At which point does "unconditional surrender" becomes unavoidable for Germany?

[Veiovis]

Stalingrad (actually known as Volgagrad both before Stalin's rise to power and after the fall of the USSR)

You got your naming history wrong. It was known as Tsarytsin before Stalin, and as Volgograd after 1961, decades before the fall of the USSR.

 

[Post]

Stalingrad (actually known as Volgagrad both before Stalin's rise to power and after the fall of the USSR

Actually it was already renamed before the fall of the USSR. 10-12 year old me found it very confusing when I first read about the battle of Stalingrad and couldn't find it in the Atlas we had at home (I still have that Atlas. It was printed in 1971, I was looking it up in the early 80s).

 

[Captain Homicide]

The question is if Case Blue succeeded and things started to go downhill for the USSR in late 1942 and early 1943 which members of the Politburo would be the likeliest to overthrow Stalin?

Beria? Malenkov?

 

[CalBear]

You got your naming history wrong. It was known as Tsarytsin before Stalin, and as Volgograd after 1961, decades before the fall of the USSR.

I had no idea that it was ever named Tsarytsin. That is really fascinating. Also shows I need to step up my research.

Thank you!

Actually it was already renamed before the fall of the USSR. 10-12 year old me found it very confusing when I first read about the battle of Stalingrad and couldn't find it in the Atlas we had at home (I still have that Atlas. It was printed in 1971, I was looking it up in the early 80s).

Thank you as well.

Both of you have allowed me to gain another bit of knowledge that will help me into the future with my writing and discussions here and elsewhere.

 

[Veiovis]

I had no idea that it was ever named Tsarytsin. That is really fascinating. Also shows I need to step up my research.

Thank you!

Funnily, I only found out when Grigory Kuliks performance at the "important battle of Tsarytsin" allegedly was a major reason for his favour with Stalin, and all sources assumed everyone obviously knew this important place with me scratching my head. Definitly obscure for a non-russian.
Then again, it wasn't a particulary gigantic place before it became Stalingrad.

The question is if Case Blue succeeded and things started to go downhill for the USSR in late 1942 and early 1943 which members of the Politburo would be the likeliest to overthrow Stalin?

Beria? Malenkov?

None of them. Stalins position since the late 20/early 30s was extremly secure. Like "rivals that hate him suffer from inferiority complexes thinking they could never replace his genius" secure. Guy was the very foundation of the party, and the party of the state.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

That's a bit rich coming from a nation that has attacked most countries in the world at some point in time and controls most of the world through violent conquest and occupation. Even British diplomats would have difficulty communicating this with a straight face...

IIRC correctly someone counted up who the British (or the English if you want to add Wales & Scotland to the list) had not fought with or invaded / colonised. Believe it came to 4 current sovereign members of the UN. We even made sure we had a Civil War too.

 

[TxAggie]

Germany ultimately losing is pretty much locked in by Christmas 1941. Germany losing in the very near term is decided by Stalingrad. But I don't think the Allies would have rejected any German peace deal with 100% certainty until D-Day. I question how credible Stalin's 1944 peace feelers were - why would he not put down a mortal enemy while he had them on the ropes - but he was paranoid and wily enough to do something like that.

 

[Father Maryland]

The day FDR says the words. The Soviets (actually, more properly, Hitler's amateur meddling in tactical battle planning) had already ensured that the Reich wasn't going to win with Operation Uranus, FDR's position meant that there was going to be no separate peace and the War was going to end when an Allied Army planted its Flag in Berlin.

Or when enough German cities disappear in a instant a piece that they'll throw in the flag. Or if the Nazi's are dumb enough to use gas then sometime after the Brit's put in place "Operation Vegetarian" and most of the German populace dies of starvation or anthrax and most of Germany gets walled off for a few centuries.

 

[Veiovis]

Or when enough German cities disappear in a instant a piece that they'll throw in the flag. Or if the Nazi's are dumb enough to use gas then sometime after the Brit's put in place "Operation Vegetarian" and most of the German populace dies of starvation or anthrax and most of Germany gets walled off for a few centuries.

Can we finally put the old Vegetarian myth to rest? No folks, WWII Britain did not, in fact, have a weapon that made the 80s nuclear arsenals look quaint, and no, Anthrax isn't gods given super plague that avoids the thoroughly underwhelming military potential of all bioweapons.

 

[Father Maryland]

Stalingrad became the pivot point on the Eastern Front for a number of reasons, both material and ego related.

Material/strategic first - The Volga was one of, perhaps the most, vital waterway in the Soviet Union. Huge amounts of goods, including oil and grain traveled up and down the waterway. While not quite the level of the Mississippi trade wise, it was perhaps more important in a relatively transportation poor Soviet Union, where the road and rail network was quite weak by European (and fairly pitiful by U.S. standards, especially the road system) into the war years. Stalingrad (actually known as Volgagrad both before Stalin's rise to power and after the fall of the USSR) is ideally placed to interdict traffic on the river, especially from the oil rich Caspian Sea region. The side that holds it holds the, at the time, main source of oil for the Soviet Union (and the Red Army). Germany's greatest weakness, resource wise, was oil*, any modern industrialized country required it in vast quantities, it is literally the life blood of industry and transportation, the entire reason for the German 1942 Southern Offensive was to gain control of Baku and the Caspian Sea oil resources found nearby. Without Stalingrad movement of that vital resource back into the Reich would be vastly more difficult and even if the Caspian is not reached possession of the city (more properly the riverfront on which it is located, would be a huge step in denying the Caspian Sea oil to the Soviets).

The second strategic issue is that the battle for the city became a black hole for combat formations. Both Heer and Red Armylosses during the battle exceed the TOTAL combat losses (KIA/WIA/MIA) for the United States in all of WW II (86,000 German captured at Stalingrad died in Soviet PoW camps, total USMC deaths/died of wounds in WW II were slightly above 20,000). Neither side could make up the losses suffered there, making victory in the battle absolutely critical, since the loser would be hard pressed to have another go (this was especially true for the Germans, who were already experiencing manpower shortages to the point that they had been forced to use 100,000 lightly armed Romanians, well over 120,000 Italian, and 120,000 Hungarian troops, all with insufficient heavy equipment to cover sections of their defensive front). Failing at Stalingrad meant loss of control of the Volga, all that implied, until the end of the War.

The second factor (and in some ways, the more critical one) is the egos of the two War Lords involved. Hitler became utterly obsessed with taking "Stalin's City" for symbolic reasons and Stalin, for the same symbolism became remarkably focused on holding it. The became an increasingly critical element in the battle, by October both dictator's were laser focused on the actions, requiring daily detailed briefings on any movement of forward positions advancing or retreating (this is also the period, where any commander with an ounce of brains would have looked at the German position and withdrawn to a better defensive position to have a fresh try at the City in 1943, before throwing away a few hundred thousand additional troops). Hitler's ego and hatreds prevented him from seeing this, and he gutted the Heer as a result.

Had the Soviets lost the city the impact on morale would have been enormous; it would also very possibly have led to one of Stalin's infamous fits of anger with God knows how many purged senior officers (including the very officers who led the Red Army to Berlin 29 months later) or, alternatively Stalin committing suicide by shooting himself in the back 36 times with three different calibers of ammunition and then cutting his throat, twice. Either way the impact on the Soviet war effort is incalculable and quite possibly sufficient to turn the tide in the East.



*There were a number of others, mainly ores needed as alloying elements in high strength steel, and rubber, but even the ore situation could be, to a degree, managed by imports through third parties like Turkey, Spain and Sweden, and synthetic rubber eased, but did not erase the need for natural substance)

I assume you mean Stalin would tragically fall out of a ten story window and even more tragically land on several hundred bullets and several dozen knife blades. Then to cap the tragedy Stalin would presumably not thinking quite straight would then proceed to accidentally douse himself in kerosene and try and light a cigarette to calm his nerves.

Even more tragically several dozen other top officials and generals would similarly fall out of the same window, land on several hundred bullets, and then accidentally douse themselves in Kerosene and tragically set themselves a flame while trying to smoke a calming cigarette. They obviously presumably fell out of said window while trying to save the life of the Dear Stalin.

Premier Beria could not be reached for comment.

 

[Father Maryland]

Can we finally put the old Vegetarian myth to rest? No folks, WWII Britain did not, in fact, have a weapon that made the 80s nuclear arsenals look quaint, and no, Anthrax isn't gods given super plague that avoids the thoroughly underwhelming military potential of all bioweapons.

But they sort of did? They had produced and stockpiled a metric fuckton of anthrax by the latter bit of the war and had the means via strategic bombers to drop them over Germany in massive quantities.

Anthrax isn't something that should be trifled with especially in the quantities involved and with the decontamination/treatment tech available in the 1940s.

 

[Captain Homicide]

Premier Beria could not be reached for comment.

In AANW Stalin gets killed in 1943 and when Malenkov gets close to taking charge he gets killed by Beria who then gets shot by NKVD officers who don’t want a rapist as the Soviet leader leaving Molotov as the last candidate standing.

 

[TDM]

In AANW Stalin gets killed in 1943 and when Malenkov gets close to taking charge he gets killed by Beria who then gets shot by NKVD officers who don’t want a rapist as the Soviet leader leaving Molotov as the last candidate standing.

The NKVD was Beria's pet, he used it not only to spread his power but ensure his safety. I'm pretty sure he'd ensure the only NKVD officers in a position to shoot him would be hard core Beria loyalists. I mean it's possible some rogue NKVD suddenly decides that Beria the serial rapist in charge of the secret police and defacto No 2 is livewithable, but Beria the serial rapist as war leader is not. I think any move against Beria would be more likely to come from the red army in some form, possibly putting some STAVKA member in place.

sorry what's AANW I'm not familiar with that?

 

[YYJ]

The NKVD was Beria's pet, he used it not only to spread his power but ensure his safety. I'm pretty sure he'd ensure the only NKVD officers in a position to shoot him would be hard core Beria loyalists. I mean it's possible some rogue NKVD suddenly decides that Beria the serial rapist in charge of the secret police and defacto No 2 is livewithable, but Beria the serial rapist as war leader is not. I think any move against Beria would be more likely to come from the red army in some form, possibly putting some STAVKA member in place.

sorry what's AANW I'm not familiar with that?

Anglo American Nazi War.

The Anglo/American Nazi War

Discussion thread can be found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=140356 BTW: Originally this part was supposed to be the whole T/L Preface Before examining the actual final conflict between the Western democracies, chiefly Canada, Great Britain, and...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[TxAggie]

The NKVD was Beria's pet, he used it not only to spread his power but ensure his safety. I'm pretty sure he'd ensure the only NKVD officers in a position to shoot him would be hard core Beria loyalists. I mean it's possible some rogue NKVD suddenly decides that Beria the serial rapist in charge of the secret police and defacto No 2 is livewithable, but Beria the serial rapist as war leader is not. I think any move against Beria would be more likely to come from the red army in some form, possibly putting some STAVKA member in place.

sorry what's AANW I'm not familiar with that?

Yeah, I think that NKVD officer is one of those jobs where you check in your personal morals at the door. I can't see any of the upper-echelon officers suddenly deciding that Beria's crimes are worth killing him for, when everyone involved at that level would already have swimming pools full of blood on their hands.

 

[TDM]

Anglo American Nazi War.

The Anglo/American Nazi War

Discussion thread can be found here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=140356 BTW: Originally this part was supposed to be the whole T/L Preface Before examining the actual final conflict between the Western democracies, chiefly Canada, Great Britain, and...

www.alternatehistory.com

Ah Ok Cheers

Yeah, I think that NKVD officer is one of those jobs where you check in your personal morals at the door. I can't see any of the upper-echelon officers suddenly deciding that Beria's crimes are worth killing him for, when everyone involved at that level would already have swimming pools full of blood on their hands.

I agree such an attempt from within the NKVD would be a politically motivated not morally so* which would mean not a conspiracy existing within the NKVD but one that had survived and grown enough to the extent it thought it had chance to seize the reins by doing this



*I mean I can believe there were some NKVD high ups not as morally bankrupt as Beria (a bar an earthworm could clear), but disliking it and doing something it about it are two different things

 

[Orko]

Wouldn't that be rather difficult as it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany?
Germany "only" wanted to regain the territories it had lost after WWI and then go about its genocidal war on Russia.

Several posters have mentioned the allies not wanting a round 3 after 20 years.

IMO, WW2 was less about the 'dagger in the back' myth than the shameful way Germany was treated after asking for terms in 1918. A fact that was increasingly recognised in the 1930s and led to a certain amount of initial support for Hitler's demands.

So the best way not to have round 3 is perhaps not enforcing another unconditional surrender/breaking up the country that will only piss the Germans off and create the demand for another rematch.

This view really only makes sense if you look at it from the POV of a German nationalist, the kind who believes that every piece of land Germany lays claim to is indeed rightful German territory, which justifies in their mind breach of diplomatic agreements and even military aggression to assert their rights over them. But from the POV of literally everyone else, these are integral parts of sovereign nations, and France and Britain were merely acting under the principle of collective security when they saw that peaceful negotiations had failed and Germany resorted to military action to resolve its disputes.

 

[ranoncles]

This view really only makes sense if you look at it from the POV of a German nationalist, the kind who believes that every piece of land Germany lays claim to is indeed rightful German territory, which justifies in their mind breach of diplomatic agreements and even military aggression to assert their rights over them. But from the POV of literally everyone else, these are integral parts of sovereign nations, and France and Britain were merely acting under the principle of collective security when they saw that peaceful negotiations had failed and Germany resorted to military action to resolve its disputes.

IMO that’s a somewhat simplistic view (with a healthy dose of whitewashing) and only looks at Germany with the benefit of hindsight as a truly evil regime, perhaps the most evil regime in history. It completely ignores the fact that Britain and France were satisfied colonial powers who had brutally enslaved numerous countries and were ruthlessly exploiting them for their own benefit. They were on top and wanted to prevent any other country from challenging them. Borders certainly didn't matter to them when they wanted to invade a country. Accusing Germany of aggression when you yourself have conquered large parts of the globe is a tad hypocritical after all and that trait was well recognised by other countries. (there is a famous quote from Russian foreign minister Nesselrode saying that when Britain takes India and France occupies Algeria, it’s not an issue but when Russia occupies Bessarabia, it is a balance of power issue and Russia should withdraw…)

The real issue between nations is that dominant nations want to remain dominant (and wealthy) while lesser nations want to rise to dominance and wealth.

A case in point is the British position towards Germany preceding WWI. Britain was the dominant naval power and didn’t want to lose that position. When Germany started building a fleet to assert its own power, Britain immediately got butthurt and started scheming against Germany because it felt it had some god-given right to have a bigger navy than any one else. Even if Germany was never a true danger, merely a new and potentially stronger rival than France in the division of the economic pie.

You see the same with the contemporary rise of China. Nobody expects China to attack the USA or the West but the USA is desperately trying to prevent China from reaching its full potential because that means its own dominance will end.

In 1939, when Germany attacked Poland it had two goals. One was the return of certain territories which had been taken away afer WWI to reconstitute Poland. The other was to be able to expand eastwards as envisioned by Hitler. Poland wasn’t a poor victim bullied by nasty old Germany. There was a history dating back centuries between both countries with them fighting over the same territory. Sometimes Poland claimed it. Sometimes Prussia/Germany. Just after WWI, Poland actually attacked Germany for territory.

Then you have the rather dubious moral position of the colonial powers Britain and France. I can’t conceive of any situation in which they can accuse Germany of any great wrongdoing in the 1930s which they themselves haven’t perpetrated. They weren’t motivated by any diplomatic agreement or moralistic stance on naughty Germany. Because they were even worse perpetrators of conquest and subjugation of others. They were only interested in the balance of power and not allowing Germany from becoming an even greater potential danger.

So you end up with naked power. Does a country have the strength to take territory (be it Poland, India or Algeria)? And if so, does that make it right? Because if Germany is wrong, where does that leave Britain and France. They had just taken large parts of the Ottoman Empire for themselves besides all their conquests in the previous centuries. And how about all the other countries who have fought wars of expansion or colonization?

 

[Orko]

IMO that’s a somewhat simplistic view (with a healthy dose of whitewashing) and only looks at Germany with the benefit of hindsight as a truly evil regime, perhaps the most evil regime in history. It completely ignores the fact that Britain and France were satisfied colonial powers who had brutally enslaved numerous countries and were ruthlessly exploiting them for their own benefit. They were on top and wanted to prevent any other country from challenging them. Borders certainly didn't matter to them when they wanted to invade a country. Accusing Germany of aggression when you yourself have conquered large parts of the globe is a tad hypocritical after all and that trait was well recognised by other countries. (there is a famous quote from Russian foreign minister Nesselrode saying that when Britain takes India and France occupies Algeria, it’s not an issue but when Russia occupies Bessarabia, it is a balance of power issue and Russia should withdraw…)

The real issue between nations is that dominant nations want to remain dominant (and wealthy) while lesser nations want to rise to dominance and wealth.

A case in point is the British position towards Germany preceding WWI. Britain was the dominant naval power and didn’t want to lose that position. When Germany started building a fleet to assert its own power, Britain immediately got butthurt and started scheming against Germany because it felt it had some god-given right to have a bigger navy than any one else. Even if Germany was never a true danger, merely a new and potentially stronger rival than France in the division of the economic pie.

You see the same with the contemporary rise of China. Nobody expects China to attack the USA or the West but the USA is desperately trying to prevent China from reaching its full potential because that means its own dominance will end.

In 1939, when Germany attacked Poland it had two goals. One was the return of certain territories which had been taken away afer WWI to reconstitute Poland. The other was to be able to expand eastwards as envisioned by Hitler. Poland wasn’t a poor victim bullied by nasty old Germany. There was a history dating back centuries between both countries with them fighting over the same territory. Sometimes Poland claimed it. Sometimes Prussia/Germany. Just after WWI, Poland actually attacked Germany for territory.

Then you have the rather dubious moral position of the colonial powers Britain and France. I can’t conceive of any situation in which they can accuse Germany of any great wrongdoing in the 1930s which they themselves haven’t perpetrated. They weren’t motivated by any diplomatic agreement or moralistic stance on naughty Germany. Because they were even worse perpetrators of conquest and subjugation of others. They were only interested in the balance of power and not allowing Germany from becoming an even greater potential danger.

So you end up with naked power. Does a country have the strength to take territory (be it Poland, India or Algeria)? And if so, does that make it right? Because if Germany is wrong, where does that leave Britain and France. They had just taken large parts of the Ottoman Empire for themselves besides all their conquests in the previous centuries. And how about all the other countries who have fought wars of expansion or colonization?

None of this is relevant to the argument I raised. Which is, that the only people who have any reason to view things from the German nationalist perspective, that which sees France and Germany as the aggressor who were interfering with Germany’s rightful assertion of its claim and the correction of the shame of Versailles, are German nationalists themselves. For anyone else, Germany was encroaching on sovereign nations and blatantly disregarding international agreements, and needs to be stopped. Whether France and Britain are being hypocritical, or are acting from a position of might rather than right, is irrelevant to whether the German perspective is valid or not.

 

[Puzzle]

Is there any chance of Germany just cashing out after the fall of France? Obviously Hitler is there doing his thing in real life, but if Germany had given up France minus some border adjustments is there really that much desire in Britain to keep fighting? It’s awfully easy to say that they’ll fight on the beaches etc, but if Germany puts out obvious peace feelers will people actually want to fight?