OK, this is just a WW2 question that occurred to me. I'll briefly sketch a scenario, although the means by which we get to it isn't as important as what happens once the war's over.
Basically let's imagine a world where the Nazis are more successful in their invasion of the Soviet Union. How? Don't know. Maybe Hitler doesn't let himself by sidetracked by Greece and Yugoslavia so the invasion launches a bit earlier and they manage to take Moscow. Maybe Stalin drops dead of a Convenient Heart Attack (TM) at the worst possible moment and the Soviets are deprived of leadership at a crucial time as there's a struggle for power at the top, giving the Germans a useful opportunity. It doesn't matter.
The point is the Germans manage to push the Soviets east of Moscow, though to their surprise the 'whole rotten edifice' of the USSR does not come crashing down when they kicked the door in. The Soviets, much of their industry moved safely to the Urals, fight on and fight hard. The Caucasus/Stalingrad is still probably a bloody campaign, though its dynamics are different. The Anglo-Americans are alarmed by all this and Churchill bows to American pressure to open up a second front earlier. The Anglo-Americans do an Overlord-type operation in 1943. It almost ends in disaster, with the Luftwaffe still much more in play than in OTL a year later, but sheer weight of numbers and superior logistics born of American industry come into play. For a while it turns into WW1 again, with a large part of France liberated but the German defensive lines successfully holding for a while before eventually collapsing under the Allied assault (nuclear weapons might be involved). The war grinds on until 1946 or 47 and is bloodier than OTL. The crucial difference, however, is that it's the Anglo-Americans who march into Berlin and force the German surrender. At that point the Soviets have successfully liberated their own borders, but nothing beyond that (including the Baltic states, which remain Nazi occupied at the time of the surrender).
At the postwar peace, therefore, Poland is restored with its pre-war borders, the Baltic states are probably restored, and the Soviets don't have any of the 1939-41 gains except perhaps in Finland and Romania, which as Nazi cobelligerents the Allies probably aren't going to bother protecting. The USSR is exhausted. It has made a very great achievement in expelling the Nazis from its territory but there is none of the triumphalism of OTL, and no one thinks the Soviets are going to be a superpower in the postwar world--at least not until after a few decades of recovery. Because of the need to focus on Europe, the Soviets were not involved in the war against Japan and have not benefited other than gaining all of Sakhalin. There's a united Korea under American occupation, and what happens in China is anyone's guess.
So here's the question. There's no obvious signs of a Cold War and no one in the US except the Reds-under-the-bed fanatics is scared of the Soviet Union. Indeed American isolationism might potentially kick in again at some point. In the short term, however, Germany is entirely under Anglo-American (and token French and perhaps Canadian) occupation. The Soviets don't have a say, but equally the Allies have no incentive to allow Germany to be restored and rearmed relatively quickly to provide a front line against the Iron Curtain--there isn't one. In TTL it was the Western Allies who liberated the extermination camps and saw what lay within, and with a longer war the Holocaust was even worse. Like OTL, Germany had many attempted anti-Hitler coups but none of them ever came off. The Allies are not inclined to display any mercy to Germany.
In summary, then: what do the Allies do to Germany? Permanent occupation, enforced fragmentation, maybe something like a saner version of the Morgenthau Plan, what?