Cold War where West Europe is Nazi-dominated

Now that wouldn't fit with the initial premises of Soviet-occupied eastern Europe, but had Germany pounced upon the diplomatic feelers the Kremlin had extended through Bulgaria in the fall of 1941, scoring a big land grab but failing to destroy the Russian army has Hitler dreamed it, then we may end up with our Cold War.

I read somewhere (I think it was a John Costello book) that before WW2 a poll showed that Americans, in case of the war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, favored Nazi Germany. What would have happened if the two nations had been locked into a Cold War while the US remained neutral ?
 
The problem with Hitler making nice to Russia in 1941, is how is he going to sustain the German economy?

It was only keeping going through the British blockade (people often get fixated on the U-boats - which weren't stopping Britains imports - and ignoring the British blockade which was pretty much stopping everything into Europe except via Russia).

The Germans has bascially run out of credit with the Russians by the spring of 1941. Either they paid up (which they basically couldnt do), or Russia would turn off the oil, wheat and metals. Cue collapse of German economy....
So how is Hitler going to pay for the Russian materials he needs for at least another year?
 
The problem with Hitler making nice to Russia in 1941, is how is he going to sustain the German economy?

It all depends on the relative strength of Germany and Russia in 1941.

IIRC, Stalin was extremely anxious to stay on Hitler's good side in 1941 - sure that didn't stop Molotov from making all sorts of territorial demands in late 1940, but I find it significant that Stalin so adamantly refused to believe that Hitler would be attacking, that his morale sunk to abysmal lows with Germany's early successes, and that he made peace offers through Bulgaria in the fall of 1941.

Hitler making nice to Russia could just as well be "Russia wanting to make nice with Hitler".

It was only keeping going through the British blockade (people often get fixated on the U-boats - which weren't stopping Britains imports - and ignoring the British blockade which was pretty much stopping everything into Europe except via Russia).

Submarine warfare was aimed at attacking shipping - and imports of war matériel above all. Are you saying they had no impact on Britain's ability to import the goods its industry (and its soldiers and population) needed ?

Turkey and Persia could have been wooed by Germany as well, making possible an attack on the Suez Canal, or simply the opening of a supply pipeline for oil and other imports.


The Germans has bascially run out of credit with the Russians by the spring of 1941. Either they paid up (which they basically couldnt do), or Russia would turn off the oil, wheat and metals. Cue collapse of German economy....

They had run out of credit in 1938 or so, when they emitted MEFO bills for more Deutschmarks than they could hope to repay in peacetime. That sure didn't prevent them from conquering the continent in the next 2 years, and from ruling it another 4 years.

That being said, Britain's credit in 1941 wasn't that great either, notably thanks to the US cash-and-carry arms procurement legislation. As Roosevelt said "we have greatly benefited from the British milk cow, and now it's nearly exhausted".


So how is Hitler going to pay for the Russian materials he needs for at least another year?

See above. Why suppose that Germany wouldn't be able to pay what Russia demands, or that Russia won't be the one willing to keep on Germany's good side for a while ?

With a thoroughly hostile Russia having kept or retaken all of its territories and seized Eastern Europe, I do agree that Germany is in a dire spot - but then we wouldn't have any cold war at all, as Russia would simply keep driving West.

With a Russia weakened by the early Barbarossa gains, or anxious to bid time, I think it's possible and plausible enough.
 
1) While you could argue that Germany could have concievably gotten nukes early on(say take all the funding from the rocket program and give it to Heisenberg), having all three powers go nuclear at or about the same time, is damn hard.

Funding and support are only part of the issue. I'm not sure Germany could successfullyl create and get the components to create a bomb in that time span could they? I don't see how they are going to obtain enough plutonium in such a short time span during the war. Further more ... say they get enough heavy water to start up a test reactor, then where are they going to build a facility that won't be bombed? Seems the US will definitely get the bomb first and ensure that the others 'play nice'.

2) Hitler's insane. If he has a nuclear weapon, the man is going to use it.

Granted, the man is a fool and crazed moron but he also was apprehensive about using biological warefare. Thus, I'm not certain he would use the weapon, especially if the US (which most likely does) has the bomb too. I suppose he probably wouldn't understand the radiation and power of such a weapon and therefore be more apt to use it but I don't think it's 100%.

As to the conversation on the status of a 43 soviet attack on a waiting German military ... I don't see how people think it would be OTL style warfare. The communist would be drafting people into an offensive overlord czarist struggle for conquest. Stalin would still be using his cronies left from the purges and not likely to allow clear military though until the war turns on him totally. By then even the Germans would have been able to raise dozens of anti-Stalin war units to fight against Moscow. If the POD is a Hitler that realizes the crazed notion of invading the Soviets OTL style then perhaps part of that rationale could be explained in understanding the boundless opportunities of using the eastern populations against Stalin. I'll grant you that soviet armor would be much more powerful on paper than Germany's but I still think any soviet attack in 43 is going to be met and countered with the front lines stalemating (if they do at all) closer to Belorussia not Memel.
 
I think a couple key things what made the Allies win WW2 in Europe was born out of a certain feeling of desperation. For example:
- Stalin was pretty much just screwing around (Finland anyone?), letting Hitler encircle his armies, until he was finally about to lose Moscow. Then he called out to Zhukov: "Save me!" and he did.

Partly true, but the specific epic fail on Stalin's part was to announce a backs against the wall doctrine which wasted thiousands of lives at Kiev for no gain. That's not a problem on the attack. And much as I'm a fan of Georgiy, he didn't actually just stride into the snows outside Moscow and destroy the Germans with his laser eyes. They couldn't have captured Moscow anyway: they'd come too far, too fast, they ddn't have winter gear, and just when they were out of breath the troops from the Far East hit them.

- The Second Front (operation overlord) was a result of FDR and Churchill not trying to be nice to the Soviets, but instead to make sure the Russians didn't grab everything.

Uh, yeah, that would be why Stalin was daily asking the western Allies "Where is my second front? Where is it?!"

I exagerrate, but by all means the Soviets prioritised beating Germany at the smallest cost to themselves over grabbing a bigger slice of Austria.

If Germany takes Western Europe, the Balkans, Poland, Scandinavia, and stops, then some things are changed.
First, Stalin has not gone through the terror of almost losing, and will not leave many important military choices to his generals as in OTL, since any war with the Nazis is going to be started by himself (not Hitler) and will take place far from Moscow.

Well, for one thing, see what I've already said. For another, Stalin kept meddling to some degree until Kursk. For another, Hitler will certainly put his grubby mitts on the campaign map. For another, as I said, the Germans have a teeny bit of an oil problem (and the logical first thing for the Soviets to do is accentuate it by throwing stuff at Romania). For another. For another, as stated before, a large part of the dismal leadership in 1941 was not due to Stalin personally (no-one could screw up at so many levels) but instead to his purges, the effects of which would diminish.

Second, Germany has so much less area to defend than in OTL. If Hitler listens to his generals, they can easily hold off against Russia (this is Russia against like all of Europe mind you) and Stalin's bad strategy for at least a few years without problem.

Yeah, when it comes to general-listening, Stalin has rather the better record. Also, where's the oild coming from all these "few years"? Also, what about the Americans, who had the capacity to mobilise a lot more than they did (Germany had more divisions that America, although they were comically understrength by the end, and look at their population sizes)?

Third, the situation on the Eastern Front is now a lot more evened out overall, so the Allies look at the war and say "it'd be great if they'd keep fighting with each other for as long as possible." I recall from some book that Truman stated that the USA should help whichever side is losing. IMO, it was really the fact that, at least initially, Russia was losing so horribly (in OTL) that Stalin recieved FDR's blessing for an alliance. Had the Allies truely known the potential of the Red Army to eventually crush Hitler after wearing down his forces in Russia, I do not think they would've sent Stalin Lend-Lease or formed an alliance.

The Doctrine of Unconditional Surrender did not work that way. I believe when Churchill heard that Russia had been invaded, despite this carrying the "and they're being pretty mangled" rider, he thanked God in relief.

Look, my name is testament to my disliking Stalin, and he was still better than Hitler. Everybody knew this, and that Hitler had to be stopped. And invading France is only going to prevent Stalin getting it anyway. Also, without the American trucks, the Soviets would have been in no position to win such crushing victories in 44-5.

About the continued air warfare over the UK, I revise my previous statements. People like to talk about this whole "nevah sarrendah" mentality of the Brits, but WI Germany never bombed English cities? What if Hitler just left them alone after realizing that it was just a waste of pilots and planes? IMO what Engalnd really contributed in the war was the strategic bombing of Germany, and if Germany only attacks British airplanes and bases, England will have niether the physically capability to bomb Germany nor the civillian will to continue a war that is being perpetuated by their government's not willing to sign the peace treaty that Hitler wanted originally.

It's still Britain. As opposed to England.

Where have we lost the physical capability to bomb Germany? Down the sofa? And why have our spines all turned to dust? You know, when Churchill gave a speech which was basically saying "Bomb us! Bomb us! We can take and we'll bomb you right back, so bomb us, you shits!", he was cheered enthusiastically. And you'd think having your house demolished would sap your will to carry on the battle. Pre-war strategists certainly did.

Also, you know what's in cities? Industry! Given that we were by, IIRC, 1943 capability of outsptripping Germany's tank production, then unbombed... yeah.

There is one problem, and that is the oil. That's why Turkey will have to become Germany's friend, as to open up the Middle East for Hitler. This is not implausible IMO, and if Hitler doesn't decide to attack Russia, he will will try his best to get the ME's oil instead.

Turkey basically joined the allies in '45, or as good as, and of course their army was not insubtantial. The Germans are going to have rather a job invading a mountainous country far from their supply centre with no naval support. When the Soviets step in, attacking them while they're busy in Asia and also stiffening the Turks... yeah.
 
I dont think that an alliance with turkey was implausible. They didnt attack Germany until the last days, even if they would get Greece(at least as a puppet), the only raeson they did declear war was becouse Stalin was a Georgian and wanted some land from Turkey which originaly belonged to Georgia. So Tureky needed an alliance with the Allies, hence they had do declare war. But if Hitler had a better politic towards Turkey, considering the fact that most arabs liked his polices, and hated England and France for beeing theire colonies, they would have allied with Hitler.

Ladies and gentlemen, dim the lights, drum roll, a blast of brass for what I can without a doubt clouding my mind call the GREATEST MIDDLE EAST FAIL OF THE CENTURY!

Turks aren't Arabs.

*Whooping and chears from the audience*

And defeating the UK was neither impossible nor implausible. Hitler just didnt saw th UK a threat. And he didnt wated to destroy the British empire, infact he admired the Anglo-Saxish empire. So he attacked the Soviets, hoping that after a quick victory the British would realise that they had no hope and the war would end bloodless. The British still confuse that with them beeing so powerfull, well the often quoted "never surrender" was in the same speech as "we shall fight of the beaches".

"We are still waiting for the promised invasion. So are the fishes." Same guy. What he was saying was that "[In the highly unlikley, near impossible event of an invasion] We shall fight them! On the Beaches!", which is a lot more stirring then "Let's face it chaps, they're trying to cross the channel in bloody Rhine barges!"

It's been well established that Germany couldn't invade Britain, and why would Hitler perceive no threat from an empire he respected?

Besides the Polish screeemed that they would be in Berlin in 10 days.. Just becouse you say somthing doesent mean its right.

Drunk hussars said that. The Polish general staff had a sane strategy of withdrawal which might have allowed them to hould out in Galicia for a couple of moths if not for the Soviets.

Hitler in 44 said all they needed was a bit of willpower and they would win on all fronts...

Yes, well, he was a delusional nutbar, now, wasn't he?

Without the American Supplies, Idustry and Manpower, Britan was a sitting duck.

God bless America! Thank you, America, for the liberty ships! Thank you, America, for the lendlease tanks! Thank you, America, for unwaverng support in our darkest, our finest hour! Thank you, America, for... the RAF? I think that's a typo. Thank you, America for... Britain industrial capacity, which putstripped Germany's by the mid-war? That's just silly! Thank you, America, for... the English Channel? Okay, this is ludicrous.

Yeah, we might not have been in a position to invade Europe, but sitting ducks? Some duck!

(Please note that I ascribe to the increasingly popular revionist view of W.Churchill that he was a crazilly stubborn nutbar who appeared when Britain needed one but who's crazy stubborness made him wrong on many other issues like India, and who made mistakes in the conduct of the war. His quotes remain kickass, however, and are highly appropriate to this discussion.)

But most peope think Hitler=idiot. This is the result of years of brainwash. An idiot woudl hardly be able to defeat France and nearly capture France

True, and that is why we all agree that Heinz Guderian was an extremely clever man.

Hitler, however, was a flaming loony.

while fighting the British empire (which spanned a quarter of the world) and soon after that the USA, without colonies and resourses.

And, you know, loosing? The fight? He lost it? Badly?

He was evil alright, but an evil genius. It was only after an attempted attack on his life and overdoses of drugs that he became "a bit paranoid" ( or insane in other words).

That would be why before the war he wrote an insane ramble about his scheme to remake the world by taking Germany into battle it could not win.

All Hitler's great "strategic masterstrokes" consited of "Yeah, Guderian or whoever it is, I authorise you to implement your plan."


And the so mighty Soviets without American money... taking it was like cutting though butter with a hot knife. An earlyer offensive in 41, (maybe a noth or so), or a milder winter and we would be starting our school with a "heil Hitler".

American money? What, the Soviets hurled dollars at the Germans to confuse and blind them?

Trucks, dear boy. It's all about American lorries, but Hitler couldn't conquer Russia. The lorries just allowed Russia to conquer Germany in record-setting time. There were no American lorries involved in the defence of Moscow. And anyway, the role of General Winter was been exagerrated. Not only will a Russian "mild winter" still be way too cold for the poorly equipped Germans, but actually it was his chief of staff Colonel Autumn who devised the winning strategy. Some even suggest that the best idea were those of staff clerk Captain Mud-on-the-roads.

Saying the Reich was doomed to loos is like saying the Greeks under Alexander had no chance of winning against Persia.. :D

There are some key differences. Hitler was a lunatic, Alexander was a genius. Hitler lost, Alexander won. In short, one statement is true and the other is false.


To everyone saying the Reich had no Chance to beat the Soviets, thats what everyone thought about France too. They thought that without colonies they could never take France, it would be like W1 only faster, maybe two years... it only took 6 weeks, and that with moving troops from poland.

There are so many thing syou have completely failed to factor in here it's not even funny. What about stategic depth? What about... what about...

Okay, if requested I'll write short essay on the topic, but honestly anyone with enough military knowledge to get it (which isn't much) knows how silly it is to say that France and Russia were comparable campaigns.
 
Make oil flow into Japan and you remove the necessity to grab the NEI, which in turn removes the necessity to attack the US to remove potential obstacles.

True, that's what I was acknowledging.

Nearly - hunting down German subs approaching convoys in certain areas, yes. Declaring war on Germany and Italy, I don't see it happen before late 1942 for a variety of reasons : lack of casus belli, weight of German- and Italo-Americans, a still strong Isolationnist wing.

Owing to the impossibility of Germany decisively defeating either Britain or Russia, America can take its sweet time.

My point is, if the 1930s US had been ready to descend upon Nazi germany like a choir of vengeful angels because the Nazi regime was abhorrent and the US couldn't let Nazis conquer neighbors with impunity, let's face it, FDR could have declared war as early as March, 1939, over the enslavement of the Czech rump, or 6 months later when Poland was invaded, or maybe with either one of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France. the UK and France asked the US for help back in 1939, and the US Administration's answer was quite timid.

Because it took time to build the necessary public support, but clearly FDR was behind the Allied cause and wanted a war.

Why ? Because it's written in every Briton's DNA ?

No, because it is in no Briton's interest to surrender to a blood thirsty madman who has established European hegemony, which would thus allow him to build a naval force and threaten Britain (WW1 showed that we were willing to go pretty far to stop this happening, and the pre-war Kaiserreich wasn't even ruled by a bloodthirsty madman (Kaiser Wilhelm was only mad, and also questionably in charge), all while winning the war is still perfectly possible.


Viscount Halifax, Lord Rothermere, Lord Londonderry, that good ol' Lloyd George they were Britons as well, and they didn't seem so sure about accomodations with Germany, and nevah surrendahing IIRC. I'm glad their opinion didn't prevail, but I do not find it very realistic to assume "nevah surrendah" was a given regardless of circumstances.

Which is why they weren't in government. What circumstances have conspired to put them there?


IIRC, Churchill himself considered he had been very lucky that, after some of the early war disasters, he was able to stay in power.

If Churchill bungled the war too badly, or was perceived to have, another pro-war politician would have taken over. As I said before, Clem was basically running the country's civil war effort anyway.

He was a nutter - but one who played his cards extremely well before he started believing his own military legend. Rhineland, the Anschluss, Munich, Norway (to say nothing of the animal cunning he showed in conquering the power), they were not just lucky strikes by a raving madman. He also read his opponents correctly, and had a pretty good idea about what they'd do, and what they wouldn't do.

So he was a good politician. A good iplomat. But not a good military strategist. One who was lucky in his choice of consultants for the first part of the war, in fact. And if he was such a great reader of character, why did he think we'd surrendah?


The biggest threat I could see to a German defensive glacis would nevertheless come from the Nazis' terrible mismanagement of economy, making the plunder of conquered nations a necessity. But they also had extremely competent planners - Speer and Schacht, for example, could play a major role in bringing back some balance. I'm not saying that Nazi Germany could succeed in the long run, but if one keeps in mind that the Soviet Union stayed in the Cold War for 50 years with a much worse economic structure, I think Germany could withstand the effort for at least a few years.

I don't see what circumstances have actually been changed to warrant this assesment.

The losses exceeded what Britain's shipyards could build, IIRC. Not to mention the loss of life amongst the crews. And if Britain didn't experience starvation it did experience severe shortages and rationing on all kinds of goods. A more efficient sub warfare could have convinced FDR there was no use in helping the UK (he expressed a similar concern when leasing the 50 old destroyers), or British politicians that a negotiated peace had to be sought. That is at least my opinion.

Thank God for American shipyeards, then! The fact is, Britain endured the hardship. FDR loaned the destroyers. Britain did not seek a negotiated peace. And while you might be right about subs (I'm not a sub-buff), I do feel obliged to point to WW1. Sub warfare is a surefire way to bring in America, Pearl or no Pearl, and the Germany's had it. Also, during WW1 I believe our food situation was worse. We hung in.

It became wholly committed to the fight, rather. It's not exactly as if Halifax, Lloyd George and co had been the only specimens of Britons eager to accept seeking peace with a Germany that was the undisputed winner on every battlefield so far. Had Halifax, instead of Churchill, become Prime Minister, and had he given a speech stating that with the destruction of the British Army on the Continent, his government stood ready to hear the terms offered by Germany, would there have been a Revolution because by Jingo we shall nevah surrendah ? Allow me to doubt it.

Allow me to doubt that for this reason Halifax would become PM/surrendah. One might as well ask "What if Landon had won in '36?" It's a silly question, since America elected FDR, and Britain needed a man who wouldn't surrendah (IIRC, recent scholarship suggests Halifax was less spineless than made our).

Am I saying it has to be ? I'm saying it could have been - had Germany played its cards differently, which is the purpose of this exercise.

It's like how the Germans could have used Ukrainians in 1941, or played the Arab nationalist card against France and Great Britain, but didn't or did too little, too late. Sure you'd have people taking to the hills, setting up some resistance groups. And you'd have turmoil within most of occupied Europe for quite some time, at varying degrees depending on how independent they are, how clever their leaders are, and how clumsy the Occupation forces are. But consider this : was Stalin a better man than Hitler ? Was Stalinist occupation much subtler ? And yet in OTL, Eastern Europe did finally accept Stalinism, not out of particular love, just because there wasn't any other choice and that the SU had played enough cards right to make that possible.

I'm going to argue that Stalin was... at least the more sensible man, as he had no genocida intentions against any particular people under his rule, whereas you're going to need to shake up Nazi leadership to "use the Ukranians."

In any case, the anti-Soviet Ukrainian partisans were pretty much entirely in the right bank. I highly doubt whether the Nazis could in fact have "used Ukraine" any more than they "used Croatia".



Aaaaaand ?

Not England.


Most probably. Of course with NEI and Middle-East oil available (hypothesis : no Pacific War and England knocked out of the war) Russian oil would be somewhat a less useful blackmail weapon. But I'm sure they'd be plenty of options for Soviet Russia (and Nazi Germany, and the US) to generate tension here and there, fighting proxy wars in the periphery of each enemy bloc, etc.

That'd be a very different Cold War, a three-sided one. There'd be blackmail and double-crossing.

You still haven't explained what happened to Britain, therefore no NEI or ME oil, I'm afraid.

Yes, if Germany goes into defensive mood before Barbarossa.Not necessarily, if it happens after Barbarossa's initial success, I suppose.

Actually, I believe someone wrote timeline ine which, after the initial advance to just short of Moscow, the Germans switch to the defensive and repel the Soviets in a bloody meatgrinder battle. The next spring, Hitler's overconfidence leads him to overextend in the Caucasus and at a city of the Volga the Germans are lured into a trap and destroyed. The Soviets launch a formidable winter offensive and when a German attempt to encircle a salient fails in a massive tank battle, its all over bar two bloody years of shouting as, with increasing speed, the Soviets plow on to Berlin. It was very convincing. He presented a wealth of evidence to support his idea.

The author's name was "God", I believe, and his title was "OTL".

Seriously, I do believe he stood a real chance to win - probably before December, 1941, and definitely before June, 1941. It's not as if rolling Germany back from 1943 to 1945 was exactly a pushover, even with the two greatest industrial nations of the planet arrayed against him...

The military balance looked more favourable before June 1941, but eventually he would have to fight both the USSR and America.

You did find a defensive Hitler implausible - yet from 1943 onward, Hitler was defensive, because circumstances forced him to be. Sure, he thought that he had to win a defensive success here so he could win an offensive success there, but he didn't order all-out offensives from Norway to the Spanish border, from Italy to the Turkish straits either.

I don't find a defensive Hitler implausible, I find hid defence prevailing implausible.
 
Owing to the impossibility of Germany decisively defeating either Britain or Russia, America can take its sweet time.

Or it can decide not to DOW Germany at all.


Because it took time to build the necessary public support, but clearly FDR was behind the Allied cause and wanted a war.

He certainly desired to help the Allies, but I'm not sure he'd have needed some more time to DOW Germany. In OTL he was given a fabulous "Get out of Isolation" card by Hitler. In an ATL he might not be given that much help.

No, because it is in no Briton's interest to surrender to a blood thirsty madman who has established European hegemony, which would thus allow him to build a naval force and threaten Britain (WW1 showed that we were willing to go pretty far to stop this happening, and the pre-war Kaiserreich wasn't even ruled by a bloodthirsty madman (Kaiser Wilhelm was only mad, and also questionably in charge), all while winning the war is still perfectly possible.

I doubt any nation actually thought it was in its best interest to live under the Nazi boot. At some point, circumstances have forced them to. And really, Kaiser Willy was a swell guy !


Which is why they weren't in government.

Halifax was. Britain's Foreign Minister until May, 1940, he actually enjoyed the support of the Conservatives as well as the trust of many in Labour. And many British Conservatives, IIRC, still trusted Chamberlain more than they did Churchill.

Had Halifax not decided to step aside (or had he been convinced to assume the responsibility of forming the new Cabinet), who knows what might have happened ?

As for circumstances putting him here, I'd say there's no need to invent new ones. The disaster in Norway, the loss of the British Expeditionary Corps on the Continent along with every ally the UK had, the fears about German landings... We were lucky that in OTL it didn't break the British camel, but my opinion is that it could have, ushering in a very different WW2 in Europe.


If Churchill bungled the war too badly, or was perceived to have, another pro-war politician would have taken over. As I said before, Clem was basically running the country's civil war effort anyway.

Would have ? Why not COULD have ? What would make the idea of Britain seeking peace such an impossibility that you absolutely reject it ?


So he was a good politician. A good iplomat. But not a good military strategist. One who was lucky in his choice of consultants for the first part of the war, in fact. And if he was such a great reader of character, why did he think we'd surrendah?

Because 1) every man can make huge mistakes, and 2) after 1940 Hitler was drunk with success. As for his "choice of consultants" for the first part of the war, more often than not Hitler ran against the advice of his advisers, particularly his generals, so I think we can credit him with some skill here.


I don't see what circumstances have actually been changed to warrant this assesment.

What, that Germany could have managed Occupied Europe better ? I think they had the skills for that. When I see what Speer managed to do with a bombed economy, I cannot help but wonder what he could have done earlier.

Thank God for American shipyeards, then! The fact is, Britain endured the hardship. FDR loaned the destroyers. Britain did not seek a negotiated peace. And while you might be right about subs (I'm not a sub-buff), I do feel obliged to point to WW1. Sub warfare is a surefire way to bring in America, Pearl or no Pearl, and the Germany's had it. Also, during WW1 I believe our food situation was worse. We hung in.

Sure, submarine warfare is bound to push America closer to war - eventually. Britain endured 2 full years of submarine warfare and America was still not declaring war.

And yes, you hung in. I'm just wondering, had Rader listened more to Doenitz, delaying surface ships to produce more submarines, how dire would Britain's situation have been ? And how tenable ? Doenitz at the outbreak of WW2 had nowhere near the number of submarines he wanted for his anti-shipping operations. Had Hitler told Raeder that battleships were not a priority, but submarines were, then I think a lot could have happened in those two years of sub warfare.

Allow me to doubt that for this reason Halifax would become PM/surrendah. One might as well ask "What if Landon had won in '36?" It's a silly question, since America elected FDR, and Britain needed a man who wouldn't surrendah (IIRC, recent scholarship suggests Halifax was less spineless than made our).

Landon for what I could read would have been a mirror image of FDR on the Republican side, for he too believed in Interventionnism.

And I would not equate Halifax with spinelessness, nor would I say surrender is akin to it.


I'm going to argue that Stalin was... at least the more sensible man, as he had no genocida intentions against any particular people under his rule, whereas you're going to need to shake up Nazi leadership to "use the Ukranians."

Indeed. But Hitler himself regretted that Germany didn't use Baltic, Ukrainian and Arab nationalism, so it's not as if he wouldn't have touched that idea with a ten-foot pole.

Also, the Abwehr had Ukrainian contacts since the late 1930s, and they too deplored that these were not put to a better use.

In any case, the anti-Soviet Ukrainian partisans were pretty much entirely in the right bank. I highly doubt whether the Nazis could in fact have "used Ukraine" any more than they "used Croatia".

How come ? Germany did use Croats as troops, along with a smattering of other "national contingents".


Not England.

Yeah, I corrected that. :eek:


You still haven't explained what happened to Britain, therefore no NEI or ME oil, I'm afraid.

Something on the lines of "with the BEF decimated in France and Britain driven away from the Continent, with Norway lost and Egypt threatened, Britain seeks peace on honorable terms that Hitler is bound to give even if he wants to renege on them at some later time". Italy's colonial ambitions can be satisfied with large pieces of the French Empire, and Germany does not occupy Britain.

I'm not saying it's a given. Far from it, I'd say there's an 80% chance that Britain refuses or finds it just cannot accept. I'm just saying, the other 20% cannot be written away.


Actually, I believe someone wrote timeline ine which, after the initial advance to just short of Moscow, the Germans switch to the defensive and repel the Soviets in a bloody meatgrinder battle. The next spring, Hitler's overconfidence leads him to overextend in the Caucasus and at a city of the Volga the Germans are lured into a trap and destroyed. The Soviets launch a formidable winter offensive and when a German attempt to encircle a salient fails in a massive tank battle, its all over bar two bloody years of shouting as, with increasing speed, the Soviets plow on to Berlin. It was very convincing. He presented a wealth of evidence to support his idea.

The author's name was "God", I believe, and his title was "OTL".

No ! You don't say ! Boy oh boy, that does sound like a neat timeline. But correct me if I wrong, I thought I was on ALTERNATE History.com, where we discussed might-have-beens.

If you believe History cannot happen any differently than it did because hey, there's lot of evidence to support OTL and precious little to support ATL, this will be I suppose a very short discussion. Sorry to have bothered you.


The military balance looked more favourable before June 1941, but eventually he would have to fight both the USSR and America.

Based on the hypothesis he fights both, yes. But hey, I know, that's not history-proven.

I don't find a defensive Hitler implausible, I find hid defence prevailing implausible.

Don't bother about implausibility. God wrote the History book, let's not stray away from the Scriptures.
 
2) Hitler's insane. If he has a nuclear weapon, the man is going to use it. Repeatedly. So, even if you have Germany get nukes around 44/45, you're not going to see a cold war stand off. The Allies and Soviets would be closing in on him anyways. All this would get Germany is a nuclear exchange with the allies. So you'd see Britain as a target along with Leningrad and Moscow, possibly Paris too(not saying he's going to get that many, just listing possible targets). So Germany would go down in an atomic blaze of glory, and possibly you'd see Japan surrender without a bomb being dropped on them.

You can have Hitler killed before that. After he orders to use a nuke, his generals know that it will be the end of the German people, of the European people as such and might just "dispose him". Using nukes is much diffrent from going into conventional wars. They would still celebrate him as the grand fuerer who made Germany a superpower and freed them from the jews and so on and so forth. But over time lessened up the harsh regime. Maybe become like more Itlay (with grander ambitions but still).

@LeoXiao
I dont think Germany would have made peace without all theier land. Without Koenigsberg, there would be no peace with the Soviets.


@I Blame Communism
I am not even going to answer to this nonsence. You are like a loony copy of a pre 1940 German thinking his country is god greatist gift to the universe.
England was so fucked up after the war, taht it coulndt even keep Ireland, not a single colony, all the great empire crumbled under its failure. I am not going to answer you and would ask you not to take statement to my comments either.
Thank you.
 
Or it can decide not to DOW Germany at all.

Yes, but clearly FDR didn't want to, and in the Atlantic America was pretty deep in even before Pearl.

He certainly desired to help the Allies, but I'm not sure he'd have needed some more time to DOW Germany. In OTL he was given a fabulous "Get out of Isolation" card by Hitler. In an ATL he might not be given that much help.

Given that he was himself very pro-Allies, I'd imagine he can find himself a Lusitania somewhere.

I doubt any nation actually thought it was in its best interest to live under the Nazi boot. At some point, circumstances have forced them to. And really, Kaiser Willy was a swell guy !

As I said, while victory was still possible. Which it was.

Halifax was. Britain's Foreign Minister until May, 1940, he actually enjoyed the support of the Conservatives as well as the trust of many in Labour. And many British Conservatives, IIRC, still trusted Chamberlain more than they did Churchill.

Had Halifax not decided to step aside (or had he been convinced to assume the responsibility of forming the new Cabinet), who knows what might have happened ?

Yeah, I'm still not convinced. Things happen for reasons: why doesn't he step aside? I prefer more clearly explained PoDs, and as I said I believe there are revionist accounts which have Halifax as a potential war leader.

As for circumstances putting him here, I'd say there's no need to invent new ones. The disaster in Norway, the loss of the British Expeditionary Corps on the Continent along with every ally the UK had, the fears about German landings... We were lucky that in OTL it didn't break the British camel, but my opinion is that it could have, ushering in a very different WW2 in Europe.

As I say, a PoD to me should be clear and exact, with logical consequences. Britain suffered many setbacks and soldiered on. Unless we can change circumstances to create more and worse setbacks, why would we lose our will?

Would have ? Why not COULD have ? What would make the idea of Britain seeking peace such an impossibility that you absolutely reject it ?

I don't think we would have done it while the war could be won. I don't think we'd be forced to acknowledged the war was lost while Moscow was in Russian hands.

Because 1) every man can make huge mistakes, and 2) after 1940 Hitler was drunk with success. As for his "choice of consultants" for the first part of the war, more often than not Hitler ran against the advice of his advisers, particularly his generals, so I think we can credit him with some skill here.

His top generals. With France, he didn't like the conservative plans, so he basically gave the Blitzkrieg set the green light because they told him (truthfully) that they could hive him much more for much less. He wasn't responsible for one line on the campaign map of France himself, we just got it into his head that he was.

What, that Germany could have managed Occupied Europe better ? I think they had the skills for that. When I see what Speer managed to do with a bombed economy, I cannot help but wonder what he could have done earlier.

Again, I prefer exact PoDs. What and how?

Sure, submarine warfare is bound to push America closer to war - eventually. Britain endured 2 full years of submarine warfare and America was still not declaring war.

What about three, then? We could endure for a while.

And yes, you hung in. I'm just wondering, had Rader listened more to Doenitz, delaying surface ships to produce more submarines, how dire would Britain's situation have been ? And how tenable ? Doenitz at the outbreak of WW2 had nowhere near the number of submarines he wanted for his anti-shipping operations. Had Hitler told Raeder that battleships were not a priority, but submarines were, then I think a lot could have happened in those two years of sub warfare.

It's an interesting question which merits its own thread, in which I will not take part owing to my submarine ignorance, but not the question of this thread. I think for this one we're operating based on a '39 PoD.

Landon for what I could read would have been a mirror image of FDR on the Republican side, for he too believed in Interventionnism.

Moot point. I was just saying "Don't change political outcomes with no explanation as to why."

And I would not equate Halifax with spinelessness, nor would I say surrender is akin to it.

As I said, there are revionists accounts of Halifax. But I think that giving in on a war that can be won because you can't stomach it and thus handing the continent to a ruthless pack of gangsters who may soon put the pieces in place to subdue Britain for good would be spineless, yeah.

Indeed. But Hitler himself regretted that Germany didn't use Baltic, Ukrainian and Arab nationalism, so it's not as if he wouldn't have touched that idea with a ten-foot pole.

Hindsight is 20/20. Rampant Slavophobia was the '41 order ot the day, although the Baltic is a more interesting question. Really, though, I don't see a venture among the Arabs getting off the ground. There was Iraq, and the Mufti of Jerusalem talking fights, and what came of it?

Also, the Abwehr had Ukrainian contacts since the late 1930s, and they too deplored that these were not put to a better use.

And there was a Ukrainian SS division. A Ukrainian Galician SS division. Ukraine becomes a lot more Russophile as you move east. Even today, there's escalation between towns commemorating the anti-Soviet partisans in the west and their victims in the east.

How come ? Germany did use Croats as troops, along with a smattering of other "national contingents".

True, but I don't see them squeezing more than a division out of Ukraine.

Yeah, I corrected that. :eek:

Jolly good.

Something on the lines of "with the BEF decimated in France and Britain driven away from the Continent, with Norway lost and Egypt threatened, Britain seeks peace on honorable terms that Hitler is bound to give even if he wants to renege on them at some later time". Italy's colonial ambitions can be satisfied with large pieces of the French Empire, and Germany does not occupy Britain.

But we haven't justified this change.

I'm not saying it's a given. Far from it, I'd say there's an 80% chance that Britain refuses or finds it just cannot accept. I'm just saying, the other 20% cannot be written away.

Sounds rather HoI2 thinking to me. Events have causes. PoDs should not be, and I repeat myself, definate.

No ! You don't say ! Boy oh boy, that does sound like a neat timeline. But correct me if I wrong, I thought I was on ALTERNATE History.com, where we discussed might-have-beens.

I'm just saying the Germans did switch to defence OTL.

If you believe History cannot happen any differently than it did because hey, there's lot of evidence to support OTL and precious little to support ATL, this will be I suppose a very short discussion. Sorry to have bothered you.

I'm no determinist, but I want reasons.

Based on the hypothesis he fights both, yes. But hey, I know, that's not history-proven.

Not what?

Don't bother about implausibility. God wrote the History book, let's not stray away from the Scriptures.

I'm not a determinist, but AH should be plausible or its no fun.
 
Top