Nazi Victory in the East

I'm fairly sure I wrote a 800,000 view T/L that discusses this.


:p

A TL which was excellent but I think was a bit *too* optimistic. The world is fortunate the USSR did not fall apart at the seams in 1941, the resulting Nazi Empire would have been an economic disaster zone with a self-contradictory foundation built on the economic equivalent of Timecube and a political basis as enduring as Zhang Xianzhong's. The surviving USSR was a Very Bad ThingTM but Nazism was the kind of thing that makes that Very Bad ThingTM the better alternative. :eek:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
A TL which was excellent but I think was a bit *too* optimistic. The world is fortunate the USSR did not fall apart at the seams in 1941, the resulting Nazi Empire would have been an economic disaster zone with a self-contradictory foundation built on the economic equivalent of Timecube and a political basis as enduring as Zhang Xianzhong's. The surviving USSR was a Very Bad ThingTM but Nazism was the kind of thing that makes that Very Bad ThingTM the better alternative. :eek:

Well, that is the FIRST time I've heard it called optimistic. :D
 
When I was young and dinosaur's roamed the Earth...

Why is it wrong to say "SU", which is simply an abbreviation for "Soviet Union"? People here abbreviate stuff all the time. OTL, TTL, ASB, WAllies, DEI, SSJW, the like.

This has me feeling very old.

The abbreviation use in the west was USSR, for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviet equivalent was CCCP, which stood for the same thing in Russian.
 
Finland would probably receive all of Soviet Karelia and perhaps all of the Kola Penninsula and surrounding land.

Finland wanted essentially what it had occupied by 1942 IOTL plus Kola. There was an official study written about this during the Continuation War, basing the claim on the extent of "ancestral Finnic homelands". The ensuing "Three Istmus Line" was considered as most defensible (and this very idea betrays how Finnish leaders thought about the chances of destroying the USSR/Russia as an entity). Kola, even if not entirely ur-historically Finnic, holds huge mineral resources. And that is why Hitler was unsure about wanting to give it to the Finns.

Personally I believe in the end the Nazis would have allowed Finns to administer the peninsula, in exchange for mining rights. There is nothing beyond the metals and minerals in the area that the Reich doesn't already have/get from somewhere else.

It is also possible the Nazis would want to hoist additional administrative/occupational duties to the Finns, extending the areas attached (permanently or temporarily) to this "Greater Finland" beyond what Helsinki demands. The Reich will have its hands full in trying to keep order in what it has gobbled up and manpower is becoming short by the time the wildernesses of northwestern Russia are being considered.
 
This has me feeling very old.

The abbreviation use in the west was USSR, for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviet equivalent was CCCP, which stood for the same thing in Russian.

It doesn't matter, and I know full well that "USSR" is the the abbreviation of the full and correct name. But it is not wrong to call that country the "Soviet Union", so what's wrong with abbreviating it? We abbreviate stuff all the time.
 
Killing off millions of Slavs, along with all the others they kill like Jews, Gypsies, and many others would eventually set them up for destruction because no country could trust them.
 
It doesn't matter, and I know full well that "USSR" is the the abbreviation of the full and correct name. But it is not wrong to call that country the "Soviet Union", so what's wrong with abbreviating it? We abbreviate stuff all the time.

I think the first poster was just teasing because USSR is a more common abbreviation. Anyway, SU is the country code for the Soviet Union according to ISO-3166 so you're also right, don't worry. :) Even if it was an innovation of yours it was easy to understand from context.
TTIHIWPJMUATAI!
(The thing I hate is when people just make up abbreviations that are incomprehensible!)
 
Depends what we mean by a Nazi German victory. Had Moscow fallen in 1941 or Operatiob Blau not gone so badly wrong then somewhere easto of Moscow in 1941 (assumes a Soviet collapse or something along the Novembe 1942 front priir to Operation Uranus. Had the Germans done better at Kursk and during the rest of the summer 1943 campaign and Stalin sought a seperate peace then somewhere between the Brest Litovsk line and the front line in July 1943 depending on the extent of a German military victory and its political impact in the Soviet Union.

After Kursk any chance of victory eas gone. The best that could have been achieved then would be to bleed the Soviets to a standstill and/or for D Day to fail catastrophically. This would require Hitler to give complete freedom to his general, retain von Manstein and for Hube not to get on the plane which crashed, killing him. Even then the chances of fighting the Red Army was slim as the Wehrmacht was being bled white and could well have collapsed first anyway. However, had Manstein been in command in summer 1943 then maybe the destruction of AArmy Group Centre (Operation Bagration) might have been avoided, This in turn resulted in he collapseof Roumania as the panzer divisions deployed ther in anticipation of a renewed Soviet offensive in the south had to be rushed north to stabalize the Army Group Centre sector. Which they did for a time but then the collapse of Roumania and Army Group Soth destabilizrd the front gain.

Had the Germans defeated the Sovie offensive of summer 1944 and held the allies to a bloody draw in Normandy/France then perhaps a compromise peace allowing Germany to keep the Eastern borders of 1941 but withdraw from France, Italy and the Balkans. Maybe an independent Poland might have been the price of a final peace but Germany still keeps Austria and Czechoslovakia
 
Top