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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.

Jews who had avoided being put in camps before '44 might survive, but as the front approaches Germans would be murdering or "evacuating" the remaining prisoners as otl, IMO. Otoh people in hiding should survive in greater numbers.

If Allies and Soviets are moving faster then for example Warsaw uprising is likely to succeed (militarily, politically Polish aims were on level of naivety unusual even for Poles), as Stalin has not time to wait out until it burns out, so here alone you have more or less 200,000 Poles surviving the war.
 
...
That depends--how many less casualties does the Soviet Union take in this TL?

This reminds me of a WWII stratigic game from many years ago. The German player attempted to focus on defeating the USSR. What he succeeded in doing was grinding down both the Red Army & Wehrmacht to the point where the WAllies were able to invade France early and secure Berlin in 1944 while the Red Army was still fighting for the Ukraine & Minsk ect...

Wish I had record of that game.
 
This reminds me of a WWII strategic game from many years ago. The German player attempted to focus on defeating the USSR. What he succeeded in doing was grinding down both the Red Army and Wehrmacht to the point where the Western Allies were able to invade France early and secure Berlin in 1944 while the Red Army was still fighting for the Ukraine and Minsk etc....
Always wondered how things might have shaken out if Central Europe and the Balkans had ended up with democratic governments post-war. The Deutsche Demokratische Republik would undoubtably still happen, Austria becoming neutral in return for an end to the occupation, plus Finland - and possibly Poland - being Finlandized, but no Warsaw Pact is just weird to think about. Aside from the Cold War it could do some very interesting things to European integration via institutions like the EEC.
 
Always wondered how things might have shaken out if Central Europe and the Balkans had ended up with democratic governments post-war. The Deutsche Demokratische Republik would undoubtably still happen, Austria becoming neutral in return for an end to the occupation, plus Finland - and possibly Poland - being Finlandized, but no Warsaw Pact is just weird to think about. Aside from the Cold War it could do some very interesting things to European integration via institutions like the EEC.

If the WAllies take Berlin, would they feel morally obligated (if not militarily obligated) to give the Soviets an occupation zone? If so, Poland would be surrounded from west and east and may be at the very least Finlandized.
 
If the WAllies take Berlin, would they feel morally obligated (if not militarily obligated) to give the Soviets an occupation zone? ...

Morale obligation???

Have to take a look at when the partition agreements were made OTL & compare the dates to the Soviet situation in this scenario. If the Red Army is really this badly damaged there might be no further discussion of occupation zones. The Red Army might contribute some disarmament observers and have seats on the occupation commission.
 
I've only skimmed through so it might have already been mentioned.

Shortening the European War by 6-9 months means less physical damage to Europe. Especially to Germany because there is 6-9 months less strategic bombing.

That means 6-9 months more time to repair less damage. It might mean a more rapid economic recovery. Especially if the Marshall Plan is brought forward accordingly.

The British can demobilise the forces committed to the European Theatre 6-9 months earlier and if the Pacific War goes on as long as it did IOTL Lend Lease won't be cut off 6-9 months earlier. It also means the UK finishes the war with a smaller national debt. The reduction in the cost of servicing it would provide a useful piece of pocket money that could be spent on reconstruction or nor having to reduce the armed forces as drastically during the Austerity Era.
 
I've only skimmed through so it might have already been mentioned.

Shortening the European War by 6-9 months means less physical damage to Europe. Especially to Germany because there is 6-9 months less strategic bombing.

That means 6-9 months more time to repair less damage. It might mean a more rapid economic recovery. Especially if the Marshall Plan is brought forward accordingly.

The British can demobilise the forces committed to the European Theatre 6-9 months earlier and if the Pacific War goes on as long as it did IOTL Lend Lease won't be cut off 6-9 months earlier. It also means the UK finishes the war with a smaller national debt. The reduction in the cost of servicing it would provide a useful piece of pocket money that could be spent on reconstruction or nor having to reduce the armed forces as drastically during the Austerity Era.
Which reminds me: End of the war in Germany probably means General Election in the UK which will probably (even if the election comes earlier) be a Labour victory as in the original timeline 1945 UK general election. The question is - with the war obviously still going against Japan, and no clear end yet in sight, does Attlee try to form a coalition government (even if he has a majority) at least until the war's end? And does he try to include Churchill in it (who with three quarters of a year less 'war-fatigue' and strain may have managed not to put his foot in his mouth with his original 1945 election campaign 'gestapo' remark and the like) - perhaps as a defence minister or in some sort of foreign-relations role?
 
Morale obligation???

Have to take a look at when the partition agreements were made OTL & compare the dates to the Soviet situation in this scenario. If the Red Army is really this badly damaged there might be no further discussion of occupation zones. The Red Army might contribute some disarmament observers and have seats on the occupation commission.

Eh, given the communist sympathizers in the British and American governments, and Stalin's ability to sound reasonable when demanding puppet states and economic slavery, I'm not so sure.
 
Churchill had control of this issue 1940-1944. His agreements on the post war situation were based on the realities of the moment. Change those & you change Churchill's policy. On the US side Hull, Marshal, Morgenthau, Roosevelt, & near the end Eisenhower were principles in foreign policy. I suppose you can accuse them of being Communist sympathisers if you like.
 
Top