This wouldn't be exactly what your asking for, but if the US agrees to Stalin's proposal of a neutral Germany, the neutral Germany could go red potentially.
This wouldn't be exactly what your asking for, but if the US agrees to Stalin's proposal of a neutral Germany, the neutral Germany could go red potentially.
Its not that unrealistic. The whole thing begins, with the USSR demanding a final solving of the german problem. By refering to WW2, german war crimes and the massive sacrifices the soviet people brought, they convince most people in the west, that they are right. In the Geneva conference of 1989, it is decided that the BRD and DDR should be unified as a neutral federation (as was planned in the Teheran and Potsdam treaty, and was dreamed of during the dark cold war times). The two german states have to leave both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Both german governments see this as a chance to spread their influence to the other state. To observe the unification process, the USSR is allowed to station 100.000 soldiers on the BRD soil, while NATO has to withdraw their troops. But as it was the soviets who pushed for the treaty and who sacrificed 20 million people to defeat fascism, and as the USSR has never violated an international treaty, this seems reasonable. Well and the the part we all know happens.
But I thin the setup is not so unreasonable. And there were many shady deals duduring the cold war. Also, Africa, Cuba and Afghanistan are totally worth West Germany from the US perspective. Especially if the alternative could be nuclear war.
After the Americans left, what about the French, British, Canadian, Dutch and Belgian troops on West Germany soil. Tens of thousands of them. Did they leave too? Was the French Army on strike, even over the Rhine, when the Soviets overran West Germany in two days? Oh and the British Army too?Here a scenario I did some years ago.
POD 1980: SPD does better, the CDU/CSU do worse in the Federal election.
This resulting in the failure of Kohls non-confident vote in 1982. An early election leads to a SPD-Green goverment.
The new Goverment reject the NATO Double-Track Decision. This results in a diplomatic conflicts with the USA, which leads to W-Germany leaving NATO and the retreat of the US-Forces from Europe. The Bundeswehr is massive reduces to establish "strukturelle Nichtangriffsfähigkeit".
1985: The decline of NATO strength the Hardliner in the USSR. Grigori Romanow becomes the new General-Sectretary.
1990: Polls Shows that the next german election will likely result in a swing to the right. The CDU/CSU says that they will start after the election rearment and will return into NATO.
Romanow and Honecker decide that they can´t allow this to happen. After massive manovers WP-Forces cross the w-german border. The USSR justify this with the ‚enemy State‘ clauses from Articles 53, 77 and 107 UN-Charta and proclaims that they Need to prevent the rie of Neo-fashism in Germany. There is only token resistance by the weaked and surprised Bundeswehr and after two days the goverment in Bonn surrenders. West-Germany is completly occupied. The west-german elections are canceld.
1991 A National People Congress proclaims the reunification of Germany as Democratic Republic of Germany DRG. Erich Honeker becomes the first State President.
Obvious they leave too. why should they stay in a neutralist West Germany?After the Americans left, what about the French, British, Canadian, Dutch and Belgian troops on West Germany soil. Tens of thousands of them. Did they leave too? Was the French Army on strike, even over the Rhine, when the Soviets overran West Germany in two days? Oh and the British Army too?
Obvious they leave too. why should they stay in a neutralist West Germany?
because west germany is an occupied country without full sovereignity who has no say whatsoever about western troop deplyoments? and because they still have a vested interest in their troops being there,given the fact that unlike the braindead germans here they know a soviet takeover is imminent?
Its an East Bloc, which never liberalized and still running on pure suppression. Cuba and Best Korea show that this can work, even when economical the wheels are falling of.Better question, how does the Warsaw Pact actually manage to avoid falling apart with an invasion in 1990?
So you say the USA would overthrow a democratic elected goverment by force, doing something they critizized the Soviets for in Hngary, CSSR and Afghanistan and turn West Germany into hostile territory?Pretty much. The Americans laugh at the German government and then forcibly overthrow it with the assistance of said government's own army.
So you say the USA would overthrow a democratic elected goverment by force, doing something they critizized the Soviets for in Hngary, CSSR and Afghanistan and turn West Germany into hostile territory?
Britain most of the time considered his prescence in Germany a financial burden, it wanted to get out. Whatever stand on paper about the rights of the three powers, I think they know without the consent of the german goverment and population it would be pointless to station troops there.because west germany is an occupied country without full sovereignity who has no say whatsoever about western troop deplyoments? and because they still have a vested interest in their troops being there,given the fact that unlike the braindead germans here they know a soviet takeover is imminent?
So you say the USA would overthrow a democratic elected goverment by force, doing something they critizized the Soviets for in Hngary, CSSR and Afghanistan and turn West Germany into hostile territory?
To observe the unification process, the USSR is allowed to station 100.000 soldiers on the BRD soil, while NATO has to withdraw their troops.