Das Vierte Reich: Nie und nimmer wieder!

Eurofed

Banned
Plus, any government that goes back on its alliance (however thin) with the Soviets to side with the Germans will never be trusted again. By anyone.

What a ridiculous assumption. The Cold War did exactly that and nobody made Britain or America a pariah for that.

There's no reason for the Western Allies to agree to basically help defend Germany against the Soviets.

Ending the war in Europe a year in advance is a very good reason. The red Army played no significant role in the conquest of Italy and Japan, its soldiers fought their way in no part of their national territory, and were given no occupation zone. The same principle of diplomatic common sense may apply, "everyone keeps what they conquered". Stalin would have a quite siazable empire, err... "security zone" in Eastern Europe anyway.

The other problem with a successful assassination and coup is that it creates another stab-in-the-back myth for the Nazis and their fellow travellers, of which there were FAR more than people like to admit after the fact, thus making post-war politics in Germany difficult to say the least!

Nothing that a bit of good propaganda by the Allied occupation authorities can't cure. The Allies were nothing but thorough with indoctrination and re-education after the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

No. If the Western Allies can cut a deal with the Valkyrie junta, the war in Europe can end many months in advance, and the WA can spare a hulluva lot of military assets they can use to level Japan. They have no need to bargain for Stalin's costly and harmful "assistance". And Joe is going to invade Manchuria at first opportunity for his own gain anyway.


Again, if Germany surrenders early, the Western Allies can spare a truckload of assets for Japan. They don't need Soviet help, the Germans make lack of Soviet occupation a term of their surrender, the WA have no motive to let the Soviet occupy what they never conquered. Stalin already got his sizable empire, err.. "security zone" in Eastern Europe.

First, don't compare Japan and Germany's situations; they were very different. By the time that Germany was defeated historically and Japan was next, the special relationship with Stalin was just starting to fall apart. At that time people trusted Stalin, but by the time Japan fell, Stalin was denied his piece in the mainland for being johnny-come-lately and because the Americans no longer trusted him nearly as much. With Germany, Stalin had lost perhaps 25 million people in the war and had been fighting it for longer than America had. There was absolutely not way to deny him part of Germany. He would take it if he had to.

The Western Allies' insistence about Stalin invading Manchuria had nothing to do with lacking the resources to tackle it themselves, rather, they did not want to spend the lives tackling 1 million Japanese soldiers there when they were going to invade Japan by themselves anyway and take those losses. Also, how exactly is Stalin supposed to be prevented from rejecting the peace deal that does not get him the occupation zone in Germany? The Wehrmacht, even concentrating all its forces in the East, wouldn't be able to stop the Soviets from breaking through. Give them a deal that denies Stalin his pound of flesh for the suffering the Soviet peoples have undergone under German invasion and he will go it alone, convinced he was betrayed by his erstwhile allies.

At this point the Western Allies and Stalin were pretty tight still. FDR had no desire to stab Stalin in the back and trusted him. He was more interested in punishing the Germans, which would mean giving the Soviets an occupation zone in Germany. Eurofed understand that as much as it pains you that the Soviets would be getting to rule over parts of Germany and commit atrocities, it was going to happen no matter what by this time. The question is whether the Germans were going to fight until the bitter end or surrender early and leave at least 1 million more Germans, not to mention millions more people of other ethnic groups, alive. Resisting the Soviets is not going to work out like you think. Eventually Stalin is coming, so it is a matter of working out a deal early to soften the blow rather than letting him march in and take what he wants by force.

Germany was finished at this point, so it would behoove all the new leaders to realize that and act accordingly. Lay down arms, let people out of the camps, admit to Nazi crimes and disavow them and Nazis, handing over all major party leadership, and generally just pray that the Allies are willing to play ball. Even if not, it is better than going down the way the Nazis did and would save many more lives. It also would probably help Germany's image in the West if they killed Hitler and immediately surrendered unconditionally (or with only minor conditions), willing to democratize under the auspices of America. The fighting to the bitter end thing coupled with the concentration camps really put the hate of all things German into many people in the West. If the Germans are the ones to wrap it all up, there would be a larger recognition of their contributions to peace post war. Perhaps, instead of the the French, the German resistance would be overestimated and given a special place in the national and international consciousness.
 
Pretty much no one in Britain and America was willing to let more of ther boys die in order to aggrandize Poland with territory it had no plausible claim to.

They don't have to. All they have to do is sit there, do nothing and wait for the Germans to blink.

The desire to not just defeat Germany but punish them for their militarism was massively widespread (and, at times, over the top, such as the Morgenthau plan).
 
What a ridiculous assumption. The Cold War did exactly that and nobody made Britain or America a pariah for that.

We weren't allied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The alliance was only for the duration of WW2, and we kept our side of the bargain.

And incidentally, a lot of people on the left and in the third world held Britain and America responsible for the Cold War.

I'm beginning to confuse this thread with some of the others on this topic! Are the Germans surrendering or trying to negotiate a deal in this scenario?
 

Eurofed

Banned
I'm beginning to confuse this thread with some of the others on this topic! Are the Germans surrendering or trying to negotiate a deal in this scenario?

I support the concept of them doing both: they surrender, but get guarantees about the peace deal. I.e. national unity in the 1938 borders minus East Prussia and eventual return to independence, like Japan got. De facto conditional surrender.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The desire to not just defeat Germany but punish them for their militarism was massively widespread (and, at times, over the top, such as the Morgenthau plan).

For the mainstrem, the concept of a punitive peace meant Allied occupation, disarmament, rounding up Nazis and war criminals, and briging them to trial. There was limited support for breaking up Germany, inflicting territorial losses, collective punishments, or other inhumane measures, as proved by the fact that leaks about Plan Morgenthau caused a strong negative feedback.
 
For the mainstrem, the concept of a punitive peace meant Allied occupation, disarmament, rounding up Nazis and war criminals, and briging them to trial. There was limited support for breaking up Germany, inflicting territorial losses, collective punishments, or other inhumane measures, as proved by the fact that leaks about Plan Morgenthau caused a strong negative feedback.

Fair point.
 
I support the concept of them doing both: they surrender, but get guarantees about the peace deal. I.e. national unity in the 1938 borders minus East Prussia and eventual return to independence, like Japan got. De facto conditional surrender.

I simply don't understand why the Allies give the Germans the terms they are seeking.

All they have to do is Nothing. Just stop fighting (unless attacked) and simply sit there, watching the Germans start to panic as they look at the approaching Soviet colossus and waiting for the Germans to come back with new terms. It's called hardball, and the Allies are perfectly capable of it.
 

Eurofed

Banned
With Germany, Stalin had lost perhaps 25 million people in the war and had been fighting it for longer than America had. There was absolutely not way to deny him part of Germany. He would take it if he had to.

This is rabid Sovietwanking. Stalin in 1944-45 was absolutely not in the position to bully the Western Allies in giving him an inch more of Europe than what he had boots in or they were willing to give. It would have meant starting WWIII as the aggressor, it would have been the end of the Soviet regime within an year, and he was well aware of it. The only hard limit about the peace for the WA governments is that they had no effective way to bully Stalin out of what he had conquered.

The Western Allies' insistence about Stalin invading Manchuria had nothing to do with lacking the resources to tackle it themselves, rather, they did not want to spend the lives tackling 1 million Japanese soldiers there when they were going to invade Japan by themselves anyway and take those losses.

Japan could be brought on its knees very effectively even without the Bomb or invasion, just by keeping up the blockade a little more. Japan was facing mass starvation.

Also, how exactly is Stalin supposed to be prevented from rejecting the peace deal that does not get him the occupation zone in Germany? The Wehrmacht, even concentrating all its forces in the East, wouldn't be able to stop the Soviets from breaking through.

Again, Sovietwank thinking. If the Wehrmacht had stopped resisting the Western Allies, and thrown all its residual resources on stalemating the Soviets in Poland and Hungary, it could certainly prevent the Red Army from reaching German borders in the time it would have taken for the WA to advance unopposed and reach the Eastern Front. At that point, Stalin would have the accept the facts on the ground as the basis of the peace deal. To do otherwise, he would have to start shooting American soldiers, something he cannot afford to do.

Give them a deal that denies Stalin his pound of flesh for the suffering the Soviet peoples have undergone under German invasion and he will go it alone, convinced he was betrayed by his erstwhile allies.

Such a peace deal would give him a quite sizable "pound of flesh": his 1939-41 ill-gotten gains, plus hegemony over Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia, half of Poland and Hungary, possibly Slovakia, all Poland, and all Hungary. More than the Tsars ever had.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I simply don't understand why the Allies give the Germans the terms they are seeking.

Because they can end the war in Europe one year in advance, with much less bloodshed and expenses, and still reap their war goals (militayr occupation and political control of Germany to implement deNazification, disarmament, and punishment of war criminals). They just have to trade guarantees about something (territorial integrity and unity of democratic Germany in its ethnic borders, more or less, safety from Communism) that was never contrary to their war goals.
 
Because they can end the war in Europe one year in advance, with much less bloodshed and expenses, and still reap their war goals (militayr occupation and political control of Germany to implement deNazification, disarmament, and punishment of war criminals). They just have to trade guarantees about something (territorial integrity and unity of democratic Germany in its ethnic borders, more or less, safety from Communism) that was never contrary to their war goals.

I can see the Allies making a deal, but not one on the terms of this scenario. I certainly don't see the Allies giving the Germans territorial integrity, for the simple reason that that's what the Germans want. The most basic rule of diplomacy is: never give the other guy what he wants, especially since 1938 borders leaves Germany the strongest country in Europe by some distance (once the occupation ends), and especially since the Allies have got the Germans by the balls. They have total air superiority and the Soviets are approaching from the other side. What are the Germans going to do if the Allies say 'no deal'? Because the Allies, however desperate to end the war, are not going to accept the first thing the Germans offer. It makes the Allies look WEAK.

In 1945, millions of ethnic Germans were force-marched out of Eastern Europe into post-45 Germany. The Allies attitude was: tough, you started it.

The problem for the Germans is that July 1944 is too late for them. It just looks like they're chickening out. No-one will care what they want.

If they kill Hitler in 42 or 43, that's a completely different issue.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The most basic rule of diplomacy is: never give the other guy what he wants, especially since 1938 borders leaves Germany the strongest country in Europe by some distance (once the occupation ends), and especially since the Allies have got the Germans by the balls. They have total air superiority and the Soviets are approaching from the other side. What are the Germans going to do if the Allies say 'no deal'? Because the Allies, however desperate to end the war, are not going to accept the first thing the Germans offer. It makes the Allies look WEAK.


The Allies are certainly not going to look weak by this deal, because they are still going to occupy Germany, disarm it, and politically remold it in their image. Effectively, they are going to make Germany their vassal. At that point, it does not matter that Germany remains bigger than Britain or France. And with this deal, it is going to lose East Prussia and the Sudetenland anyway, mind it. Moreover, 1938-borders and national unity would NOT be the first thing post-Nazi Germany asks. They would ask for more and downgrade their claims in the face of Allied intransigence. 1938-borders is going to be their third offer or so.

The problem for the Germans is that July 1944 is too late for them. It just looks like they're chickening out. No-one will care what they want.

It's chickening out if they leave Germany unoccupied. That's what would would make it look total victory or not, in the eyes of the world.

If they kill Hitler in 42 or 43, that's a completely different issue.

If they kill Hitler in early 1943, they almost surely are going to get a much better deal than the one we are discussing. At the very least 1939 borders plus Danzig and the Corridor, and no Allied occupation.
 
[/I]

The Allies are certainly not going to look weak by this deal, because they are still going to occupy Germany, disarm it, and politically remold it in their image. Effectively, they are going to make Germany their vassal.

Good thing the Soviets will simply sit there and let us do that. You know, those guys with the biggest land army in history (care to put Shermans up against T34s?). And a serious grudge against the Germans. And who aren't distracted by a war in the East.

Moreover, 1938-borders and national unity would NOT be the first thing post-Nazi Germany asks. They would ask for more and downgrade their claims in the face of Allied intransigence. 1938-borders is going to be their third offer or so.
Luckily, the Allies, who are complete idiots and have no experience of negotiation and diplomacy, don't realise that this is the German game plan.

Incidentally, 'Allied intransigence'?

It's chickening out if they leave Germany unoccupied. That's what would would make it look total victory or not, in the eyes of the world.
Er, did I say they wouldn't occupy Germany? I don't see them occupying Germany on anything like Germany's terms.

If they kill Hitler in early 1943, they almost surely are going to get a much better deal than the one we are discussing. At the very least 1939 borders plus Danzig and the Corridor, and no Allied occupation.
??????????

What on Earth is that based on? 1939 borders plus Danzig and the Corridor, and no Allied occupation? 'At the very least'? After four years of kicking the crap out of half of Europe, they end the war with more than they started?

Sorry, no!
 

Eurofed

Banned
Good thing the Soviets will simply sit there and let us do that. You know, those guys with the biggest land army in history (care to put Shermans up against T34s?). And a serious grudge against the Germans. And who aren't distracted by a war in the East.

First, as I said, Stalin is going to invade and seize Manchuria regardless of what deal he gets in Europe, that was an old Russian/Soviet ambition.

Second, Sovietwank thinking is still rampant, I see. In 1944-45, the USSR had scraped the bottom of the national resources in order to win the war against Germany. It was facing a dire manpower crisis, like Britain, while America had vast untapped resources, the 'biggest land army in history' had no replacements available if the Spring '45 soldiers had been wasted. It economy was in scrambles, its people fed by American spam and its war effort kept together in many key parts by the Land-Lease. America had an overwhelming air supremacy, not to mention the nukes. In order to seize Germany from the Western Allies, Stalin had to start WWIII as the aggressor, with no better casus belli than entitlement at being the hegemon of Central Europe, since Germany had been neutralized by its surrender to the WA. To the American people, it would be Pearl Harbor all over again, the Red Army attacking American occupation troops in Germany, and they would immediately go in Cold War mode. Within a year, American tanks would roam in the bombed, starved, irradiated ruins of Moscow, while American diplomats are busy discussing terms of surrender with the post-Soviet junta government.

Luckily, the Allies, who are complete idiots and have no experience of negotiation and diplomacy, don't realise that this is the German game plan.

The Allies, that are not idiots uncaring of everything else but screwing Germany, bargain saving a lot of their men and money for concessions that harm not them and their war gaols in any significant way.

Incidentally, 'Allied intransigence'?

From the Valkyrie guys Pov. ;)
 
First, as I said, Stalin is going to invade and seize Manchuria regardless of what deal he gets in Europe, that was an old Russian/Soviet ambition.

Second, Sovietwank thinking is still rampant, I see.

As opposed to some of the Germanwank I've seen on here? Not referring to you btw!

The Soviet army may have been scraping the barrel but it was still physically there. If Stalin announces in advance he's going to move into Eastern Germany anyway to claim what he regards as his, do the US actually fight him? (I don't see the Soviets invading without any warning a la Pearl Harbour, they're not that stupid) And what are the US fighting for? The Germans?
The Allies, that are not idiots uncaring of everything else but screwing Germany, bargain saving a lot of their men and money for concessions that harm not them and their war gaols in any significant way.
The Allies don't need to bargain. They just have to sit there, do nothing, protect their own and wait for the Germans to crack. As I put in an earlier post, it's called hardball.

From the Valkyrie guys Pov. ;)
Fair enough
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Soviet army may have been scraping the barrel but it was still physically there.

It means they can't afford another world war with America.

If Stalin announces in advance he's going to move into Eastern Germany anyway to claim what he regards as his, do the US actually fight him?

They can just tell Soviet Russia "Rejoice, we have been able to obtain immediate surrender from the post-Nazi government of Germany. Our peoples and yours can be spared further bloodshed and destruction, the war in Europe is now at an end with our complete victory. Unfortunately, the terms of surrender we had to agree upon require that Germany in its unity and territorial integrity in pre-Munich borders (besides East Prussia which going to lie in your purview, deal with it as you deem best) is going to be occupied only by British and American troops. Your government is of course going to have a voice in the punishment of war criminals and the settlement of reparations, and we shall spare no effort in accomplishing the democratization and disarmament of Germany".

Disarmament and Denazification of Germany, in addition to all the chunk of Eastern Europe that the Red Army had already occupied, already fulfill all the reasonable security needs that Soviet Russia could claim as a war aim (and as recently as February 1944, Stalin had offered Hitler the 1914 border in a separate peace). If he claims more, he has blatantly no better motive than imperalistic power greed, and America has no good motive to cede what they already control. If Stalin is so power-mad as to actually want to fight for it, all the more reason that he needs to be resisted , since it means he's as big a threat to the security of Europe as Hitler, and then better to do it when America is still on a full war footing. But in all likelihood, he's going to see his bluff called, he cannot a fford another war, back down, and make himself content with waht he has, which is a great deal anyway.

And what are the US fighting for? The Germans?

For Europe. It is definitely most harmful for Europe at large to allow Stalin to own an inch more of Europe than what he conquered and has boots in. The more he claims more than what the Red Army won for itself, the more he needs to be resisted, for Europe's sake.

The Allies don't need to bargain. They just have to sit there, do nothing, protect their own and wait for the Germans to crack. As I put in an earlier post, it's called hardball.

The moment that the Germans go public with an offer to end the war then and there, if they are given a humane peace, the moment the British and American public shall start to apply political pressure to accept it. As I said, they care for achieving full victory in 1944 (as defined by having their troops in control of Germany and free rein to disarm it and punish Nazis and war criminals) but very few care to continue the war any longer in order to get free rein for a draconian peace.
 

Eurofed

Banned
What on Earth is that based on? 1939 borders plus Danzig and the Corridor, and no Allied occupation? 'At the very least'? After four years of kicking the crap out of half of Europe, they end the war with more than they started?

Sorry, no!

The summarized argument for this is at follows: if we assume a successful anti-Nazi coup in March '43, the natural PoD for this, the German military situation is not yet so deteriorated that a surrender is inevitable. First of all, they can apply a better than OTL strategy for Eastern front (no Kursk offensive, elastic defense and Manstein's backhand blow) which spares their resources and accelerates the exahustion of Soviet manpower reserve. Stalin did made two peace offers to Hitler in this period, one in Spring '43 for the 1941 border, one in February 1944 for the 1914 border. He would have even more reason to make them ITTL, since his military situation would less favorable, and the junta would most likely accept either of them. The Western Allied landings in Sicily, mainland Italy, and France were close enough to failure IOTL, it is quite likely that with a less faulty German strategy and some troops spared from the Eastern Front, they would fail entirely. It is also quite plausible that the British and American public, with Russia out of the fight, and all their attempts to land in Europe a bloody failure, would give up their committment to total victory over Germany with the Nazis out of power, and accept a compromise peace that would liberate all the occupied countries of Europe. Germany keeps what, before the war, most agreed it had a sensible claim on, and withdraws within its own borders, its allies do likewise. The basic war aim of liberating countries occupied by Hitler and overthrowing the Nazis is accomplished. FDR loses the 1944 Presidential election to a "peace Republican" that stands for a platform of "reasonable peace, lets liberate Europe, deal with Japan, and bring the boys home, Hitler is dead anyway". The Western public cannot have any idea that the nukes are coming, so if Russia bows out, and attempts to land in Europe are bloody failures, it can easily come to think that "unconditional surrender" is a unattainable aim and settle for less.
 
Top