Germany-SU Compromise Peace

What would be the most likely way for the Nazis and the Soviets to end the Eastern Front of WWII on a compromise peace? I've heard the topic discussed on other threads, and I thought it was worth investigating.

When would such a peace happen? What would be the effect on WWII?
 
What would be the most likely way for the Nazis and the Soviets to end the Eastern Front of WWII on a compromise peace? I've heard the topic discussed on other threads, and I thought it was worth investigating.

When would such a peace happen? What would be the effect on WWII?

A way for the Germans to win or at least to turn it into a stalemate is to remove Hitler or to make a TL were he is a different person. If he had let his generals conduct the war than things could have turned out a lot better for the Germans. Not declaring war on the US is a good start. In 1941 the Soviets were getting some lend lease but only a trickle. Britain was getting the most lend lease. They could give some to the Soviets but they don't have much to spare. They need it for their own war effort.

If the US stay out it'll stay that way. The Congress says were the money goes, not Roosevelt. The lend lease to the USSR won't dissapear but it will never be as big as it was from '42-'45. The congress doesn't want the Bolsheviks to win. They'd rather see a stalemate or a German victory. If Russia wants to get the big amounts of lend lease in got IOTL they would have to declare war on Japan. I don't think that's worth it.

Congress and public opinion won't support Roosevelts private war with the nazi's. Unless nazi-Germany does something really stupid, the US will focus on beating the crap out of Japan. Some sort of telegram in which Germany condemns the attack on Pearl Harbor as a 'treacherous act of violence against the wonderful Aryan nation of America.' A symbolic declaration of war against Japan would really make things interesting. Germany could probably only send a few U-boats or so. They wouldn't be much help in Amerika's revenge war. Roosevelt would go berserk. After all he wanted war with the Germans. It isn't impossible. Hitler has shown in history that he is willing to break agreements if it benefits him. I still wonder why the hell Hitler declared war on Amerika instead of betraying Japan. The Japanese were after all Untermenschen according to nazism. If America is neutral then German industry will be bombed less too. Overlord migh still take place but it'll be later (perhaps in '45). Britain will need more time to prepare for such an operation but by then the Germans might already have defeated the USSR so they can defend their Atlantik Wall to the fullest extent.

The resulting near lack of lend lease would cause the USSR to produce less tanks since they have to produce more trucks. Without having to worry about D-day style invasions, Germany can divert more forces to the eastern front. If they avoid the mistakes that were made IOTL like surpressing the Ukrainians who initially saw the Germans as liberators or the disaster at Stalingrad, they could have won. They could at least have gotten a stalemate. Without Ukrainian partisans things will be a lot easier. Instead I can see the Germans raising volunteer divisions in Ukraine. Is one million extra soldiers a realistic estimate?

All those extra forces could be used to relieve Stalingrad. A succesful operation Citadel is also among the possibilities. With more German forces on the eastern fronts the Russians will suffer more casualties. By 1945 (IOTL) the Russian man power reserves were just about gone. In this scenario they could already run out as early as 1944 if the Russians haven't sued for peace by then already after a German victory at Kursk in '43.

Another possibility is German A-bombs but that would probably require ASBs or a very early start of German research and much more resources and funding for the project. The earliest possible start is 1934 I guess. By then most scientist agreed than nuclear weapons were possible. IOTL Hitler didn't support the A-bomb project much because he thought it was jewish science. His antisemitism clearly didn't help a lot. Guys like Teller, Szilard and Einstein all left because of that.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, though I agree that there was no need at all to declare war on the USA, I just cannot see the nazis acting differently in the USSR if Hitler lives...or even if he doesn't.

The whole point of Barbarossa was to kill the jews and other untermensch and take their lands. That was the core mission, and the Heer was totally in agreement with that mission. Just check out how even paragons of virtue like Manstein enthusiastically enforced the kommissar order and facilitated the special einsatzgruppen aktions in their areas of command.

Without that blind crazy psychosis being present Barbarossa would never have taken place at all.
 

Valamyr

Banned
There's plenty of plausible scenarios. Up to after Kursk, Stalin kept feeling for a truce. His most generous offer was in 1941, just before the assault on Moscow.

He was willing to give up the baltic states, estern poland, Belorussia and almost all of the Ukraine in exchange for peace, and was willing to trade Volga Germans for Russian prisoners.

However, as a POD, this doesnt prevent American entry into the war. Germany would perform better on the Mediterranean front with greater aircraft presence around the year, but its highly unlikely to deter the western allies in the short run. As long as the Allies refuse to negociate a peaceful settlement as well (which is not altogether impossible at this point), well, Stalin will wait for the opportunity to attack again and recover his lands.
 

General Zod

Banned
A way for the Germans to win or at least to turn it into a stalemate is to remove Hitler or to make a TL were he is a different person. If he had let his generals conduct the war than things could have turned out a lot better for the Germans. Not declaring war on the US is a good start.

Yes, I agree, avoiding the war with the USA is the best and most plausible chance of Germany of getting a good outcome in WWII. And you actually don't need to change Hilter's personality all that much for that. OTL his view of America flip-flopped between contempt and cautious respect. You just have his opinion in 1941-1942 to swing towards caution and stay that way.

In 1941 the Soviets were getting some lend lease but only a trickle. Britain was getting the most lend lease. They could give some to the Soviets but they don't have much to spare. They need it for their own war effort.

If the US stay out it'll stay that way. The Congress says were the money goes, not Roosevelt. The lend lease to the USSR won't dissapear but it will never be as big as it was from '42-'45. The congress doesn't want the Bolsheviks to win. They'd rather see a stalemate or a German victory. If Russia wants to get the big amounts of lend lease in got IOTL they would have to declare war on Japan. I don't think that's worth it.

Congress and public opinion won't support Roosevelts private war with the nazi's. Unless nazi-Germany does something really stupid, the US will focus on beating the crap out of Japan. Some sort of telegram in which Germany condemns the attack on Pearl Harbor as a 'treacherous act of violence against the wonderful Aryan nation of America.' A symbolic declaration of war against Japan would really make things interesting. Germany could probably only send a few U-boats or so. They wouldn't be much help in Amerika's revenge war. Roosevelt would go berserk. After all he wanted war with the Germans.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is how I would do the PoD, too. Either that, or Hitler declares strict neutrality vs. the USA and free passage for its merchant vessels towards the UK, asking for the end of Lend-Lease to the USSR in exchange. The Congress will leap at the deal, over Roosevelt's protests.

If America is neutral then German industry will be bombed less too. Overlord migh still take place but it'll be later (perhaps in '45). Britain will need more time to prepare for such an operation but by then the Germans might already have defeated the USSR so they can defend their Atlantik Wall to the fullest extent.

The resulting near lack of lend lease would cause the USSR to produce less tanks since they have to produce more trucks. Without having to worry about D-day style invasions, Germany can divert more forces to the eastern front.

This is also quite true. And a British-only '45 Overlord against the vast majority of the Wehrmacht (the USSR will have exausted its manpower reservs and lost the one-front war well before that) will necessarily become a super-Dieppe.

If they avoid the mistakes that were made IOTL like surpressing the Ukrainians who initially saw the Germans as liberators or the disaster at Stalingrad, they could have won. They could at least have gotten a stalemate. Without Ukrainian partisans things will be a lot easier. Instead I can see the Germans raising volunteer divisions in Ukraine. Is one million extra soldiers a realistic estimate?

This is quite sensible and clever, but rather more unlikely, as it requires rewriting far more of Hitler's policy and personality. It is not, however, necessary for Germany to win the war, if the USA stays out. The forces the Wehrmacht can spare from France, Italy, and North Africa are more than enough to tilt the balance in 1943.

All those extra forces could be used to relieve Stalingrad. A succesful operation Citadel is also among the possibilities. With more German forces on the eastern fronts the Russians will suffer more casualties. By 1945 (IOTL) the Russian man power reserves were just about gone. In this scenario they could already run out as early as 1944 if the Russians haven't sued for peace by then already after a German victory at Kursk in '43.

The extra forces on the Eastern front will allow to relieve Stalingrad, make the Mainstein early '43 German counteroffensive even more effective at breaking the Soviet winter offensive, and can be used to make operation Zitadelle successful. Such a string of German victories will most likely push Stalin to sue for a Brest Litovsk peace after losing at Kursk.

By the way, does anybody remember what the German strategic plans were, after a victory at Kursk ? A renewed push to clear the Donetz basin and Rostov, or a thrust towards Moscow from South West ? I seem to remember the latter, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, even if he doesn't, he will exaust the Russian manpower reserves in 1944 and then he will be at the Wehrmacht's mercy.
 
A different Kursk that's either a German victory, a tie, or a Phyrrhic (sp?) victory for the Soviets might do the trick.

Hmm...if the Soviets do a second Brest-Litovsk, might this lead into increased anti-Communist feeling in the US? This would be the second time the Soviets have given into the Germans and allowed them to shift their forces West, after all.
 
Quote:
If they avoid the mistakes that were made IOTL like surpressing the Ukrainians who initially saw the Germans as liberators or the disaster at Stalingrad, they could have won. They could at least have gotten a stalemate. Without Ukrainian partisans things will be a lot easier. Instead I can see the Germans raising volunteer divisions in Ukraine. Is one million extra soldiers a realistic estimate?

This is quite sensible and clever, but rather more unlikely, as it requires rewriting far more of Hitler's policy and personality. It is not, however, necessary for Germany to win the war, if the USA stays out. The forces the Wehrmacht can spare from France, Italy, and North Africa are more than enough to tilt the balance in 1943.

Hitler has shown that he could shove his ideology aside when it benefited him (Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact). Why didn't he do that in Ukraine? He could always subjugate the slavic 'untermenschen' after his victory. A better thing to do is not surpressing them ever. That would mean 47 million loyal Ukrainians on your side by 2008. Peoplewho want to work for you will work better than forced laborers. I could also see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainains volunteering for the Wehrmacht. If I had been Hitler I would have turned operation Barbarossa into a 'lets get rid of Stalin'-crusade. If you surpress them I could see a partisan war or terrorist attacks like the US is now experiencing in Iraq.

Possible POD:

After the failed coup in 1923 Hitler gets sent to prison. There he spends most of his time dictating his book (Mein Kampf). On one of the rare ocassions that Hitler goes outside he has a near fatal accident but his life is saved by a Ukrainan prisoner named Vladikarpov. The two men become life long friends and Hitlers views toward Ukrainains mellow. They get upgraded from Untermenschen to 'a people worthy of sharing in the spoils of our war against the Russian communist hordes.'
 

General Zod

Banned
Hitler has shown that he could shove his ideology aside when it benefited him (Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact). Why didn't he do that in Ukraine? He could always subjugate the slavic 'untermenschen' after his victory. A better thing to do is not surpressing them ever. That would mean 47 million loyal Ukrainians on your side by 2008. Peoplewho want to work for you will work better than forced laborers. I could also see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainains volunteering for the Wehrmacht. If I had been Hitler I would have turned operation Barbarossa into a 'lets get rid of Stalin'-crusade. If you surpress them I could see a partisan war or terrorist attacks like the US is now experiencing in Iraq.

Possible POD:

After the failed coup in 1923 Hitler gets sent to prison. There he spends most of his time dictating his book (Mein Kampf). On one of the rare ocassions that Hitler goes outside he has a near fatal accident but his life is saved by a Ukrainan prisoner named Vladikarpov. The two men become life long friends and Hitlers views toward Ukrainains mellow. They get upgraded from Untermenschen to 'a people worthy of sharing in the spoils of our war against the Russian communist hordes.'

Well, this is possible, if a bit contrived ;) However, we may do it with something less extreme.

We are already assuming as a main POD that Hitler is bestowed with a bit more political insight as to avoid declaring war to the USA, which IMO it is the precondition on Germany having a successful WWII outcome.

Partially retracting my previous statement, on further reflection on your argument, I now state that it is possible that such a more insightful Hitler may come to see the wisdom of offering minor EuroSlavic nationalities of the Soviet Empire a decent place in the German Empire, if nothing more than what he was willing to give to Western Europeans, i.e. vassal states of the Empire. He may do so both out of conveniency (following the M-R precedent) and because Nazi racial theory offered loopholes to justify giving quasi-Aryan status to Ukrainians (they had been colonized by Vikings in the Dark Ages) and the Baltics (colonization by the Teutonic Order in the Middle Ages).

If he implements such a moderate policy, the Soviet regime is really doomed. Stalin's genocidal terror regime has been so bad on Soviet nationalities that they were quite willing to flock under Nazi banner if they offered anything significantly better than forced labor, famine, and terror. IN OTL they were radically disillusioned and forced to choose the evil they knew, but ATL, a deal that offered the peasants land property rights, religious freedom, decent subsistence, and existence as a vassal national state, with eventual Germanization and some German colonization, well, that would have won all the Baltics, Ukrainians, Caucasis, Belarus etc. for good.

This would have meant no partisan problem in German supply lines, freeing troops and reducing logistical problems. And additional troops from Slavic volunteers for the Wehrmacht. OTOH, this also means Stalin is much less successful in playing Slavic nationalism to mobilize the people. If it becomes Nazi vassaldom vs. Communist terror, many Soviet citizens will remain apathetic or even become openly rebellious as they see a chance of shaking off the Bolshevik yoke. The Soviet war effort is hampered, and a significant part of the amry must be used to suppress anti-Communist revolts.

In combination with USA out of the war in Europe and a trickle of Lend-Lease aid to USSR, this creates the conditions for a German total victory on the Eastern Front. Germany will win the Battle of Stalingrad and conquer the Caucasus in 1942. Germany has solved its oil problems and Russia has now one of its own. In 1943, a successful pincer thrust on Moscow and the Russian heartland becomes feasible. Instead of the Brest-Litovsk II peace deal, now it becomes feasible for the Wehrmacht to push the Red Army beyond the Volga, or even beyond the Urals. Logistic overextension becomes much less of a problem for the Germa ns if they don't have a partisan problem. Losing Ukraine, the Moscow region, and the heartland, means the Soviet Union is doomed, as they now lack the manpower or the industrial resources to sustain an all-out one.front war. Russia is shrunk to a Siberian/Central Asian rump, which won't be a problem to Germany for a generation.
 
Well, this is possible, if a bit contrived ;) However, we may do it with something less extreme.

We are already assuming as a main POD that Hitler is bestowed with a bit more political insight as to avoid declaring war to the USA, which IMO it is the precondition on Germany having a successful WWII outcome.

Partially retracting my previous statement, on further reflection on your argument, I now state that it is possible that such a more insightful Hitler may come to see the wisdom of offering minor EuroSlavic nationalities of the Soviet Empire a decent place in the German Empire, if nothing more than what he was willing to give to Western Europeans, i.e. vassal states of the Empire. He may do so both out of conveniency (following the M-R precedent) and because Nazi racial theory offered loopholes to justify giving quasi-Aryan status to Ukrainians (they had been colonized by Vikings in the Dark Ages) and the Baltics (colonization by the Teutonic Order in the Middle Ages).

If he implements such a moderate policy, the Soviet regime is really doomed. Stalin's genocidal terror regime has been so bad on Soviet nationalities that they were quite willing to flock under Nazi banner if they offered anything significantly better than forced labor, famine, and terror. IN OTL they were radically disillusioned and forced to choose the evil they knew, but ATL, a deal that offered the peasants land property rights, religious freedom, decent subsistence, and existence as a vassal national state, with eventual Germanization and some German colonization, well, that would have won all the Baltics, Ukrainians, Caucasis, Belarus etc. for good.

This would have meant no partisan problem in German supply lines, freeing troops and reducing logistical problems. And additional troops from Slavic volunteers for the Wehrmacht. OTOH, this also means Stalin is much less successful in playing Slavic nationalism to mobilize the people. If it becomes Nazi vassaldom vs. Communist terror, many Soviet citizens will remain apathetic or even become openly rebellious as they see a chance of shaking off the Bolshevik yoke. The Soviet war effort is hampered, and a significant part of the amry must be used to suppress anti-Communist revolts.

In combination with USA out of the war in Europe and a trickle of Lend-Lease aid to USSR, this creates the conditions for a German total victory on the Eastern Front. Germany will win the Battle of Stalingrad and conquer the Caucasus in 1942. Germany has solved its oil problems and Russia has now one of its own. In 1943, a successful pincer thrust on Moscow and the Russian heartland becomes feasible. Instead of the Brest-Litovsk II peace deal, now it becomes feasible for the Wehrmacht to push the Red Army beyond the Volga, or even beyond the Urals. Logistic overextension becomes much less of a problem for the Germa ns if they don't have a partisan problem. Losing Ukraine, the Moscow region, and the heartland, means the Soviet Union is doomed, as they now lack the manpower or the industrial resources to sustain an all-out one.front war. Russia is shrunk to a Siberian/Central Asian rump, which won't be a problem to Germany for a generation.

I totally agree. And if the Germans occupy the Soviet Union al the way to the Urals, Britain is screwed. All of that industrial power and all those resources (mainly oil) can and will be put to good use. And if the Germans are benevolent toward the Soviet citizens then those same citizens might even disobey the USSR's scorched earth policy. Open rebellion could happen but I think Stalin would squash it. Fear will keep most in line.

If Germany really speeds up nuclear research, they might get one in '46 and then nuke the jesus out of Britain. The ideal thing for Germany would be if Hitler hears of A-bombs in 1934, gets interested in them and postpones his measures against jews. After that he should round up Einstein, Szilard, Teller and Heisenberg and later Bohr and a whole team of lesser scientists too. If they start in '34 they might get a few in '42 or '43. That's 8-9 years of research and building 24/7 which is quite a pessimistic estimate.

Of course something else should get less funding and resources. That would probably be Germany's missile program. Those V-2 missiles were only good for terror bombing anyway. Some bombs on the USSR and/or Britain would prematurely end the war. I wonder what the postwar world would look like in this scenario. With all those resources Germany would be an economic powerhouse. It would also be a military superpower. It'd replace the USSR as 'the evil empire.' Communism would become some sort of pariah-ideology like nazism and fascism are today. Communism will remain isolated. I also wonder if Mao Zedong will still win the Chinese civil war without Soviet support and what side he'd choose.

I wonder how long the Third Reich would last. With a loyal population in this TL it could last long. The real problems come when Hitler dies. When that happens a power struggle will erupt unless Hitler foresees this and appoints a successor.
 
Last edited:
Guys

I would agree with the above posts that a modified policy towards the population of the SU wouldn't met the criteria of the scenario. In that it would very likely mean a virtually total German victory rather than any negotiated peace!:D

Avoiding that, better organisation and allowing the army more control over the operations could have enabled them to withdraw 6thA and associated forces from Stalingrad and in other ways reduce their and increase Soviet casualties. This might have made Stalin consider a negotiated peace in 43/44 as he was running out of population. At the same time even Hitler by then, or more likely a replacement, might have been willing to consider a peace settlement in the east. [Getting the two sides to agree to terms would be a lot more difficult however!]

This is probably too late to preserve the Nazi state unless a peace in the east persuades the US to agree to a peace deal to avoid what looks like several years of ruinous attritional war. Otherwise the allies start building bombs, possibly completing them a bit earlier because their not putting resources into France.

Steve
 
In our scenario we're assuming that the US stay out of the war. I this TL Hitler has more political insight and doesn't declare war on the US despite the fact that American ships are firing on U-boats. He might ask the US to stop the lend-lease (especially the stuff going to the Soviets). Congress will go for it despite Roosevelts protests. They got into a war once in Europe and they don't want that again. They don't care about Roosevelts hatred of the nazi's. In their eyes the nazi's aren't that bad. They're anti-communist after all. If Hitler is really smart he declares war on Japan after dissaproving of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. So no American nukes on Germany.
 
Top