Hitler Dies 1939, no war. Modern day....

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

So Hitler dies in 1939, assassination at a rally. Rudolph Hess is the deputy reichsführer, but no one trusts the man to be in charge of the party, let alone the nation. Though Göring is the most likely successor, there is infighting in the party over who takes control. Hitler's personality is the only thing that kept the different factions in the party together, and the Reich is not particularly stable. As a result, the government collapses and as Germany is still technically a republic, new elections are held. The military forces the Nazi party to comply, as they are not personally beholden to any one person anymore. They also force the party to back off of vote tampering and as no one is impressed with the Nazis after the public fighting for control of the party, they have lost the public's respect. The SPD wins a majority and is able to form a coalition, relegating the Nazis to minority status.

So, war is avoided, Germany holds onto the Sudeten, Austria, Silesia, and East Prussia while maintaining control over the Czech rump state. The Soviets don't invade and Stalin dies a quiet death.

2009:
The Soviet Union is still around having never suffered so badly during the war. German is signficantly bigger, larger than France and still holds on to central Europe.
What are the economies of the Central and Eastern European states going to look like? Where is the balance of power going to lie?
Germany still
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why no expansion by the Soviets? That violates all the plans the Soviets had in place by 1940.

It is remarkably unlikely that, without the satellites it acquired in 1945 that the USSR would have survived to the current day.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The SPD wins a majority and is able to form a coalition, relegating the Nazis to minority status.

Actually the CDU is rather more likely to win the first post-Nazi elections, provided the old Zentrum goes as interconfessional as IOTL. It won them after right-wing dictatorship had been leagues more destructive to Germany than IOTL, it does not seem likely they fare worse ITTL. Mayhap the CDU stays a catholic club (but it would have more votes from Austrian and Sudetenland areas...) Anyway, it is a nitpicking quibble. ;)

So, war is avoided, Germany holds onto the Sudeten, Austria, Silesia, and East Prussia while maintaining control over the Czech rump state.

Special autonomy and linguistic rights for Czech lander within the Bundesrepublik ? Defense/economic confederation betwen Germany and Czechia ?

The Soviets don't invade and Stalin dies a quiet death.

Not even an attempt to invade Manchuria ? That's a remarkably quiet Stalin.

The Soviet Union is still around having never suffered so badly during the war.

In the sense that Communism collapsed, but post-Soviet government was able to hold on the multinational Empire, or that the USSR went the OTL Chinese reform path ? I see no other possibilities of survival, Soviet command economy AND the Empire cannot survive together up to 2009.

What are the economies of the Central and Eastern European states going to look like?

I assume that without Hitler, Mussolini never had the nerve to go on expansionistic rampages, too. The regime eventually collapses after his death much like OTL Spain. Anyway, Germany is the industrial and financial powerhouse of the continent, having displaced Britain from the top two generations ago. Italy and Hungary have only strenghtened political and economic ties with Germany over time and have industrialized in parallel, being the two main junior partners to the German giant. Yugoslavia eventually collapsed, and Slovenia and Croatia joined the German block with Slovakia (and the Baltic countries, if they managed to avoid Soviet expansionism), and go a significant economic boost. Romania may or may not have joined it, too, depending on how tensions with Hungary with Transylvania evolved over time. It is difficult to see how irredentist tensions over Transylvania would have settled without a regional war, and its outcome is anyone's guess. Likewise, even if you remove the Nazis, a German-Polish regional war was still in the cards as long as Danzig and some sort of territorial continuity between Pomerania and East Prussia are not returned to Germany. If that problem was settled, Poland too may join the German block and benefit accordingly. if they do not, Romania and Poland remain relative backwaters.

Where is the balance of power going to lie?

Global or European ?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
???

Can you elaborate?

Stalin intended to invade what became the Warsaw Pact as part of an overall plan to expand the World Soviet. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contained the seeds of this desire, with the partition of Central Europe between Germany and USSR spheres of influence.

Stalin intended for the Pact to give him time to rebuild his military before moving further to the West with the eventual goal of bringing all of Europe into the Communist system. Bringing Germany into the Soviet fold was critical in the effort to secure Europe.

It is really easy to forget that, before Hitler and his appetites made Germany the obvious danger in Eurasia, the expansionist everyone feared was the Reds, and with good reason. Pre-WW II the Commies really DID want to conquer the world. COMINTERN really did exist outside of the minds of a few right-wingers, and it was directly funded by Moscow.

The excesses of the Red hunters in post WW II American, and they were excesses that may well have been as bad, if not worse than what was supposedly avoided by them, and other countries have tended to block the fact that there really were monsters under the bed. There really were Kim Philbys running around, and there was an aggressive communist state happy to benefit from them.

Stalin was not a nice guy. His minions were, if anything, worse.
 
t is really easy to forget that, before Hitler and his appetites made Germany the obvious danger in Eurasia, the expansionist everyone feared was the Reds, and with good reason. Pre-WW II the Commies really DID want to conquer the world. COMINTERN really did exist outside of the minds of a few right-wingers, and it was directly funded by Moscow.

I agree with you that everybody feared the USSR, but I don't see many signs of Soviet aggression. Instead, the USSR entered the League of Nations, bent over backwards at Munich to offer to aid the Allies against Germany, tried to create a collective security agreement for the Pacific, and desperately tried to get a Franco-Soviet alliance.

The MR pact isn't the sign of a Soviet attempt to dominate Eurasia; it illustrated that the Soviets had utterly given up on trying to deal with the Allies, who had shown their willingness to sell anybody down the river to preserve peace in their time.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I agree with you that everybody feared the USSR, but I don't see many signs of Soviet aggression. Instead, the USSR entered the League of Nations, bent over backwards at Munich to offer to aid the Allies against Germany, tried to create a collective security agreement for the Pacific, and desperately tried to get a Franco-Soviet alliance.

The MR pact isn't the sign of a Soviet attempt to dominate Eurasia; it illustrated that the Soviets had utterly given up on trying to deal with the Allies, who had shown their willingness to sell anybody down the river to preserve peace in their time.


I respectfully disagree. The secret protocols alone indicate that the USSR was interested in more than a simple trade pact.

The Soviet records are increasingly available in translated format. They are fairly clear regarding Moscow's intentions.
 
The Soviet records are increasingly available in translated format. They are fairly clear regarding Moscow's intentions.

Hrmm. Can you think of any recent works on this? I'm interested, and the last time we had a discussion like this you turned out to be right.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hrmm. Can you think of any recent works on this? I'm interested, and the last time we had a discussion like this you turned out to be right.


Not off the top of my head. There was a fairly recent bio done on Stalin that has a lot of the information as part of the footnotes. I have it in a stack somewhere around here, I'll see if I can find it without causing an avalanche.
 

Deleted member 1487

Everything I have read about Stalin describes the exact opposite about him. He was interested in maintaining power, not risking his kingdom on conquest. The rise of Hitler to power changed everything, because he was willing to conduct war to achieve his foreign policy goals. Stalin knew that Russia would be attacked, because Hitler's entire mantra was about hating communists and Slavs. His book basically detailed the destruction of Stalin's empire and he was frantically trying to prepare to defend himself. The deals he cut were to buy time, just as appeasement was for the Western Allies.
Yes, he intended to invade Europe after Hitler got bogged down fighting in France, but instead he was caught flat-footed when the Germans mastered the continent within 2 months.

Without Hitler and the war, I don't see why Stalin would try to invade and risk uniting the West against him, the one single thing that he most feared. Besides, Stalin was the guy who killed the doctrine of constant struggle to world revolution.

Also, I didn't say that there wouldn't be war in Asia, just not a European war. The Soviets probably would move against Japan eventually, especially without having to worry about the Germans.

Also, why would the Soviets collapse without the massive damage inflicted on their country and people in WW2? They were forced into a massive arms race that killed them, which I don't see the Germans or the Japanese capable of entering, not at least until much later. And when that happens there will be plenty of competing powers in the game. That means if anyone makes a move on the other, than someone else jumps in to take advantage. I would like to see where the US ends up in the game, especially if the Soviets start interfering in China. Does the US get involved in propping up Chiang Kai Shek without WW2 and the cost incurred there?

About Poland and Germany, I do see some less radical regime working out transit rights and negotiating something with the free state of Danzig. Especially if there is no war.

What happens to the colonial powers when India and the others demand freedom? Without the massive costs incurred in the OTL war, the colonial wars might be quite brutal. Germany and Poland, not to mention the Balkans stay completely capitalist, so Europe should have a higher standard of living than OTL, but the US might never reach the economic heights that it did post war. Could this mean a more competetive US economy in 2009, especially if it doesn't overreach and become the center of the world's economic system? No military-industrial complex? Progressive Republicans?!
 
I respectfully disagree. The secret protocols alone indicate that the USSR was interested in more than a simple trade pact.

The Soviet records are increasingly available in translated format. They are fairly clear regarding Moscow's intentions.

Acknowledging that Stalin was a completely rancid human being, and he probably plotted world conquest with his teddy bear at nights, I'm not so sure he could cash the cheques he wanted to write.

I could see a real possibility of Stalin overrunning the Baltic Republics of Latvia and Estonia. They hadn't been independent very long, they were tiny, their military and strategic position was hopeless, and there was no way to support them.

Lithuania he might try for. But that country borders both Poland and the German rump. The only route to it is through Latvia (unless he wants to invade Polish territory along the way). I'm not sure that either country would be happy with that. So that might be a bit too risky.

But would Stalin's campaign against Finland have turned out any better in this new Timeline than in the old one? I can't see that happening. Odds are, it wouldn't even go that well. Finland in our timeline was pretty much isolated and the Germans were holding their hands watching. Would the Germans be more inclined to support Finland with supplies and possibly troops, in the event of an expansionist Soviet War? With German concurrence, would France and Britain have rendered more aid?

As I recall the Soviet Union in the thirties, they were economically strapped, their recurring five year industrialisation plans kept imploding on them, and Stalin was busy relentlessly purging the officer corps and military to ensure that no one was going to replace him. The Bylorussians, Ukrainians and others hated the communists passionately and were on the verge of uprising. When the Germans rolled in, they were initially greeted as liberators in our timeline.

So.... what's Stalin going to do?

Maybe he takes Latvia and Estonia. That's fairly likely.

Maybe he takes Lithuania. But taking Lithuania might well be a Czechoslovakian-type line. If nothing else, its going to creep out just about every other major power.

Then what: Finland? The Finnish campaign goes no better, and likely goes worse. Assuming that the Finnish invasion is not crossing a Poland-type line.

Then what: In Europe, as I see it, he's only got two options - Poland and Romania.

Invading Poland potentially brings Germany into war. I can't see the post-Nazi germans tolerating a large expansionist Soviet state on their borders, particularly with their territory in Prussia divided. The Germans had spent four years fighting a war on the Eastern front, just twenty years before. I can't imagine they want Russia close.

If the Soviets invade Poland, what do the other powers do? In our timeline, they eventually responded to repeated German aggression by declaring war. My guess is that in this timeline, they'd eventually respond to repeated Soviet aggression by declaring war and lining up with the Germans.

In which case, we've got minimum, Germany, France, England going up against the Soviet, no two front war, no german blockade, no aid to the USSR, and likely when Soviet territories get overrun, the occupiers are treated as liberators because they are liberators. I don't think that the Soviet Union would do nearly as well.

So it seems unlikely that Stalin would invade Poland.

Romania? Possibly. But Poland is very invasion worthy geographically. Open country. Romania's a geographical mess, tough hill country, pretty rough to get through. So depending on Romanian resistance, it could be the Finland mess all over again. Romania doesn't have a border with Germany, but it does border on Hungary which is in the German sphere. And it does threaten the Balkans, which the British and Italians won't like.
So it may be back to square one, with World War Stalin, and the USSR coming out on the pointy end.

So, Stalin being a vicious thug, but not megalomaniacally stupid, probably wouldn't invade Romania.

Which leaves... what? Turkey? Next please. Persia? Well, that'll be a tough sell, and it'll guarantee a British response. Afghanistan? Flash forward seventy years to see how that turned out. Mongolia? They already own it. China? Possibly the only thing that could get the Chinese to throw in with the Japanese would be a Soviet Invasion - land wars in Asia, never a good idea.

Japan and Manchuria? Possible. But that's getting pretty far afield.

I dunno. Stalin was an opportunist with many malevolent intentions. But I can't see Soviet Expansionism taking place in the absence of Hitler's wars.

At best, we might see some form of minor meddling through funding communist parties and movements all over the world. But they did that in this timeline and it never really amounted to much.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I find nothing whatsoever in Stalin's policies, personality or whatever that points to him showing any restraint doing whatever gave the best opportunities. The absence of Soviet aggression against other major powers was a result of a remarkably realistic assessment of the capacity of the Soviet Union to wage war.

He knew very well that the Soviet Union was in a weak position when he took over, hence the massive industrialization plans, with 1st priority on heavy industry supporting arms production. Next came his distrust of his own and the purges and he apparently knew very well that the Red Army by 1941 wasn’t ready for major war. But as soon as the industrialization was well under way and the inner lines under control a huge expansion plan for the Red Army was initiated, which by mid 1942 would have resulted in 500+ well equipped Divisions, incl. staff officers etc.

With such a force opportunities would not just show up in minor neighbor states, but just about anywhere on the Euro-Asiatic continent.
The interesting question is that in this ATL there is no blitzkrieg success in 1939-40, and the Red Army doctrine will thus remain in the post Spanish Civil War mode emphasizing the infantry supported by massive artillery and close support by small groups of tanks. That in no way exclude offensive capacity, but points to a drawn out attritional war, rather than a quick decisive rolling over all of Europe, which blitzkrieg could have given hopes for. Seen from OTL pre-Blitzkrieg I think Stalin had hoped for the Germans, French and British one more time bleeding each other pale, after which he could just kick in the door, and the whole house would come down.

With the German, French and British houses standing firmly it will be far from the dream situation for Stalin, but he probably can stay on war footing for much longer than the western powers. So wait until they lower their guards, and then continue slicing the neighbor sausages. If you have a 500+ Division Army it is likely they don’t dare stop you. In many ways it will be a continuation of Hitler’s expansionist gamble in the late 30s, Stalin will just not be bluffing about his strength.

Although this might involve a couple of Munichs I think, or at least hope, that a line sooner or later is drawn in the sand. But it might be quite ugly, as Stalin will have a lot of very naïve supporters among western intellectuals, trade unions etc, as well as outright traitors in the same circles.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
In OTL the assasination attempt at a rally was in November 1939. By that time the UK and France had declared war. Poland had been invaded and partitioned.

A cautious Nazi leader might decide to stick to the gains already made and see how well he could cope with being Stalin's biggest trading partner.

I suspect that some further aggression would follow and WW2, thought perhaps without the actual holocaust, would happen rather as in OTL.

Had Hitler been killed earlier things are different. Before August- no Nazi Soviet pact and no invasion of Poland.

Before March maybe the new leader actually sticks to the Munich agreement and Czecholsolvakia survives in its limited form
 
In which case, we've got minimum, Germany, France, England going up against the Soviet, no two front war, no german blockade, no aid to the USSR, and likely when Soviet territories get overrun, the occupiers are treated as liberators because they are liberators. I don't think that the Soviet Union would do nearly as well.

Minor nitpick: They were treated as liberators in the West Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Poland. They were not treated as liberators in traditional Soviet territory, for the most peart. There were collaboraters in the Ukraine, of course, and the Caucasus, but getting to the Caucasus is a whole nother kettle of fish.
At best, we might see some form of minor meddling through funding communist parties and movements all over the world. But they did that in this timeline and it never really amounted to much.

The People's Republic of China would disagree with you. If Stalin expands anywhere, it will be in East Asia.
 
Minor nitpick: They were treated as liberators in the West Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Poland. They were not treated as liberators in traditional Soviet territory, for the most peart. There were collaboraters in the Ukraine, of course, and the Caucasus, but getting to the Caucasus is a whole nother kettle of fish.

You're correct there.


The People's Republic of China would disagree with you. If Stalin expands anywhere, it will be in East Asia.
China is a bit of a special case. For one thing, the country was a basket case.

For another, it appears that the Soviet Comintern supported both sides of the civil war. Because the Kuomintang didn't get much support from western nations in the 20's, the Soviet Union helped to organize the KMT on Communist lines.

Thereafter when civil war breaks out in 1927, the place is a mess. You have internal civil wars within the KMT between right and left. You have civil wars between the Right wing KMT and the Communists and Left KMT. Wars and alliances between the KMT and Warlords, and then to top it all off, you have the Japanese invasion.

The extent of Soviet influence or control over Mao's Communists at any particular point is debateable. I don't know that there was significant aid. As late as 1945, the Russians were cutting deals with the KMT to hand Manchuria over to them, rather than to Mao's forces.

But taking a quick look through the Chinese Civil war, I agree with you that if Stalin had any opportunity to act aggressively anywhere, its probably East Asia.
 
The idea of Stalin having 500 well-equipped divisions by 1942 is ASB

They had, what, around 200 mainly poorly equipped ones in 1941. Just how are they going to bring these up to spec AND double the number of then in one year!!??

It would take much longer. During which time, Europe, seeing this, would be increasing their strength.

Stalins best long term goal is to keep a big army (not 500 divisions, I doubt they could afford the cost in the long run), while going for subversion, and nibbling away. At least in europe. Probably taking advantage of any opportunities that come his way, then sitting tight and consolodating for a while. Rinse and repeat.

But I cant see it being any more (at most!) that the eastern block OTL. By that point, germany, Italy, France and the Uk would be having fits over the expansion (and possible the USA too, depending on where Stalin has been meddling). Those 4 countries (without a WW2) can take Russia's army (your looking at around 300 divisions mobilised, with a much stronger economic base)
 

Deleted member 1487

There is no way in hell that Europe would allow for Soviet aggression without WW2. The Communists were the big boggy man of all other nations, so to see them attack or attempt to occupy even the Baltic states is a massive no-no. Going after Poland or Romania and the multi-prong invasion starts.
Same goes for just about anyone. If Germany starts something the West steps in, if the Soviets attack any one a united Europe goes after them. The East is likely to be the only safe place for expansion for the Soviet empire. Of course Britain is terrified of Russia expansion into Central Asia, so maybe the Great Game begins anew
 
I just don't see room for Expansion into central Asia. The only available targets are Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey, neither of them look all that inviting or cost effective. Well, maybe Iran would be cost effective, but it would be hard to get away with.

What say you to the prospect of the USSR getting down and dirty in a far East War? Either in China or with Japan?
 

Deleted member 1487

I just don't see room for Expansion into central Asia. The only available targets are Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey, neither of them look all that inviting or cost effective. Well, maybe Iran would be cost effective, but it would be hard to get away with.

What say you to the prospect of the USSR getting down and dirty in a far East War? Either in China or with Japan?


China through the ChiComs. Manchuko, and the Japanese. I don't think anyone would shed a tear for the Japanese. Korea and Manchuria would make good communists, just like OTL! :rolleyes:
Trouble can be had there, especially if they are unencumbered in the West. I doubt much would be going on in Afghanistan, but one never knows. There really isn't much profit to be had in those mountains, full of fanatic fighters. I mean, it can be a way station to India which can then be materially supported to screw with the British.

There are many options, but this thread is going off track.


I meant to ask about the economic status of the world, but specifically where the European states would be by 2009.
 
Top