In 1940, after the Fall of France the Germans were gearing up to invade Russia in 1941. One of the mystics that were attached to the SS pointed out that the Viking had invaded and founded several cities in Russia almost a thousand years before. As a result, when the Germans started Operation Barbarossa they treated the Ukrainians much differently than they did the Russians later on. When the Ukrainians welcomed them with open arms they got their enthusiastic cooperation which helped to fill in some of the German losses and expedite the invasion.
DBWI Hitler hadn't decided the Ukrainians were the descendants of Vikings
- Thread starter gladiator8085
- Start date
BigBlueBox
Banned
The Second Holodomor probably wouldn’t have happened after the Soviets retook Ukraine, and the purge of Ukrainians like Nikita Kruschev in the CPSU probably wouldn’t have happened either. Also Stalin might not have returned Lwow to Poland, which he did in order to secure Polish cooperation against Ukrainian insurgents.
ASUKIRIK
Banned
But let's be fair, the plan to partially abandon the Lebensraum and "Liberate Ukraine" was conceived after German high command realizes that they can't actually digest Russia by their entirety, and the Republic of Ukraine was set-up to be a strong buffer state against the USSR remnant.
To their credits though, the Nazis did treat Ukrainians much, MUCH BETTER than the later was treated by the Tsars or the Soviets, that Ukrainian SS troops ended up being the most eager and fanatical SS soldiers, that keep on fighting despite the German collapse of 1947 after Mussolini, Franco, and Petain basically betrayed and stabbed Germany in the back (to their credits, the leaks about the death camps did shock Mussolini to the core that he was fighting for a monster).
To their credits though, the Nazis did treat Ukrainians much, MUCH BETTER than the later was treated by the Tsars or the Soviets, that Ukrainian SS troops ended up being the most eager and fanatical SS soldiers, that keep on fighting despite the German collapse of 1947 after Mussolini, Franco, and Petain basically betrayed and stabbed Germany in the back (to their credits, the leaks about the death camps did shock Mussolini to the core that he was fighting for a monster).
Dolan
Banned
Which caused the myth of "Germany could be defeated only when betrayed" to stick to German psyche more or less permanently because Italy and Spain get away with all their gains for just a slap on the wrist, while Petain's France reunited with De Gaulle's France and getting much better position.
Yes, Germany nowadays is not as bad as back then in 1950-1990s, but they continue to be the hotbed of Aryan Supremacists, even until now.
Why were they allowed to reunite after the second and third attempts at taking over europe?
Initially, Hitler didn't want a true alliance with Vichy France, because he feared that Vichy would use it to regain its strength and backstab the Reich later (he was right).
As a Prime Minister in 41, Darlan was determined to push Collaboration as far as possible, as he hoped German concessions (return of POWs, end of occupation and reparations). Hitler just wanted to use Collaboration to milk and weaken France, without giving anything important in return.
Darlan was supported by Abetz. They forced Hitler's hand by a daring scheme.
France promised to give Morocco, Oran and Mauritania to Spain, in return for Spain joining the war... But only if Hitler accepted a true alliance of equals with France.
Then, Darlan offered Mussolini a peace treaty (instead of mere armistice) conceding Tunisia, Chad, Djibouti, Syria, Lebanon, Corsica, Nice and Savoy to Italy... And promised direct support on the Libyan front and against Malta.
Mussolini and Franco backed Darlan. Hitler buckled, stopping occupation of France (except the coast), returning the PoWs and stopping the reparations.
In return, France and Spain joined the war (leading to the Fall of Malta and Gibraltar, and Axis conquest of Egypt).
Why am I talking about all of that ? Because Darlan's policies had another huge impact. Darlan (knowing he couldn't defend Indochina) decided to sell it. To Japan.
We know that Japan had plans to illegally invade the south of Indochina, which might have triggered more US sanctions (asset freezing and oil embargo) and led to war. But with Japan just buying the colony, any war between Japan and USA was avoided.
As a Prime Minister in 41, Darlan was determined to push Collaboration as far as possible, as he hoped German concessions (return of POWs, end of occupation and reparations). Hitler just wanted to use Collaboration to milk and weaken France, without giving anything important in return.
Darlan was supported by Abetz. They forced Hitler's hand by a daring scheme.
France promised to give Morocco, Oran and Mauritania to Spain, in return for Spain joining the war... But only if Hitler accepted a true alliance of equals with France.
Then, Darlan offered Mussolini a peace treaty (instead of mere armistice) conceding Tunisia, Chad, Djibouti, Syria, Lebanon, Corsica, Nice and Savoy to Italy... And promised direct support on the Libyan front and against Malta.
Mussolini and Franco backed Darlan. Hitler buckled, stopping occupation of France (except the coast), returning the PoWs and stopping the reparations.
In return, France and Spain joined the war (leading to the Fall of Malta and Gibraltar, and Axis conquest of Egypt).
Why am I talking about all of that ? Because Darlan's policies had another huge impact. Darlan (knowing he couldn't defend Indochina) decided to sell it. To Japan.
We know that Japan had plans to illegally invade the south of Indochina, which might have triggered more US sanctions (asset freezing and oil embargo) and led to war. But with Japan just buying the colony, any war between Japan and USA was avoided.
Dolan
Banned
And this led to common consensus that the True Winners of WW2 being The Axis Force EXCEPT Germany.
France, despite losing significant part of their colonies, managed to hold on and continue being a significant Great Power and Empire in their own right, all while British Empire crashed and burn after post-WW2 colonies started to demand independence and rebelled.
Italy and Spain does even better job of containing and absorbing their respective parts of North Africa, though Duce Ciano and King Juan Carlos' efforts to return to Democracy made them much more palatable to the American audience, in contrast with France.
Japanese Empire basically took over Eastern Half of China and the bigger half of French Indochina (with another half being given to Thailand). Historians nowadays argued about if they should treat Japan as their own Empire or "Yamato Dynasty of China" due to the Emperors now resides mostly in Peking.
Giving away some colonies was likely a blessing in disguise for France, as holding and defending everything would have been too expensive.
The remaining empire was also mostly contiguous (except for Madagascar, Guyana and lots of small islands).
Syria and Lebanon, well, they were already occupied by the British. So giving them to Italy was more like "If Britain loses, they're yours". Same for Djibouti.
Indochina, too far to defend from the Japanese, or the British, or even local rebels who were rising thanks to the chaos... And France couldn't import resources from there under British blockade of the oceans.
Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia and Chad had more value, but sacrifices have to be made, and there it was worth it...
France being allowed to remake her army and air force without military limitations, freed from occupation, and friends with Spain and Italy was largely worthy of those sacrifices.
The remaining empire was also mostly contiguous (except for Madagascar, Guyana and lots of small islands).
Syria and Lebanon, well, they were already occupied by the British. So giving them to Italy was more like "If Britain loses, they're yours". Same for Djibouti.
Indochina, too far to defend from the Japanese, or the British, or even local rebels who were rising thanks to the chaos... And France couldn't import resources from there under British blockade of the oceans.
Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia and Chad had more value, but sacrifices have to be made, and there it was worth it...
France being allowed to remake her army and air force without military limitations, freed from occupation, and friends with Spain and Italy was largely worthy of those sacrifices.
This is a majority view as Japanese culture is becoming more sinicized over time after they took control of china.
Last edited:
Dolan
Banned
Yeah, it was said that the Japanese are essentially Qing Dynasty MK2: Modern Boogaloo. But unlike Manchu who outright assimilated culturally, the standard Kanji spelling is now following the Onyomi rule made by Japan.
Peking for example, has the formal name of Hokkyo, while many Chinese (and Korean, and Vietnamese) names being formally converted to Japanese spelling, which still cause headache to non-East Asian readers.
Because keeping Three Separate Germanies (Hanover, Bavaria, and East German) was more or less unviable due the Sturmfrontwaffen terror campaigns in Western Europe and America, demanding German reunification.
At least their reunification caused German aggression and anger to be channeled inside Germany itself instead of outside. The predicted delve into three-way de facto low intensity war between German Monarchists, German Facists, and German Communists. Making the King of Hanover, President of Bavaria, and Premier of German People's Republic shares their power naturally results in the three factions continually butt their heads.
Indeed. The quadripartite occupation of Germany was costing too much to Britain, France, Italy and Spain.
Also, with the butterflies of Nazis having a different policy overall (and yes, if you change their Ukrainian policy you have to change their overall policy), the history of East Asia would have changed...
And I suspect the Ma Caliphate would never have been created (from the union of Muslim factions in Western China and ex-Soviet Central Asia), which would have stopped the new Golden Age of Islam (in philosophy, theology, doctrine...), as well as the development of the area.
Also, with the butterflies of Nazis having a different policy overall (and yes, if you change their Ukrainian policy you have to change their overall policy), the history of East Asia would have changed...
And I suspect the Ma Caliphate would never have been created (from the union of Muslim factions in Western China and ex-Soviet Central Asia), which would have stopped the new Golden Age of Islam (in philosophy, theology, doctrine...), as well as the development of the area.
a new "Golden age of islam" combining national socialism, islamicism, stalinism in a nasty brew. "lovely".
Ironically the Nazis treating the Ukranians like they had initially planned to (Very badly, and exactly like the other slavs), would have proboblly ended BETTER for the Ukranians in hindsight. Sure, it may have initially helped them a lot in terms of better treatment during the invasion itself, but the Soviet reprisals in the Second Holodomor were BRUTAL, and there is a good reason that its nowadays considered a genocide. It would also lead to a lot less of the burning hatred you see between modern Ukranians and Russians, since the Russians wouldn't view the Ukranians as Nazi collaberators and the Ukranians wouldn't have the memories of the second Holodomor in addition to the memories of all the other Russian atrocities before that. So, a much smaller insurgency during the Soviet occupation post-WW2, which probably dosent last as long, and the National Socialist Party of Ukraine would almost certainly never have risen to power after the USSR's collapse into civil war…
Last edited:
ASUKIRIK
Banned
Umm, you apparently forgot that East Germany was occupied primarily by Soviets, and aside of literally throwing Duke Edward (formerly Edward VIII) as the King of Hanover (that many suggested were actually HIS PUNISHMENT), Britain did not really have significant presence in the subsequent German Occupation (but yeah, they basically bankrolled Edward's court there so there could be something about it).
Hell, even Sweden has more troops sent to occupy Schleswig-Holstein (that would be later incorporated into Swedish Empire proper).
Anyway, if you think about it, Sweden literally got everything they ever wanted without much effort, going from the single Kingdom of Sweden, into the Empire of Seven Kingdoms (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Svalbard, and Greenland). Yes, Denmark and Norway was overrun by Nazi Germany before given to Swedish troops for "occupation", while Finland already collapsed under Soviet Union attack before Barbarossa. As part of the Operation Barbarossa, however, Sweden was tasked to 'liberate' Finland, something which amounts to literally having Swedish troops walking into cheering mass of Finns who receive them as liberators (because Soviet Troops was literally running back to Russia).
After the betrayal against and fall of Germany, many expected Sweden to merely restore the independence of other Scandinavian nations, but King Gustav V, together with King Haakon VII and Christian X, make a joint announcement of the Scandinavian unification into a single Swedish Empire, that immediately laid claim on Finland (much to the Soviet's annoyance), and thus Sweden is now must be counted amongst the Great Powers of the world.
Independent Ukraine is arguably only a third of what its historical reach was. and perhaps ironically, there are more ethnic Ukrainians in Poland compared to population of Ukraine proper. Their National Socialist government also caused them to become pariah country for most of Europe too...
I'm not sure it's just one third. You see, they did manage to hold onto the entire western bank of the Dnieper, though it is Moldova that controls Odessa.
Also, there are just as many Ukrainians in Russia as in Ukraine. Even Kazakhstan has almost as many Ukrainians as there are Russians.
These days much of the west tends to ignore Ukrainian insurgents trying to reclaim their lost territory (i.e. Everything between the Dnieper and the Don), and in some right wing media, they are glorified as freedom fighters.
However, it is because of this nationalism that blocked Ukraine from the EU. Moldova will be the 29th member in four days' time, while Belarus is already a candidate by now, but it still is on the drawing board for Ukraine.
Besides, after the war was over and the old colonial rivalries began to re-emerge, the British--who were always lukewarm about French dominance in the first place--wanted a strong counterweight to Gallic continental interests.
That, and there were concerns about the German terrorist organizations funneling supplies to the United IRA that reformed with a vengeance after Britain reoccupied Ireland for its bases during the war. The UIRA Insurgency was becoming untenable with the support of German gunrunners and bomb-makers, and while most of the credit and I daresay propaganda comes from Operation Cromwell following Churchill's 1954 assassination, the IRA wasn't truly defeated in that war, but merely withered away over the next decade after German reunification as the SFW (and RFKB) supply chains drained up.
Of course, go to Connaught today, and the bullet holes will attest that the war didn't even end then, but that's a bit off topic.
Why Connaught in particular? The UIRA may have stayed united after the end of the British occupation, but its not like there were still British troops in the republic after the war ended. And of course the war didn't end, people were and still are extremely angry about Britains arrogance in occupying Ireland again and expecting people not to react to said imperialism, and the fact Britain clearly demonstrated it didn't give a shit about Irelands rights as a sovereign nation really fanned the flames of nationalist anger, its the same reason that Ireland is one of the worlds most militarized nations despite not having gone to war since the british forced the republic into ww2.
Last edited: