alternatehistory.com

What if Nazi Germany started world war two, occupied France and Poland, but did not initiate Barbarossa?

The first question to ask is how do we get there. What circumstances could stop Hitler from invading the USSR after it had occupied France? (see attached poll)

If we accept it is plausible for Barbarossa to be postponed indefinitely, might we see a massive redistribution of the human costs of the war, given likely military technology in the 1940s, German capabilities versus its western enemies, and Nazi racial ideology?

For example, the Holocaust occuring would be pretty certain, but it would stop at the border of the USSR, leaving out many victims gassed and many more shot. Massive killings and malign neglect of Soviet citizens, by Germans, would be prevented.

Massive military casualties on the eastern front would be prevented for as long as the USSR stays neutral, as would atrocities committed, by Soviets, against Europeans west of the Soviet Union.

On the other side of the ledger, for much of the early-to-mid 40s, the Germans would have a fairly impregnable position against successful allied invasion. It needs a large army, to guard its coasts and eastern frontier, but the relative "unemployment" of the army away from active combat fronts relieves alot of military pressure and frees up the Nazi hierarchy for tasks other than defense.

As a result, could we see the Germans implement far more rapid plans of population transfer, slavery, sterilization of conquered Slavic and settlement of ethnic Germans in the Slavic territories of Poland and Czechoslovakia that Germany did occupy? A significant reshaping of European demographics was part of Nazi plans, and much population transfer, slave labor and massacre was inflicted, but the scale during OTL's war was limited compared to the plans, possibly mainly because of urgent wartime pressures that would not exist without an active Soviet front. In OTL a few million Poles were displaced, but the postwar ethnic cleansing of East European Germans in just the first couple years after the war shows that the Germans did far less than what was physically possible in terms of shifting demographic boundaries in Europe (see Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Sudetenland). In OTL, the Czechs who were relatively non-resistant compared to Poles and Yugoslavs, got off about as lightly (which wasn't light) as western European occupied peoples. In an ATL with more military security, might the Nazis have done more to try to Germanize Bohemia and Moravia?

Additionally, as we've discussed in other threads, military losses of western invaders (if they dared) or aircrews would be massive compared to OTL.

But then, the most likely way for the war to end would be by use of many atomic bombs in the mid-late 1940s. Depending on the the high commands security against bombing and internal coup, the western allies could be required to use 10s of atomic bombs on German cities and facilities before it compels a surrender or can be used in a way that forces a breach in coastal defenses that the allies could exploit (a variable factor here would be how quickly atomic bludgeoning makes the Soviet Union regard an invasion of Europe as a decent opportunity).

So, Soviet peoples come off better, but end result for Germans, Poles, Czechs (and who knows, maybe French), and Anglo-Americans ends up much worse.
Top