Hitler Betrays Japan on 12/8/41

One can not argue credibly that the responsibility for Hitler's aggressive wars in Europe lay on the heads of anyone but Hitler's regime. Blaming England or France for Hitler's invasions of so many other nations, many of them unsuspecting neutrals, is historical revisionism of the type Pat Buchanan is so fond of.

Without Ribbentrop-Molotov Stalin would have been alert, if not displaying his normal sense of paranoia, this being the one case where he actually trusted someone. Given the vast firepower of the Red Army wasted because of this trust, plus strong border fortifications rendered worthless in 1939 because they were no longer near the border, this change of affairs guarantees a bloodier fight for the Germans and possibly even a defeat in the long run. Not to mention that Germany was not remotely prepared for Barbarossa in 1940.

So what happens if Hitler and Germany are going down and Stalin is going to be stopping somewhere along the Rhine in this world view?
 
Question. When you speak of scraping the bottom of the (manpower) barrel, that's just the "barrel" of young over, let's say 17 years old? Or includes the younger teenagers that could be conscripted, say between 14-17 years old and including far more wome in the (Soviet) armed forces.
I don't mean to discuss the morality of conscripting 14 years old kids to go to war, but those things happens. Plus morality and Stalin aren't precisely two words that go well together in either case.
 
A one and a quarter front than. :p

As opposed to the 1.4 front we had OTL then. ;) [Which may exhaggulate OTL's western allies role.

Even if the US industrial production rise, the Congress will be utterly unwilling to expand aid to let the Bolsheviks conquer Europe. From their PoV, far better a tie or partial Nazi victory. I don't see L-L to Russia ever expand beyond the '41 trickle that Roosevelt was able to sneak by Executive powers.

No doubt they will be unwilling to see the Soviets conquer Europe. However anyone other than a fascist or a raving lunatic will want to avoid Hitler and the Nazis building a similar empire. Therefore, while it looks like the Russians are losing it's in the US's interest to supply them. [Especially since they have so much extra capacity compared to OTL with a much smaller US military]. If the Germans push the Soviets back even further, as you think they will, the logical response for the US is to increase its support of the Russians. Only if the Red Army starts driving into eastern Europe, which your convinced won't happen, would it make sense for the US to cut back support.



Heh, they were very close ot exaustion of manpower reserves in '45, so it won't be "several more years". Rather like late '43 or early '44. Also, this TL, just because we have less pressure in Italy and North Africa and a Hitler with a bit more inisght, we have good chances that they are able to relieve Stalingrad and be more successful in Manstein's early '43 counteroffensives. German successes there cut down their manpower losses and raise Russians'. All this might well mean that either Stalin is moved to ask a B-L peace, or that in mid-late '43, there is no Russian offensive breakthrough, only a bloody stalemate. Which nears the moment the Russians will exaust the strategic reserves, or put the issue of the B-L peace again to the fore.

I meant several more years from the POD. However, presuming a more successful Germany then Russia will probably last at least into 45-46 with very large scale fighting simply because with a stronger Germany Russia will do less attacking. Even after the Russians are largely defeated west of the Volga that still leaves a huge area and population to control. Especially given Nazi occupation policies, which give the locals no choice but to fight. Even given your scenario, which I think is unlikely. I can see a SU too exhausted to be able to conquer Germany but very, very difficult for an even more exhausted Germany to manage to conquer the vastness of European Russia.



As for whether Hitler might accept the B-L settlement in late '43 ... well, we are already assuming he has somewhat more political insight than OTL. The B-L deal isn't his full goal for the East with the Volga-Ural borders, but it comes within sight. The SU has been dealt a severe blow, pushed away a lot from Germany's Eastern Europe Empire, and territories rich in natural resources have been conquered. He might accept it as a compromise, with the mental reservation of trying it again for the rest, especially the Caucasus, in a few years, if/when conditions are better (and Stalin will do the same). Pretty much the same method he used for the M-R Pact.

You assumed a considerably more politically intelligent Hitler. The POD is actually a single change, that Hitler doesn't declare war on the US.


Anyway, the most likely outcome is either B-L compromise peace in '43, or Soviet growing collapse from exaustion of manpower reserves in '44 (which would likely move Stalin to beg for peace and give up more, especially the Caucasus).

In your opinion, not mine.


True, but if the Axis is kicked out of North Africa, they can always return after the USSR is dealt with. And those forces will be very preciouc to turn the tide on the Eastern Front in '43. The loss of North Africa, the Bomber Command Offensive, or the nearly escaped Soviet trap in Stalingrad may well just be the wake up call for the total mobilization of German economy, even if the Germans manage to escape Stalingrad.

Would be very difficult for the Germans to return to N Africa several years after being expelled. As another poster said the forces not sacrificed in N Africa would be useful for plugging the gaps. Even without a clear encirclement of Stalingrad German losses in 42-43 would be huge. Also do you know Hitler's plans for Manstein's attempt to break through to the Stalingrad pocket. It wasn't to relieve them and allow them to fall back westwards. It was to establish contact and maintain the position! He was that out of touch with the actual military situation.

I don't see an invasion of Sicily or Italy manageable without USA troops. If they try, it will be a big Dieppe.

Italy will be difficult if there are German troops as OTL but possible. Sicily should not be a serious problem once the position in Tunisia is secured.


They had a taste of it at Stalingrad. They will be wary of that.

If they have something like OTL Stalingrad then Germany will be unable to defeat Russia decisively, because their manpower reserves will be too weak. [Which I don't think will stop Hitler trying]. If they don't have a serious defeat like OTL then the less responsible [not just the Nazi party here] will continue to think endless victories are possible.


More destructive than carpet bombing ??? :confused:

In terms of more targeted bombing being more destructive to the German economy. It could have been done without Harris' fascination with the carpet bombing approach. Even with the poor accuracy of bombing at the time.

Hmm, an invasion of Greece ? Somewhat better chances than Italy, where I see British asses being hande to them on a plate. As you point out, the logistics are worse for the Germans, so it's toss-up. Of ourse, they could just move forces from France and Italy to Greece. There's the need to protect Ploesti, so they would have to concentrate fighters here. Of course, all this if the USSR doesn't sign a truce.

Russia wouldn't be signing a truce prior to 44 at the earliest. Plenty of time to land in Greece if we don't go for Italy. Widespread popular support in that country and many neighbouring regions. If tactical bombers get in range of the oilfields then production will plumit even if the heavies don't do that.

We are assuming he has somewhat more insight in TTL, or he wouldn't leave the US alone. He could sign a B-L peace as a compromise with the mental reservation of trying it again in the future. Just like he signed the M-R pact.

I'm only assuming a single decision differently, rather than a markedly less insane leader.



Yes, but do not underestimate the fact that the USA are out of the fight, and it is mostly a German-Russian fight. Under these premises, European vassals and some neutrals (Spain, Turkey) may be considerable more willing to help the Germans keep the Cossaks away.

Some would like to oppose the Soviets but how many will be allowed to by the Germans. Furthermore their opposition to communism is going to be mooted while the Soviets are distant and being hammered and the Nazi heel is on their neck. Turkey is very unlikely to enter the war on any side and Spain is in no position to.

They will be deterred by nukes. Hitler didn't use nerve gases first. There is not just military containment, and in winning a Cold War won't the most importan part. There is also economic and technological competition, and cultural infiltration. Which bloody conflicts ? Not in Japan, there weren't any after the surrender, and as concerns Korea, with all their forces in Asia, they won't have any trouble in occupying it all at once. As for China... maybe. On one hand, USSR is much weakened, and much less able to give help to Mao. They also have a cold war on their Western border. OTOH, they might try to do a land grab in Asia by suppling the Communists, if they dare angering the USA and getting an enemy on both sides. Would they ? Hard to say, but most likely, not.

Not something I would gamble on. [Nazis being deterred]. There are other ways of defeating a toltaritarian regime but youn do need to survive 1st.

In your suggested TL I think Japan will probably be defeated a year or so earlier. That will mean a bloody invasion of Japan, which will be horrendous for the Japanese but will be very costly for the US army as well. If the US is as rabidly anti-communist as you suggest they may seek to try and prevent the communists taking power in China, which is likely to be a long and bloody commitment.


There is also the possibility that the Japanese, when they see the USSR seemely stalemated with the Germans might try a backstab in Eastern Siberia. Would they ? By seeing they didn't in 1941-42, probably not, not unless they see the SOviets on the verge of total collapse.

Doubtful as they will have too much on their plates.


As it concerns China, would the USA being able to stamp out the Chinese Communists for good, with the bulk of their amry in Asia, and Stlain less able and daring to help them ? Hard to say. Probably they are at the very least able to pull a Korea compromise, and enforce a division between capitalist, philo-USA South China, and a Communist North China. Which most likely will develop according to the Korea pattern.

If they try and stamp them out by military means they will lose. Hearts and Minds could well work but would the US be intelligent enough to do that?


They might state their position as their unwillingness to waste their blood to pick a side between Nazis and Communists in lack of a provocation, and their inability to destroy them both.

You mean fascist and communist regimes like Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden etc.

Ahh, but after the war their effective territories will stretch from the Indus to Vladivostock. In addition to South America, they now have become caretakers of half of the world, willing or not. And they are still the only possible alternative to the unpalatable Nazis, much less the Soviets who largely failed the crucible of war.

And why do you think the US will have such a large empire, not to mention how it would hold it. Unless there are drastic changes in US economic policies, which won't go down well at home, they will have a poor hand in much of Latin America. I can't see India, almost certain to gain its independence anyway, being willing to accept US economic domination. China will very likely be a mess as will muchy of the rest of eastern Asia.



Also the Germans once the Americans use it.

I don;'t think the US will use a bomb against Japan. Unless they suffer a serious check early on, they will almost certainly defeat Japan prior to mid-45. It would be virtually impossible to advance Manhatten that much, especially with less support from allied and emigre talent. As such the US bomb will not be tested in anger and I would expect will be kept very much a secret. Even if it doesn't Britain will get far more information from such events than Germany.



Not beyond '43-44.

With such a late POD I can't see the Russians being exhausted before late 44 at the very earliest and probably a couple of years later if the war is going badly for them. I know that may seem counter-intuitive but mentioned above why that is. If the Germans are more successful they are going to be stretched even thinner.



Tue, but Soviet bureaucracy was not any better. And they did quickly. Admittedly, with the help of a few spies.

It was not great but it was significantly better than the mess that the Nazis crippled Germany with. Even when the Red Army was breathing down their neck the incompertence and infighting continued in Germany through to the last days of Berlin.



I fear you far overrestimate the grip that Churchill and the anti-Nazi war hawks are going to have on the British public. You ask them to accept a decade-long war, with no military ally, against the whole might of the Nazi Empire, on vague promises from the government that a "secret weapon" will turn the tide of battle ? After they have seen the USSR throw the towel, and the Axis return to North Africa and the Middle East and kick them out of that, too ? I don't buy it, the British people is highly patriotic but brainwashed slaves of their all-powerful Churchill warlord. If Germany keep sending offers of an honorable peace deal, with mounting military bad outcomes, and no end in sight, at some point the Parliament and the public will force an acceptance.

I think you underestimate the knowledge of the British people. We have a history of long wars to defend our liberty against apparently overwhelming odds. While they have the capacity to fight there is very little chance they would stop with the threat over the channel.

If I'm wrong and there was a breakdown of the will to resist what would very likely happen would be that Britain would become a German rather than an American satalite. It would take the bulk of the empire with it. [Expecting India which would be independent and Canada and the Pacific dominions]. Germany would have access to its raw materials and possibly bases. This might happen if the Germans develop their V weapons roughly at OTL rates as they could do a lot of damage, even if markedly less than Bomber Command is doing to Germany.

The other option is that the US decides that it will force a peace by cutting L-L to Britain. [Say the US right wants to trade with the German empire]. If that happens difficult to see how thing go. The remaining democratic states will be even more isolated and the US more reviled by both them and the fascists. If Hitler has won a war in the east he will probably decide that's the time to attack the US.


There's still deterrence.

:confused:


In pretty much the same conditions, the USA and the UK chose NOT to nuke the USSR in the '50s, and trust containment and deterrence instead. Sure, they had a WMD big advantage similar to the one you describe and could have destroyed the Soviet Empire for good, at the price of "acceptable" civilian losses. They didn't. I fail to see why the Nazi Empire should be any different.

The conditions were drastically different. The US had won a long and by its standards, fairly costly war. Also it was now facing a former ally for which they had considerable respect for its resistance to the Nazis. Furthermore the Russians were known to have suffered very heavily in the war and initially the US didn't think they were in a position to launch major attacks on the west. They were definitely not in a position to threaten the US itself. Furthermore the huge size of the USSR and the limited knowledge of its interior meant the limited number of nukes would be less effect.

In this TL Britain is still fighting a far more aggressive state that has shown its word is totally worthless and that it has the mentality of a psychotic. Britain knows the new weapons can win the war for it and has the ability to deploy them to the entire German heartland. Germany has a capacity for limited counter-strike but would be vastly more dangerous if Britain waited until Germany itself developed nuclear weapons. As such waiting, or trying to obtain a peace settlement is both immoral [in terms of not resisting the mass slaughter know to be going on in the German empire] and bloody reckless. Since there would be no alternative way to secure Britain's security the only logical approach would be to make use of the possibly brief period of technological lead.

Steve
 
One can not argue credibly that the responsibility for Hitler's aggressive wars in Europe lay on the heads of anyone but Hitler's regime. Blaming England or France for Hitler's invasions of so many other nations, many of them unsuspecting neutrals, is historical revisionism of the type Pat Buchanan is so fond of.

I agree fully. Also GZ's viewpoint is inaccurate. Not only did Hitler want A-L back but neither he nor the German army would have been willing to launch a major invasion in the east with a rearming Britain and France in their rear.


Without Ribbentrop-Molotov Stalin would have been alert, if not displaying his normal sense of paranoia, this being the one case where he actually trusted someone. Given the vast firepower of the Red Army wasted because of this trust, plus strong border fortifications rendered worthless in 1939 because they were no longer near the border, this change of affairs guarantees a bloodier fight for the Germans and possibly even a defeat in the long run. Not to mention that Germany was not remotely prepared for Barbarossa in 1940.

So what happens if Hitler and Germany are going down and Stalin is going to be stopping somewhere along the Rhine in this world view?

Furthermore this TL supposes that Germany lacks both the military production it generated in the intervening year, hence the vast majority of tanks are still Pz I & IIs, and the amount of equipment looted from the defeated western powers. They would also lack the industries and raw materials from their western conquest, the labourers obtained and the funds looted.

If he tried something that insane I think even the German army might consider a coup at this point.

Steve
 
Don't forget the Luftwaffe in OTL effectively defeated both USAAF and BC by March 1944. BC defeat would have come earlier say October 1943 and they would be forced to have a rethink - perhaps relying on speed for the bombers or mosquito escorts if the offensive was to continue since in OTL it relied on destruction of Luftwaffe by Mustang and overwhelming American resources.

To be blunt I think the only thing your got right here is that the P51 destroyed the Luftwaffe in the air over Germany. This was already largely completed by Mar 44. In fact the bomber commanders were bitterly hostile to the fact that both British and US strategic bomber forces were largely switched to northern France to prepare for the Normandy landings because they thought it gave the Germans a vital breather when they were on the verge of collapse. [Not saying I agree with this but that is why the bombers were switched to a different target, not any defeat over Germany]. Allied losses were heavy but they were definitely winning by this time.

Steve
 

General Zod

Banned
Question. When you speak of scraping the bottom of the (manpower) barrel, that's just the "barrel" of young over, let's say 17 years old? Or includes the younger teenagers that could be conscripted, say between 14-17 years old and including far more wome in the (Soviet) armed forces.
I don't mean to discuss the morality of conscripting 14 years old kids to go to war, but those things happens. Plus morality and Stalin aren't precisely two words that go well together in either case.

Good point about the young teens. I must admit that presently I do not remember if the sources I read about the issue covered this angle, so at the moment I honestly don't know. About recruiting far more women, it's possible, but I wonder, if you recruit all these women, too, and the older teens, young adults, and young middle age men are exausted, who's going to stayt in the fields and factories, and keep the production going ? Wouldn't the war effort plummet from lack of manpower ?
 

General Zod

Banned
Therefore, while it looks like the Russians are losing it's in the US's interest to supply them. [Especially since they have so much extra capacity compared to OTL with a much smaller US military]. If the Germans push the Soviets back even further, as you think they will, the logical response for the US is to increase its support of the Russians.

Oh, if the Russians look like they are truly losing, and are no longer a potential threat to Europe (say, they have been pushed beyond the Volga, or the Urals), I might see a decent argument being made in Congress about the wisdom of supplying them. I'm not sure the Congress would buy it, due to anti-Communist prejudice, although. Now, if the Soviet regime were to fall, or Russia was at war with Japan, too, that would be totally different. But I don't see any such argument pushing through as long as the Russians are not obviously losing (ie pushed beyond the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad-Baku line).


I meant several more years from the POD. However, presuming a more successful Germany then Russia will probably last at least into 45-46 with very large scale fighting simply because with a stronger Germany Russia will do less attacking.

A defensive Russian stance ? Well, that's entirely possible, but it denies the Soviets what OTL was the added manpower resources from liberated areas. I fear the overall effect would cancel out. Hence I do not think they could sustain it beyond '44. An B-L like armistice becomes rather more probable. no doubt both Hitler and Stalin would be thinking of a rematch later down the line.

Even after the Russians are largely defeated west of the Volga that still leaves a huge area and population to control.

Well, admittedly even from my PoV, this is not the most likely outcome, with this PoD. Possible, but not too likely. As I said, I see a range of possible outcomes to Barbarossa, in this scenario, ranging from truce on the 1939 borders or at the most a hybrid 39-41 that would give Stalin Latvia and Estonia and leave Bessarabia and Lithuania to Hitler, to a truce on the Volga, with Brest-Litovsk being the most likely outcome.

Especially given Nazi occupation policies, which give the locals no choice but to fight.

True, although this will be a growing problem on the long-term, say the next decade. A Russian Mega-Vietnam.

I can see a SU too exhausted to be able to conquer Germany but very, very difficult for an even more exhausted Germany to manage to conquer the vastness of European Russia.

This is why I see the Brest-Litovsk outcome as the most probable. Holding Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine is different from holding everyting up to the Urals.


You assumed a considerably more politically intelligent Hitler. The POD is actually a single change, that Hitler doesn't declare war on the US.

And why doesn't he declare war on the US ? Greater political insight. Not overwhelmingly so, or he would have done many other things in 39-41 differently.


Would be very difficult for the Germans to return to N Africa several years after being expelled.

Hmm, they would be expelled in early '43, armistice with the USSR could happen as early as late '43, or more definitely early-mid '44.

Even without a clear encirclement of Stalingrad German losses in 42-43 would be huge.

Even if they don't lose a whole army in Stalingrad, and go along with Manstein's "backhand blow" instead of Cittadel ?

Also do you know Hitler's plans for Manstein's attempt to break through to the Stalingrad pocket. It wasn't to relieve them and allow them to fall back westwards. It was to establish contact and maintain the position! He was that out of touch with the actual military situation.

I know. But I'm assuming the greater insight he showed in the no-USA decision ripples here, since the no retreat from Stalingrad was one of the most asinine. :eek:


Italy will be difficult if there are German troops as OTL but possible. Sicily should not be a serious problem once the position in Tunisia is secured.

They don't have the OTL USA armies. Now, if they completely give up Overlord, they can redirect in the Mediterranean, but attacking Italy in '43 ? Far too son, without the USA.


If they don't have a serious defeat like OTL then the less responsible [not just the Nazi party here] will continue to think endless victories are possible.

The near-miss (being encircles in Stalingrad and psuhed away from Volga, but eventually escaping the pocket) might be a wake-up call. Enough, combined with North Africa and the bombings, to activate total war mobilization and being willing to accept the Brest-Litovsk compromise.


Russia wouldn't be signing a truce prior to 44 at the earliest.

Stalin was willing to sign a truce up to Kursk in OTL. If by late '43, as I picture, the Germans have broken out of the pocket, used the Manisten backhand blow, the Soviet summer offensive has been a costly failure and the Whermacht is still pinned on the Donetz or Don, why shouldn't they sign it ?

Plenty of time to land in Greece if we don't go for Italy. Widespread popular support in that country and many neighbouring regions. If tactical bombers get in range of the oilfields then production will plumit even if the heavies don't do that.

If they are able to establish a foothold.

I'm only assuming a single decision differently, rather than a markedly less insane leader.

Ah. Here lies a big part of our disagreement. I assume that decision comes from greater insight, and try to see where that would apply, too.

Turkey is very unlikely to enter the war on any side and Spain is in no position to.

Span did send Legion Azul. With the USA not on the side of the UK-USSR alliance, they might be willing to do more. Admittedly, they can't do much more than sending troops in Russia, since their main usefulness, closing Gibraltar, is gone by now. And also Turkey would have been most useful in '42, when Rommel was pounding on El Alamein and Germans were pushing in Northern Caucasus. Admittedly I was picturing Turkey siding with the Axis later, when the USSR is defeated (even if it's partial defeat like the B-L deal, and not the total Volga defeat). Now, up to now I had not been mindful of how much, if ever, the lack of USA in the war might push Turkey to side with Germany in 1942. I seem to remember there's such a scenario in a Tsouras book, I might need to check it.


Not something I would gamble on. [Nazis being deterred].

Hitler never made first use of chemical weapons.

In your suggested TL I think Japan will probably be defeated a year or so earlier. That will mean a bloody invasion of Japan, which will be horrendous for the Japanese but will be very costly for the US army as well.

This is a reasonable assumption. OTOH, they won't have the losses of the European front.

If the US is as rabidly anti-communist as you suggest they may seek to try and prevent the communists taking power in China, which is likely to be a long and bloody commitment.

If they try to stamp out chinese communists entirely, quite possibly. They might try to contain them to a few pockets, although. Say enclose them in Manchuria or Inner Mongolia.


Doubtful as they will have too much on their plates.

Admittedly this only becomes a liekly scenario if they see the Soviets on the verge of total collapse (psuhed beyond the Volga) or they would have done it in 1941-42, when a second front would have easily doomed the URSS.


If they try and stamp them out by military means they will lose. Hearts and Minds could well work but would the US be intelligent enough to do that?

This is true. But they managed to contain communist expansion well in Korea, and with a relatively very limited commitment of their forces. Admittedly, China is much bigger and will require a lot of effort. But I see keeping Commies out of Central and Southern China as entirely feasible.


I can't see India, almost certain to gain its independence anyway, being willing to accept US economic domination.

Do you think they would go for neutrality in TTL ?


I don;'t think the US will use a bomb against Japan. Unless they suffer a serious check early on, they will almost certainly defeat Japan prior to mid-45. It would be virtually impossible to advance Manhatten that much,

Oh yes. I concede I was oblivious of that issue. Early victory on Japan canceling out Hiroshima.


With such a late POD I can't see the Russians being exhausted before late 44 at the very earliest and probably a couple of years later if the war is going badly for them.

On this we're going to ever disagree. I see the Russians possibly giving up in late '43, and being exhausted anyway in early-mid '44.


We have a history of long wars to defend our liberty against apparently overwhelming odds.

I'm not putting the courage of the British into question or their commitment to defend their island. I'm questioning their robot-like willingness to fight a never-ending war over a whole decade, over half of it solitary, to fulfill Churchill's anti-Nazi crusade, no matter the events and the odds.

If I'm wrong and there was a breakdown of the will to resist what would very likely happen would be that Britain would become a German rather than an American satalite.

In the sense of Finlandization or Vichyfication ? I can see the former as likely, but the latter is IMO rather outlandish, without actual German occupation, which is out of the question. I do picture a breakdown of the will to fight, but in the sense of the old "Lord Halifax" peace faction regaining strength, becoming dominant and pushing a truce. They write off continental Europe for the brief-mid term, and focus on the task of keeping the Empire together.


It would take the bulk of the empire with it. [Expecting India which would be independent and Canada and the Pacific dominions].

You mean my beloved plans for USA annexation of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the wake of UK defeat are hampered ? It can't be. :p

This might happen if the Germans develop their V weapons roughly at OTL rates as they could do a lot of damage, even if markedly less than Bomber Command is doing to Germany.

True. But I also expect the vast majority of the Luftwaffe being moved on the Western front after armistice in the East to put a clog in the Bomber Command operations.

The other option is that the US decides that it will force a peace by cutting L-L to Britain. [Say the US right wants to trade with the German empire].

Hmm, the USA pulling a Suez ? Remotely possible, but I see the UK simply giving up before that ever becomes a serious possibility.

If Hitler has won a war in the east he will probably decide that's the time to attack the US.

Unlikely. He pictured a contest with the USA as the likely job of the next generation, in 1970-1980.


Also it was now facing a former ally for which they had considerable respect for its resistance to the Nazis.

"Respect" from the late 40s-early 50s USA, totally in the grip of anti-communist hysteria ? :eek::rolleyes:

In this TL Britain is still fighting a far more aggressive state that has shown its word is totally worthless and that it has the mentality of a psychotic.

That's part of the issue, I don't see them as "still fighting" by the time the British nukes arrive.
 

General Zod

Banned
One can not argue credibly that the responsibility for Hitler's aggressive wars in Europe lay on the heads of anyone but Hitler's regime. Blaming England or France for Hitler's invasions of so many other nations, many of them unsuspecting neutrals, is historical revisionism of the type Pat Buchanan is so fond of.

Hmm, but this is not about placing moral responsibility about the causes of WWII. About that (and I make a comment on that angle with the outmost reluctance, as I see this topic easy recipe for a disaster, as in political flame war erupting with bans flying around left, center, and right), I honestly think that Hitler's foreign policy actions became morally unexcusable the moment he tried to subjugate non-German peoples like Bohemia, Moravia, or Poland. Bringing Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia in the fold of the Fatherland was right, completing the national unification of Germany and righting Versailles' wrongs. The rest... :(:mad:

However, I was making a comment about the fact the he did not want a war with Britain and France in 1939 over Poland, and given that his stretegic plans were for vassaldom of Central and Eastern Europe after Czechia and Poland were dealt with, anhd subsequently seeking an empire in European Russia, it is overwhelmingly likely that he would have left UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway alone if UK and France had left him alone about Poland and entirely focused on his Eastern objectives. This is not about morality. It is about a possible PoD in 1939.

Without Ribbentrop-Molotov Stalin would have been alert, if not displaying his normal sense of paranoia, this being the one case where he actually trusted someone. Given the vast firepower of the Red Army wasted because of this trust, plus strong border fortifications rendered worthless in 1939 because they were no longer near the border, this change of affairs guarantees a bloodier fight for the Germans and possibly even a defeat in the long run. Not to mention that Germany was not remotely prepared for Barbarossa in 1940.

Umm, yes, these are all good points to explore, but maybe another thread about another PoD and TL. It is another fascinating issue, however, what if UK and France don't declare war in 1939 ? Actually it is two PoD and slightly different TLs, according to whether they leave Poland alone in March-April or August-September.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
Not only did Hitler want A-L back

He did it back eventually but it was a long-term, distant and fuzzy objective that he was entirely willing to compromise about for the time being, much like South Tirol and German Switzerland. Not the stuff he planned and plotted to get in Central and Eastern Europe.

but neither he nor the German army would have been willing to launch a major invasion in the east with a rearming Britain and France in their rear.

This is an entirely different matter from willing a war with UK and France in 1939 over Poland.
 
Oh, if the Russians look like they are truly losing, and are no longer a potential threat to Europe (say, they have been pushed beyond the Volga, or the Urals), I might see a decent argument being made in Congress about the wisdom of supplying them. I'm not sure the Congress would buy it, due to anti-Communist prejudice, although. Now, if the Soviet regime were to fall, or Russia was at war with Japan, too, that would be totally different. But I don't see any such argument pushing through as long as the Russians are not obviously losing (ie pushed beyond the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad-Baku line).

Your got a very strange definition of "the Russians are not obviously losing"? When the Germans have overrun much of their most productive land and on the outskirts of their two largest cities. I could see a basis for a maccy US cutting L-L when the Russians are somewhere between the Dniper and the former Polish border but not when their struggling to hold back the German hordes from their heartlands.





Well, admittedly even from my PoV, this is not the most likely outcome, with this PoD. Possible, but not too likely. As I said, I see a range of possible outcomes to Barbarossa, in this scenario, ranging from truce on the 1939 borders or at the most a hybrid 39-41 that would give Stalin Latvia and Estonia and leave Bessarabia and Lithuania to Hitler, to a truce on the Volga, with Brest-Litovsk being the most likely outcome.

The problem with this idea was the incompatable viewpoints of the two leaders. I think this was what Stalin was expecting to be Hitler's terms in the early part of the 41 campaign. If your presuming a radically changed Hitler then he could get that by late autumn 41. However the historical Hitler was unwilling to consider anything but an overwhelming victory until he was clearly defeated and then still wanted terms incompatable with the Soviets.



True, although this will be a growing problem on the long-term, say the next decade. A Russian Mega-Vietnam.

It will be a problem straight from the start.




And why doesn't he declare war on the US ? Greater political insight. Not overwhelmingly so, or he would have done many other things in 39-41 differently.

If you presume a much smarter Hitler then it is radically different. A reasonably rational person, with a decent knowledge of the history of the time could probably fight the allies to a standstill, commencing Dec 41, having declared war on the US.


Hmm, they would be expelled in early '43, armistice with the USSR could happen as early as late '43, or more definitely early-mid '44.

Such an action would need naval power, which they are short of, air power, which is pretty difficult for them and the amphibious assualt capacity they totally lacked during the entire war.


Even if they don't lose a whole army in Stalingrad, and go along with Manstein's "backhand blow" instead of Cittadel ?

Yes as German losses will continue to be very heavy during this scenario. They might outlast the Soviets but likely to be a broken-back victory.

I know. But I'm assuming the greater insight he showed in the no-USA decision ripples here, since the no retreat from Stalingrad was one of the most asinine. :eek:

See comment 3 steps above.


They don't have the OTL USA armies. Now, if they completely give up Overlord, they can redirect in the Mediterranean, but attacking Italy in '43 ? Far too son, without the USA.

The US forces were still the junior partner and the naval and air strength is present. There almost certainly won't be a landing in northern France and more might well be available from Asia given the worsening position for Japan. Italy might be delayed by Sicily should definitely be possible in 43. [Especially if you presume a quicker ending to the Tunisian campaign because the British landed where they want to].


The near-miss (being encircles in Stalingrad and psuhed away from Volga, but eventually escaping the pocket) might be a wake-up call. Enough, combined with North Africa and the bombings, to activate total war mobilization and being willing to accept the Brest-Litovsk compromise.

Might do, but might not. A near miss might well encourage the continued view of irresisible supemercy. 'We keep pulling off those miracles so we can keep doing it'.


Stalin was willing to sign a truce up to Kursk in OTL. If by late '43, as I picture, the Germans have broken out of the pocket, used the Manisten backhand blow, the Soviet summer offensive has been a costly failure and the Whermacht is still pinned on the Donetz or Don, why shouldn't they sign it ?

Stalin was willing to sign a treaty which restored the 1914 borders, while Hitler was after the Dnieper. Also, if you wait for a Manstein counter-strike things will go very late in 43 as the Soviets were waiting for the German attack. They would strike 1st if it became clear the Germans won't but probably delay matters for several months. Which gives them more time to apply their industrial superiority and delays any Soviet collapse even further. With winter close at hand they are going to last with borders largely unchanged from 43 into 44 at least.

If they are able to establish a foothold.

True but there is a long, thinly defended coastline and a friendly population. Little infrastructure for defencive operations and a backwater in terms of top rank forces and air power for instance.


Ah. Here lies a big part of our disagreement. I assume that decision comes from greater insight, and try to see where that would apply, too.

Here we agree. The definition of whether its a single POD or a radically different Hitler.

Span did send Legion Azul. With the USA not on the side of the UK-USSR alliance, they might be willing to do more. Admittedly, they can't do much more than sending troops in Russia, since their main usefulness, closing Gibraltar, is gone by now. And also Turkey would have been most useful in '42, when Rommel was pounding on El Alamein and Germans were pushing in Northern Caucasus. Admittedly I was picturing Turkey siding with the Axis later, when the USSR is defeated (even if it's partial defeat like the B-L deal, and not the total Volga defeat). Now, up to now I had not been mindful of how much, if ever, the lack of USA in the war might push Turkey to side with Germany in 1942. I seem to remember there's such a scenario in a Tsouras book, I might need to check it.

It did send 'volenteers' but withdrew them when casulties grew too large. With an exhausted and still bitterly divided country there was no reason for Franco to pick a fight with anyone and he knew it. Turkey similarly had no incentive to stick its head [or any other part of its anatomy] in the mincer and plenty of reason to keep a low profile. There is a mention of a scenario in one of the Tsouras books but I think that explains how things had to go to get them into the conflict and the terrain meant they could play a relatively small role.


Hitler never made first use of chemical weapons.

he might not make 1st use of nukes either but I don't think many rational people would bet on it is they could avoid it.

This is a reasonable assumption. OTOH, they won't have the losses of the European front.

That was fairly limited until June 44 when the Normandy campaign opened. This is likely to be dwarwed by the invasion of Japan and I suspect they might get drawn into a quagmire in China.


If they try to stamp out chinese communists entirely, quite possibly. They might try to contain them to a few pockets, although. Say enclose them in Manchuria or Inner Mongolia.

That would probably work, at least in the short term. If they are seen to intervene directly in the Chinese civil war they will enable the KMT to win big battle victories but poison their relations with the bulk of the population. Both because they will be associated with another foreign conquerer and because it removes the incentive for the KMT to broaden their base and actually pay more attention to the wants and needs of the ordinary people.


Admittedly this only becomes a liekly scenario if they see the Soviets on the verge of total collapse (psuhed beyond the Volga) or they would have done it in 1941-42, when a second front would have easily doomed the URSS.

I think they will have far too much on their plates if the US is throwing everything at them. Furthermore, since Hitler didn't declare war on the US they will very much see it as two separate wars.



This is true. But they managed to contain communist expansion well in Korea, and with a relatively very limited commitment of their forces. Admittedly, China is much bigger and will require a lot of effort. But I see keeping Commies out of Central and Southern China as entirely feasible.

That was a military confrontation. Against heavily armed, if often poorly led, armies. On a narrow peninsula with overwhelming air and naval support. If they get involved in fighting deep in China, that will be a radically different matter. Especially against gueruilla forces melting away into the local population.



Do you think they would go for neutrality in TTL ?

They will not want another power, especially a western one, dominating them. If the US is heavily involved in China that would alienate them further. Given that the German empire is still a long way away and the US is unwilling to face up to it anyway I don't think India would see any advantage in having close ties to the US.






On this we're going to ever disagree. I see the Russians possibly giving up in late '43, and being exhausted anyway in early-mid '44.

For the reasons I mention above I can't see the Germans, post dec-41, forcing a decisive defeat of the SU by military means before 45 at earliest.


I'm not putting the courage of the British into question or their commitment to defend their island. I'm questioning their robot-like willingness to fight a never-ending war over a whole decade, over half of it solitary, to fulfill Churchill's anti-Nazi crusade, no matter the events and the odds.

Its a question of national survival not a crusade against even something as revolting as Nazism. I will agree that making peace and getting the US off our backs, would be a better plan, provided that it was accepted by the bulk of the country that it was a truce and the war would have to be resumed in a few years. However this is very risky both in terms of maintaining public willingness to continue the struggle and the fact that it the SU was isolated it would be very much weaker.

In the sense of Finlandization or Vichyfication ? I can see the former as likely, but the latter is IMO rather outlandish, without actual German occupation, which is out of the question. I do picture a breakdown of the will to fight, but in the sense of the old "Lord Halifax" peace faction regaining strength, becoming dominant and pushing a truce. They write off continental Europe for the brief-mid term, and focus on the task of keeping the Empire together.

Probably something more like Finland in terms of a heavily defended region that over time would come under increasing influence from the continent.


You mean my beloved plans for USA annexation of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the wake of UK defeat are hampered ? It can't be. :p

Let me see. The Canadian counter attack liberates the mid-west and Cascadia. The convicts claim California. While the Marois want a word with you about the abuse of the hawalians.:eek:



True. But I also expect the vast majority of the Luftwaffe being moved on the Western front after armistice in the East to put a clog in the Bomber Command operations.

The vast majority of the Luftwaffe is a daytime force. Not very good for fighting at night. They can be converted over time but that will mean a lot of new equipment and re-training a lot of men. Also you will still need large air units to supply quick response support for all the thinly spread garrisons in the east.


Hmm, the USA pulling a Suez ? Remotely possible, but I see the UK simply giving up before that ever becomes a serious possibility.



Unlikely. He pictured a contest with the USA as the likely job of the next generation, in 1970-1980.

That was because he didn't think there would be time before then. However in TTL he does have time and the US is showing its not willing to take any serious steps to defend its interests. He will hold it in even greater contempt as a result and probably think it can be defeated fairly easily. One of the reasons he declared war in dec 41 I have read is that because it gave him a fleet, the Japanese one, which was what he thought was needed to fight the US. Not saying it will happen because after a defeat of the SU Germany is going to be a mess, but don't think its unlikely.


"Respect" from the late 40s-early 50s USA, totally in the grip of anti-communist hysteria ? :eek::rolleyes:

That was partly because there was much sympathy for them, for their wartime resistance. Also widespread support for what many thought they stood for. Not to mention that the SU was thought to be a threat because of its size and military success. Your now talking about American, in a weaker military position facing off against a much larger and more successful [apparently] empire than the Soviets by a long way. And what is frightening, seem to think of it as a better position to be in:eek:]

That's part of the issue, I don't see them as "still fighting" by the time the British nukes arrive.

It would be difficult as there are a lot of permutations to consider. However wouldn't rule it out. Would depend on the time it takes to get to the bomb, which has many variables. As I said would be safer to get a truce, build like buggerly, and then nuke the Nazis while they struggling to finish off the Soviets.

Steve
 

General Zod

Banned
Your got a very strange definition of "the Russians are not obviously losing"? When the Germans have overrun much of their most productive land and on the outskirts of their two largest cities. I could see a basis for a maccy US cutting L-L when the Russians are somewhere between the Dniper and the former Polish border but not when their struggling to hold back the German hordes from their heartlands.

The problem is, from an anti-communist neutral PoV, cutting L-L when the Red Army is between the Dniper and the former Polish border risks to be too little, too late, for two reasons: first, it still leaves the USSR too strong in manpower and resources from recovered territories, second, even if you cut external aid at that point, the Soviets' own resources might be enough to let them go past their borders and overflow in Eastern Europe. Germans might not be able to stop them at that point. Of course, it might well be that Soviets are so exausted that they will be stopped at their own borders (and according to my own previous arguments this is objectivey likely) but it might not be obvious nor easy to time precisely for a neutral observer.

I would argue that for a such a PoV, the ideal outcome might be the Brest-Litovsk one: the USSR is significantly weakened, but not so much that they can't be a counterbalance in the future to German might, Germany is indeed made stronger, but not so much to be totally overwhelming, assuming the various serious difficulties the Nazis will have in managing their Empire with their ham-handed methods, and after the inevitable fall of the Nazi Empire from internal faults, Germany will still be strong enough to keep Russia off Europe's back.

Of course, in the meanwhile, this grand geopolitical strategy has still the little difficulty of a Europe under Nazi domination. What could the USA do, in order to weaken the Nazi grip on Europe, without weakning Germany so much as to cause a return of Russia in Eastern Europe ? Undermine the Nazis without crippling Germany as a great power.


The problem with this idea was the incompatable viewpoints of the two leaders. I think this was what Stalin was expecting to be Hitler's terms in the early part of the 41 campaign.

And he was reluctantly willing to concede such terms, I know.

If your presuming a radically changed Hitler then he could get that by late autumn 41.

Yep, but the problem is, how much change we assume in Hitler ? Since as I see it, there's a delicate balance to seek: if we assume a totally OTL Hitler that makes a whimsical decision not to declare war on USA, such a random whimsy is difficult to justify, and besides, his totally poor OTL leadership might still nullify the effect of the PoV, and from my egotistical anti-Communist Germanophile PoV, I find no interest in contemplating or discussing a possible WWII outcome where the Soviets still overrun Central and Eastern Europe, or Germany still ends up divided, half-communist, without Pomerania, Silesia, Prussia, Austria, and the Sudetenlands. OTOH, if we change him so much, as you point out, there are many other political and military decisions that we ought to change, too, before the December 1941 PoD.

However the historical Hitler was unwilling to consider anything but an overwhelming victory until he was clearly defeated and then still wanted terms incompatable with the Soviets.

Looking for the balance in Hitler I spoke of above, I just thought that a somewhat more insightful Hitler (enough to see the obvious benefits of leaving the USA alone), after years of vicious struggle, might be willing to accept the Brest-Litovsk deal as a decent victory in 1943, if with the menatal reservation that either him or his successors might try a rematch in the future.


It will be a problem straight from the start.

But it will take several, maybe many, years for the German people to get exausted from quelling insurgency in the Eastern territories, after the USSR and the UK have signed the peace deals.


If you presume a much smarter Hitler then it is radically different. A reasonably rational person, with a decent knowledge of the history of the time could probably fight the allies to a standstill, commencing Dec 41, having declared war on the US.

Sorry, but I have to differ on this. Objectively, for a German leader in the WWII, it would be much easier not to get into a war with the USA in the first place, moreover, there is no benefit for Germany from this war. Hence, the rational choice is to avoid the war.


Such an action would need naval power, which they are short of, air power, which is pretty difficult for them and the amphibious assualt capacity they totally lacked during the entire war.

There's the Turkey route.

Yes as German losses will continue to be very heavy during this scenario. They might outlast the Soviets but likely to be a broken-back victory.

Nowhere as heavy as they were in OTL '43. Besides the losses in the Stalingrad pocket, what consumed the Whermacht were the rigid defenses and the attacks against heavy fortifications and lack of surprise at Zitadelle. If they consistently use mobile defense and counterattacks, they won't cause so much attrition to them.

The US forces were still the junior partner and the naval and air strength is present.

A junior partner is still a partner, even if admittedly they can redirect forces from Overlord here. The UK naval and air forces you mean. Nowhere the same thing, even with L-L. Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Might do, but might not. A near miss might well encourage the continued view of irresisible supemercy. 'We keep pulling off those miracles so we can keep doing it'.

It is a possibility.


Also, if you wait for a Manstein counter-strike things will go very late in 43 as the Soviets were waiting for the German attack. They would strike 1st if it became clear the Germans won't but probably delay matters for several months. Which gives them more time to apply their industrial superiority and delays any Soviet collapse even further. With winter close at hand they are going to last with borders largely unchanged from 43 into 44 at least.

This is also a possibility, but would Stalin give up any offensive in summer and autumn ? Such a prolonged stalemate might cause the armistice to look actual. Anyway, I concede the scenario is a possibility, but will only move the armistice to '44.


True but there is a long, thinly defended coastline and a friendly population. Little infrastructure for defencive operations and a backwater in terms of top rank forces and air power for instance.

Granted, it is a toss-up.


It did send 'volenteers' but withdrew them when casulties grew too large. With an exhausted and still bitterly divided country there was no reason for Franco to pick a fight with anyone and he knew it.

Nonetheless, without Canaris' persuasion, he might have entered the war if the Allies looked like losing. Like Mussolini, he was an opportunist.


That would probably work, at least in the short term. If they are seen to intervene directly in the Chinese civil war they will enable the KMT to win big battle victories but poison their relations with the bulk of the population.

I would largely agree. Only a little contrary point: such poisoning didn't happen in Korea. But maybe the conditons were different.

Both because they will be associated with another foreign conquerer and because it removes the incentive for the KMT to broaden their base and actually pay more attention to the wants and needs of the ordinary people.

Ok, then hearts and minds, a lot of training and supplies for the KMT forces. Maybe a lot of bombings of Communist strongholds. Little ground forces.

I think they will have far too much on their plates if the US is throwing everything at them.

True in the scenario that we discussing, when total German victory isn't much likely. OTOH, if it looked the Russians were really losing (Germans on the Volga), why shouldn't they make a land-grab in Eastern Siberia. There won't be nowhere near enough Soviet forces to defend it, and Japanese had lot of ground forces in Manchuria.

Furthermore, since Hitler didn't declare war on the US they will very much see it as two separate wars.

They still very much wanted Eastern Siberia for their own reasons.


They will not want another power, especially a western one, dominating them. If the US is heavily involved in China that would alienate them further. Given that the German empire is still a long way away and the US is unwilling to face up to it anyway I don't think India would see any advantage in having close ties to the US.

This is reasonable.


For the reasons I mention above I can't see the Germans, post dec-41, forcing a decisive defeat of the SU by military means before 45 at earliest.

So in the end, we disagree over an year and some. Since I see the Germans being able to force the Brest-Litovsk deal in '44 at worst, and possibly the Soviets being disheartned enough to accept it in late '43.

Its a question of national survival not a crusade against even something as revolting as Nazism.

The crusade was the war goal of Churchill.

provided that it was accepted by the bulk of the country that it was a truce and the war would have to be resumed in a few years.

I'm still thoroughly and honestly persuaded that far better results can be acheived with a clevaer "cold war" strategy of underminding the Nazi Empire with ideological infiltration, military containment, economic and technological competition, which would target the real soft point of the Nazi Empire, its economic mismangement and political ham-handedeness, rather than with renewal or continuation of the endless "hot war".

The USA would also be more willing to help with the former strategy, opening up markets without bloodshed.


Probably something more like Finland in terms of a heavily defended region that over time would come under increasing influence from the continent.

Unless the Nazi Empire would get enough internal trouble that it doesn't look like an appealing model. The USSR didn't for Finland.


Let me see. The Canadian counter attack liberates the mid-west and Cascadia. The convicts claim California. While the Marois want a word with you about the abuse of the hawalians.:eek:

Heretic. The British Empire belongs to its rightful inheritors. :D:cool:
We must build Oceania... err, Freedonia. :p


That was because he didn't think there would be time before then.

Not sure about this. He planned a victory against URSS and UK/France by the mid-40s, and a confrontation with the USA in the 1980s, in his masterplan where he assumed everything turned up right.

One of the reasons he declared war in dec 41 I have read is that because it gave him a fleet, the Japanese one, which was what he thought was needed to fight the US.

The man was really nuts. :rolleyes:

Not saying it will happen because after a defeat of the SU Germany is going to be a mess,

Not in a crippling sense, but there will still be all that lovely Eastern insurgency, and economic mismanagement, and military overextension...

That was partly because there was much sympathy for them, for their wartime resistance. Also widespread support for what many thought they stood for.

Not after the war was over, and anti-communism took wing again.

Your now talking about American, in a weaker military position

Beacuse they are outside of Western Europe, sure. Not that we chicken Western Europeans have ever been of much help in scaring away Ivan :rolleyes:

facing off against a much larger and more successful [apparently] empire than the Soviets by a long way.

Apparently, indeed. The Nazi Empire has feets of clay just like the Soviet one. Americans have just help it to self-destruct, then they can swoop in, capture the hearts and minds of everyone with their uberpowerful cultural hegemony, and pick the pieces. It worked nicely with the Soviet Empire, it would work nicely with the Nazi Empire. No need to turn Europe into a radioactive wastreland to accelerate its eventual demise by a decade or two. In twenty years at most, the Nazi Empire will be on its knees from its own internal problems.
 
The problem is, from an anti-communist neutral PoV, cutting L-L when the Red Army is between the Dniper and the former Polish border risks to be too little, too late, for two reasons: first, it still leaves the USSR too strong in manpower and resources from recovered territories, second, even if you cut external aid at that point, the Soviets' own resources might be enough to let them go past their borders and overflow in Eastern Europe. Germans might not be able to stop them at that point. Of course, it might well be that Soviets are so exausted that they will be stopped at their own borders (and according to my own previous arguments this is objectivey likely) but it might not be obvious nor easy to time precisely for a neutral observer.

Your definition of balance however sees a super Germany with more resources than any other power in the world and a Russia reduced to 2nd rank power. Even if Hitler is likely to accept such a position.

Cutting L-L at the point I suggested would almost certain lead to both sides being exhausted. If your right and I'm over the resilience of Russia wrong your approach leds to a mega-German empire. True it has even more internal problems than the Soviets but that may well not be that transparent to people at the time. Therefore you would need to be pretty complacent about the results of a German victory to take that route. Especially since most people were amazed that the Russians lasted as long as they did OTL and pulled through. The great fear was another rapid German victory, which until Stalingrad still looked very likely to the outside world.


I would argue that for a such a PoV, the ideal outcome might be the Brest-Litovsk one: the USSR is significantly weakened, but not so much that they can't be a counterbalance in the future to German might, Germany is indeed made stronger, but not so much to be totally overwhelming, assuming the various serious difficulties the Nazis will have in managing their Empire with their ham-handed methods, and after the inevitable fall of the Nazi Empire from internal faults, Germany will still be strong enough to keep Russia off Europe's back.

Not only do I believe such a deal is highly unlikely given the circumstances but also I disagree on the balance. With control of such a vast area including Europe and most of European Russia of value it would clearly be the major power in the world. Russia would still have a substantial population but be cut off from any real ability to play a major role on its own.


Of course, in the meanwhile, this grand geopolitical strategy has still the little difficulty of a Europe under Nazi domination. What could the USA do, in order to weaken the Nazi grip on Europe, without weakning Germany so much as to cause a return of Russia in Eastern Europe ? Undermine the Nazis without crippling Germany as a great power.

A little difficulty of ~300-400M people under a vicious dictatorship.:p [With the number going down fairly dramatically:(]. If there is a rump Russia of any strength your actually making it relatively more powerful by destroying countering factors. In the longer term a Russia controlled Poland and Czechoslovakia etc is arguably less dangerous than a Russia that stretches west to the Oder, which could well be the case in your scenario.


And he was reluctantly willing to concede such terms, I know.

But at the time Hitler was unwilling to consider them.


Yep, but the problem is, how much change we assume in Hitler ? Since as I see it, there's a delicate balance to seek: if we assume a totally OTL Hitler that makes a whimsical decision not to declare war on USA, such a random whimsy is difficult to justify, and besides, his totally poor OTL leadership might still nullify the effect of the PoV, and from my egotistical anti-Communist Germanophile PoV, I find no interest in contemplating or discussing a possible WWII outcome where the Soviets still overrun Central and Eastern Europe, or Germany still ends up divided, half-communist, without Pomerania, Silesia, Prussia, Austria, and the Sudetenlands. OTOH, if we change him so much, as you point out, there are many other political and military decisions that we ought to change, too, before the December 1941 PoD.

That's the point. You still want Germany to be a potential superpower despite it bathing the continent in blood by your approach.






But it will take several, maybe many, years for the German people to get exausted from quelling insurgency in the Eastern territories, after the USSR and the UK have signed the peace deals.

If their not defeated in the 1st decade or so then there may not be many insurgents left.



Sorry, but I have to differ on this. Objectively, for a German leader in the WWII, it would be much easier not to get into a war with the USA in the first place, moreover, there is no benefit for Germany from this war. Hence, the rational choice is to avoid the war.

True but that wasn't my point.



There's the Turkey route.

Which would be politically very, very difficult. Also its still a very long way, across pretty rugged terrain, before you get anywhere near Suez. Which is the 1st point of value in the area, apart from the Nazi desire to get to the Jews in Palestine. You do have oil in the gulf but that is even further away.


Nowhere as heavy as they were in OTL '43. Besides the losses in the Stalingrad pocket, what consumed the Whermacht were the rigid defenses and the attacks against heavy fortifications and lack of surprise at Zitadelle. If they consistently use mobile defense and counterattacks, they won't cause so much attrition to them.

True but if their only counter-attacking their not winning the victories you desire. Not to mention it going against both Nazi idealogly and the tactics of the army.



A junior partner is still a partner, even if admittedly they can redirect forces from Overlord here. The UK naval and air forces you mean. Nowhere the same thing, even with L-L. Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

More than enough for the task in hand.



This is also a possibility, but would Stalin give up any offensive in summer and autumn ? Such a prolonged stalemate might cause the armistice to look actual. Anyway, I concede the scenario is a possibility, but will only move the armistice to '44. [/quote]

OTL Hitler didn't attack until July/August. Stalin was prepared to wait until after that so a late Aug/Sept start to the Soviet offensive would be logical. The Germans then have to weather the offensive, without the depth of defences the Soviets have, then launch their counter-attacks. A lot of heavy fighting will follow simply because of the size of the Soviet forces. The Germans may win victories similar to Manstein's in spring 43, although the Soviets will be a lot less overstretched. Not saying they can;t win the battle. However their losses will be heavy as well and they will have little chance to exploit any victory before winter sets in again.


Nonetheless, without Canaris' persuasion, he might have entered the war if the Allies looked like losing. Like Mussolini, he was an opportunist.

Mussolini was a reckless opportunist, seeking to establish an empire and his own granduer. Franco was far more cautious and knew how weak Spain was after the civil war. Both economically and socially.


I would largely agree. Only a little contrary point: such poisoning didn't happen in Korea. But maybe the conditons were different.

Vastly different. Korea was a small country with reason to oppose Chinese forces, especially in the south. Many Chinese would view US involvement in a civil war as a gross intrusion. Since this would involve supporting a regime that was largely based around business and landlords and treated much of the population pretty poorly it is socially dynamite.

Ok, then hearts and minds, a lot of training and supplies for the KMT forces. Maybe a lot of bombings of Communist strongholds. Little ground forces.

That would be the way.


True in the scenario that we discussing, when total German victory isn't much likely. OTOH, if it looked the Russians were really losing (Germans on the Volga), why shouldn't they make a land-grab in Eastern Siberia. There won't be nowhere near enough Soviet forces to defend it, and Japanese had lot of ground forces in Manchuria.

By the time the Germans get anywhere near there the Japanese are looking at the US forces threatening to land in their homeland. Their also significantly short of ships, a/c, fuel etc.

They still very much wanted Eastern Siberia for their own reasons.

they wanted but the entire southern operations were operated very much on a shoestring as they were so heavily tied up in China. Once they headed south, even before things started going seriously pear-shaped for them, they knew they had nothing spare for adventures in Siberia. Only a total Russian collapse with the withdrawal of virtually all forces might have made such a gamble worthwhile. Despite their desires for revenge for the defeats in Mongolia there was a reason why they tried to maintain very good relations with Moscow after 41.



So in the end, we disagree over an year and some. Since I see the Germans being able to force the Brest-Litovsk deal in '44 at worst, and possibly the Soviets being disheartned enough to accept it in late '43.

Probably more than a year. If things went seriously pear shaped in 43 for the Russians then 44 might see what's left of the German forces break them enough to force a peace deal. Even then capturing Moscow or the lower Volga is still a huge operation, almost certainly beyond their capacity.



The crusade was the war goal of Churchill.

Churchill was actually more anti-Communist for most of his career. He successfully predicted the threat posed by Hitler and the disaster that would result from not stamping on him quickly enough. For all that he was generally a idiot [Winnie that is] that was one thing he got right.

Once Britain entered the conflict the country was pretty much united over the need to remove the Nazi threat. Churchill was committed to their defeat but he was only one of many once the war started. Britain is just to close to allow such a regime to control all of Europe and expect to survive itself.

I'm still thoroughly and honestly persuaded that far better results can be acheived with a clevaer "cold war" strategy of underminding the Nazi Empire with ideological infiltration, military containment, economic and technological competition, which would target the real soft point of the Nazi Empire, its economic mismangement and political ham-handedeness, rather than with renewal or continuation of the endless "hot war".

The USA would also be more willing to help with the former strategy, opening up markets without bloodshed.

How would you open up such closed markets? The Nazis would be willing to trade with people who could supply the food and raw material exports they could use, which makes them better trade partners than the US for much of Latin America. However they will be even more protectionist than America when it comes to industrial goods. Also, unlike the Soviets, they don't reject private initiative. As such there is the interest in providing commerical goods for their own citizens, giving the basis for compertition in 3rs markets with the US. While also allowing more flexibility in developing new technquics and equipment. In the longer term this will be crippled by both the high death tools and heavy military spending and possibly even more so the destruction of German education. However that will take a generation to take effect and a change in policy after Hitler could alter that.




Unless the Nazi Empire would get enough internal trouble that it doesn't look like an appealing model. The USSR didn't for Finland.

It might appear to some pretty reactionary elements, especially the idea of a master race brutally ruling subject peoples. Could be an attraction for many in exploiting the empire in a similar method to the Germans in Europe, although I hope even the most extreme hard liner would go that far.:eek:


Heretic. The British Empire belongs to its rightful inheritors. :D:cool:
We must build Oceania... err, Freedonia. :p

Damned tax-dodgers will steal anything that isn't nailed down!:p



Not sure about this. He planned a victory against URSS and UK/France by the mid-40s, and a confrontation with the USA in the 1980s, in his masterplan where he assumed everything turned up right.

Where was that then? Nazi plans were so irratic and contradictory that he probably said that and many other things. However he was obcessed with his own importance and believed he was the best leader. By the mid-40s he was sick and knew it so he wanted to do everything as quickly as possible.


The man was really nuts. :rolleyes:

On that we totally agree.


Not in a crippling sense, but there will still be all that lovely Eastern insurgency, and economic mismanagement, and military overextension...

But your willing to give them a few decades to kill their opponents and regain their strength.



Not after the war was over, and anti-communism took wing again.

Wasn't the entire basis of MacCarthyism the fear of the hordes of pro-Soviet sympathisers and agents.:confused:

Beacuse they are outside of Western Europe, sure. Not that we chicken Western Europeans have ever been of much help in scaring away Ivan :rolleyes:

Something like 85% of the ground combat strength and 60-70% of the a/c committed to NATO in Europe came from the European powers. Also before its decline Britain, later other powers, made a substantial naval commitment as well. France and Britain both provided a nuclear force that greatly complicated the situation for the Soviets in any adventure in Europe.

Apparently, indeed. The Nazi Empire has feets of clay just like the Soviet one. Americans have just help it to self-destruct, then they can swoop in, capture the hearts and minds of everyone with their uberpowerful cultural hegemony, and pick the pieces. It worked nicely with the Soviet Empire, it would work nicely with the Nazi Empire. No need to turn Europe into a radioactive wastreland to accelerate its eventual demise by a decade or two. In twenty years at most, the Nazi Empire will be on its knees from its own internal problems.

Are the Americans willing to help it self-destruct? Against the Soviets they maintained a constant pressure that would be far more difficult in the scenario you propose. Few developed allies to do the brunt of the grunt work, or supply technology or economic assistance. Instead you have the rich resources of western Europe on the opposite side. That means that America will have to provide virtually all the ground forces in any conflict it faces. Not to mention its going to be vastly easier for a German empire to challenge US naval superiority and far more difficult to try and deny them access to the oceans.

Steve
 
But the rich resources of western Europe didn't amount too much after the war, and it was America that rebuilt western Europe. The Germans have neither the money nor the will to be rebuilding all the countries they have conquered when they'll primarily need to rebuild themselves. I don't see Europe recovering until at least the 60's maybe more.
 
Roosevelt may well die earler than OTL (as he may, from the terrible stess of seeing his anti-Nazi agenda totally wiped out), if he does, Republicans will win the 1944 election. Neither Truman nor Dewey will be as fanatically anti-Nazi as the late Roosevelt.

It depends a lot of who the candidates in '44 are. Dewey was the '44 nominee IOTL (and was Wilkie's running-mate in 1940, I believe), so probably still would be, but its unlikely either Truman or Wallace would be the Democratic nominee in 1944. Since Dewey lost the post-war '48 election, which he was thought certain to win, I doubt he'd win any mid-war '44 election (sans Roosevelt, of course). But again, who is going to be the Democratic nominee in 1944? That's the key.
 
Hitler declaring war on a military ally is a bit unrealistic.

Which is why I suggested Hitler's dying of a heart attack in the summer of '41, and Hermann Goerring making the decision. Goerring was a wily bastard, and since declaring war on Japan could have been a very smart move, he might well have considered it.
 
They can still easily dealt with the Nazi Empire the same way they OTL dealt successfully with the Sino-Soviet Communist Empire. At the end of ATL WWII, they will control a huge sphere of influence of their own: East Asia, SouthEast Asia, South America, and the ex-British Empire. They can wait, build up their strength on the economic, technological, and military planes, and wage a gradual cultural subversion of the Nazi Empire, while they outcompete them economically and force them to bleed themselves militarly.

These days, its become very fashionable to assume the U.S. would have been able to outcompete anybody, but outcompeting the Soviet Union was one thing. Germay's economy was outcompeting ours, by scale, quite handily in the mid-1930s. Its not obvious that America would have successfully rocketed ahead of a victorious Nazi Germany in the economic sphere, the way we did to those sorry-assed Bolshevists. Hell, we were way, WAY ahead of the Soviets for the entire post-war period, and didn't even fully realize it until the mid-to-late 1980s. Would we have been able to leapfrog way, WAY ahead of a Germany that basically included all of mainland Europe, the Middle East, and north Africa (and just maybe everything north of the Limpopo ie., nearly all of Africa), plus much of the former Soviet Union? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Also, I should think India would be more inclined to go with Germany than with the USA, post-war. Remember Sub-Chandra Boas, and that crowd? Boas is a major natonal hero in India today, second only to Ghandi. And he spent much of the war in Germany, doing everything he could to help the Axis (much of southern France was occupied by Boas' Indian National Army soldiers, although they surrendered to the Canadians without putting up much of a fight, rather wisely I'd say).

there's no reason why they can't do the same winning strategy with the Nazi Empire.

Actually, there's a very big reason: The Germans weren't saddled with Communism. Say what you will about its moral ramifications, but National Socialism worked, in a way that Bolshevism could never manage.
 
At the time of Pearl Harbor the American Public had grown to admire the Soviets because of their fortitude in fighting the Nazis, especially since at the start of the German invasion most people thought that the Soviets would only last a few weeks. Polls in November of 1941 showed that about 73 percent of the American people desired a Soviet Victory. Lend Lease was not a significant factor in the survival of the Soviet Union in 1941. About a tenth of one percent of all lend lease shipments went to the Soviet Union.

In otle Stalin found out from his spies that the Japanese were going to attack southward rather then attack the Soviet Union. Because he had this information he moved significant forces to Europe to fight the Nazis. Since in this atl the Japanese will have an even harder time fighting the U.S., then Stalin might be able to move even more of his forces to Europe to fight the Germans to make up less support from the West.

The fronts in Italy and North Africa were not equal to the Eastern Front. During the summer of 1943 three quarters of all German forces took part in the summer campaign against the Soviet Union.

As for the Soviets trying to impose Communism on all of Europe, they didn't try that in Austria or Finland otl. At worst the Soviets will only be able to drive the Germans back to their prewar boundaries.
 
Top