offensives.
 
Will FDR live longer without the pressure of running a war on his shoulders? I wouldn't expect him to make it to the end of his next term with his health but it could be possible.
Roosevelt would already be campaigning for the November election. Also there still is the war with Japan. The Democratic convention had already been held in July so FDR has already accepted the nomination. I think he would want to stick around to help organize the peace. I think he will still pass away around the same time as OTL but maybe It won't be so sudden. Maybe FDR checks into a hospital first and passes the reins of power over to Truman.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Assuming that through a combination of worse choices by Hitler/German generals and better ones by the Allies result in the defeat of Germany in Autumn 1944, how would the peace deal change?

In short: Not very much. Maybe East Germany gets to keep Silesia west of the Eastern Neisse River, but then again, maybe not.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the final lines in Germany fall roughly similarly to OTL between the Wallies and Soviets, perhaps more of north Germany in Wallied hands due to landing there towards the end after a more rapid German collapse, the Soviets taking Czechoslovakia entirely and parts of Bavaria as the Allies focus more on the north.

In that case, the division of Germany might look a little differently from our TL.

Would the peace then be more harsh with Roosevelt still surviving for longer,

I don't think so; basically, it would still become evident that the Morgenthau Plan would be unfeasible considering that the Soviet Union is now a major threat. Plus, FDR will die within a year anyway.

how would the Allies handle not having had the Yalta Agreement among others that happened later in 1944 and in 1945,

To be honest, if the war goes better for the Allies, we might see these agreements be created earlier.

would the quicker collapse mean less bitterness,

Probably not by much; after all, the Soviet Union will still be bled dry and the U.S. and Britain would have still been fighting Germany for years by this point in time.

would the quicker defeat mean a less deadly Holocaust,

Slightly--maybe about 10% less deadly.

and would the USSR be less damaged and more potentially threatening in a Cold War?

That depends--how many less casualties does the Soviet Union take in this TL?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I can't see the peace being much different than OTL, other than the zones of occupation being different than OTL although I expect for practical reasons they would look much the same. A French zone might be smaller or non-existent depending on how much the French military gets in the fight. Unconditional surrender and de-Nazification were ALWAYS going to be in the cards, and on the Soviet side "revenge", looting the occupied countries (not just Germany), and installation of communist governments would still be in play.

Agreed with all of this.

Ending the war 6-8 months earlier would probably save most of the Jewish population of Hungary, possibly Romania Greek Jews had been deported/killed well before 1944. Those Jews, other than the Hungarians, who were killed after this POD (fall 1944) would also survive. A faster loss of the war also might mean even before the end, deportations were slowed as the Allies advanced east and west. In any case millions of Jews, Roma, and Slavs would have been killed by fall, 1944, so the revulsion would be the same, war crimes trials pretty much the same etc.

Actually, most Hungarian Jews outside of Budapest were already dead by July 1944. As for Romania, most of its Jews outside of Northern Transylvania (which was handed over to Hungary) and Moldova survived the war.
 
The situation of Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia will be significantly different, as well as the situation in Yugoslavia. I assume that a concentrated attack to Germany proper to speed up their collapse would partially come at the expense of Soviet Balkan offensives.

That would only be good news, because, even with a clear agreement that Greece was in the Western sphere, the Communists there nearly carried the day, and the British felt compelled to drop Manna there. If there is no clear agreement and the Soviets advance roughly as fast as in OTL in the Balkans, or even faster, then there might be Soviet troops crossing in from Bulgaria, and the british might feel uncertain about Manna.
The end result might be a Communist and Warsaw Pact Greece - which is a nearly lethal wound in the Southern flank of the NATO/OTAN. One wonders what Turkey would do then... all-out Western as per OTL, or a low-profile, Finlandized neutral?
 

Deleted member 1487

That would only be good news, because, even with a clear agreement that Greece was in the Western sphere, the Communists there nearly carried the day, and the British felt compelled to drop Manna there. If there is no clear agreement and the Soviets advance roughly as fast as in OTL in the Balkans, or even faster, then there might be Soviet troops crossing in from Bulgaria, and the british might feel uncertain about Manna.
The end result might be a Communist and Warsaw Pact Greece - which is a nearly lethal wound in the Southern flank of the NATO/OTAN. One wonders what Turkey would do then... all-out Western as per OTL, or a low-profile, Finlandized neutral?
I'm thinking neutralized Finland. What impact does that have on Yugoslavia?
 
Assuming that through a combination of worse choices by Hitler/German generals and better ones by the Allies result in the defeat of Germany in Autumn 1944, how would the peace deal change? Let's say for the sake of argument that the final lines in Germany fall roughly similarly to OTL between the Wallies and Soviets, perhaps more of north Germany in Wallied hands due to landing there towards the end after a more rapid German collapse, the Soviets taking Czechoslovakia entirely and parts of Bavaria as the Allies focus more on the north. Would the peace then be more harsh with Roosevelt still surviving for longer, how would the Allies handle not having had the Yalta Agreement among others that happened later in 1944 and in 1945, would the quicker collapse mean less bitterness, would the quicker defeat mean a less deadly Holocaust, and would the USSR be less damaged and more potentially threatening in a Cold War?
Well: according to Churchill's WW2 memoirs, Poland 'moving west' had already been discussed at the Tehran Conference (in late 1943), so I think the borders there might end up being settled something like in the original timeline...
 
Top