No Operation Barbarossa is a negotiated peace with the Western allies possible

[ChadMachine999]

Completely denuding their eastern border with both their greatest ideological foe and with the nation they are dependent upon for material goods for their economy and sending it across the poor infrastructure of the Middle East? That doesn't seem like a sound strategic decision.

Guarding there Eastern boarder doesn’t require nearly as much men as Operation Barbarossa required, also they can have Romania do most of the boarder Guarding. Also they won’t need to use all there Industry resupplying equipment they lost to the Soviets to the East. Again Sending there forces South would’ve allowed them control of the Mediterranean, and the ability to send the British Empire up in flames. The ruth is that theUK alone was no match for Germany. Britain had less Industry and less men than Germany, and the US would take over a year to properly mobilize there forces and send them to Europe, which by that time would be too late.

 

[fasquardon]

By Spring of 1942 Germans would launch an offensive into Jordan, Syria and Iraq capturing all three.

Will they be carrying their logistic burden on magic and rainbows? Sorry, Germany needs to build the trucks and the ships to pull this off, defend the supply lines and get the oil.

Sure without Barbarossa, they can buy Soviet oil, but they need to pay for that with industrial goods while cranking out tankers, trucks, cargo aircraft, warships, warplanes, producing explosives for shells, infantry weapons etc.

Britain already has the capability to fight Germany in the middle east, the Germans have to BUILD the tools to fight so far from their bases. It's possible with enough time but there is no way Germany will ever have enough time with America as an enemy.

And certainly not with Stalin sitting there as an enemy-in-waiting and with Britain not being completely incompetent.

Remember, relations between the Soviets and the Germans during the Nazi-Soviet pact period were not friendly they threatened each other, shot at each other, broke the agreement for how they'd divide Eastern Europe and both sides withheld deliveries of goods. Both saw the other as an enemy they would probably need to fight and an ideological opponent. Yes, some Nazis hoped they wouldn't have to fight the Soviets, and Stalin certainly was working to delay a Nazi-Soviet war, but there is zero opportunity for the Nazis and Soviets to magically become buddies like the US and British acted as (and even then, the US made Britain pay for their help - the price may have been very reasonable, but even what may be the closest alliance in WW2 didn't involve in much being given away for free). The Germans will have to buy the Soviets off and keep a rear-guard in Eastern Europe.

Even Winston "We shall fight" Churchill actually conceded that if Germany made a good enough peace offer he would give Germany overlordship over central Europe.

"The issue which the War Cabinet was called upon to settle was difficult enough without getting involved in the discussion of an issue which was quite unreal and was unlikely to arise. If Hitler was prepared to make peace on the terms of restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Central Europe, that was one thing. But it was quite unlikely that he would make any such offer."

So yes, the position that since September 3 1939 the Wallies would accept nothing less than a march through the Reich Chancellery is completely ridiculous.

For Germany, this would mean evacuating land Germans have fought and died for to appease a power that is most remarkable for how well they've lost. There's just no way the Germans would even consider such a peace before it is too late, and Anglo-British forces in Berlin are an inevitability.

There is also the fact that if Germany doesnt declare war on the US (and God help FDR if Germany take steps to actively avoid war with the US) the US will be forced to go for Japan first. Because again, the American public will not tolerate the US waging war on an at peace Germany for the sake of balance of power geopolitics and put Japan latter.

It's highly unlikely that Germany doesn't declare war on the US though. The US was fighting an undeclared naval war against Germany before '41 and US friendship is what makes Britain truly undefeatable (though even without US friendship, the British would still be a hard fight). So declaring war against the US must happen if Britain is to be forced to the peace table.

It's important to understand just how boxed in the Germans were by 1939, and it only gets worse after that. They didn't have the resources to fight more than one enemy at once, but after the fall of France, they have 3 extremely hard to defeat hostile powers which their cuckoo ideology and excessive ambition make hard to make friends with. For a true believer in Nazism, or even Junker-style conservatism, invading the Soviet Union was actually the most rational of the available options.

If for some reason the Germans decide against Barbarossa, they must focus on Britain, and to do that they have a much easier time if they can attack US-flagged shipping. (Plus, Hitler was getting pretty pissed with the game the US was playing and wanted to hurt the US back.) Reason and emotional satisfaction point the same way - as they did in OTL, only in OTL the Germans also picked a fight with the Soviets.

@NoMommsen & @Anchises

It's true that Hitler changed his mind often, but if you look at the war from the perspective of someone who really believes in Nazi ideology and who can't see the future, Hitler was actually a pretty rational guy (honestly, I'd say he was one of the more reasonable guys with power in Germany at that time) and in 1941, the Germans had backed themselves into a very uncomfortable corner. So while Hitler can change his mind all he likes, the situation he faces remains the same unless you invoke another PoD.

For sure the Nazis are dangerous, and things really could have gone worse than OTL. But also I think it's important to recognize that GIGO applies here. Garbage assumptions were going into the brains of these guys, so garbage actions were the output. Extremely damaging garbage actions.

fasquardon

 

[The Red]

Again Sending there forces South would’ve allowed them control of the Mediterranean,

As has been noted, exponentially increasing Axis forces in North Africa isn't really an option. The Axis suffered greatly from a lack of shipping, having only a single decent port, and poor infrastructure in supplying the forces they had. Rommel IOTL was near the end of a 1700 km supply line from Tripoli (similar to the distance between Berlin and Moscow) when he chose to entrench at El Alamain in the Summer of 1942, against all sensible advice that he should withdraw to a position where he could consolidate his forces without being so oversretched. Sending more German forces merely means getting exhausted earlier and losing more men and materiel when the British counterattack.

 

[Anchises]

@NoMommsen & @Anchises

It's true that Hitler changed his mind often, but if you look at the war from the perspective of someone who really believes in Nazi ideology and who can't see the future, Hitler was actually a pretty rational guy (honestly, I'd say he was one of the more reasonable guys with power in Germany at that time) and in 1941, the Germans had backed themselves into a very uncomfortable corner. So while Hitler can change his mind all he likes, the situation he faces remains the same unless you invoke another PoD.

For sure the Nazis are dangerous, and things really could have gone worse than OTL. But also I think it's important to recognize that GIGO applies here. Garbage assumptions were going into the brains of these guys, so garbage actions were the output. Extremely damaging garbage actions.

fasquardon

The problem I see with that is that there is no well-defined "Nazi ideology". Say Hitler is killed by Elser and ITTL for some reason Goebbels, Himmler and Göring are there. IOTL Hitler feared that the RAF would attempt to decapitate the Reich by bombing the Bürgerbräukeller but ITTL he is more confident for some reason.

Marxism-Leninism had a well established foundation at this point. Sure, if Stalin lives a little longer and purges most of OTLs power brokers the Soviet Union would be different, maybe very different but in all likelihood we could still easily classify it as Marxist-Leninist.

If the people we associate with Nazism die National Socialism as an ideology could go anyway.

The whole thing could end up as (relatively) free market, militaristic oligarchy with an optional dose of weird mysticism. This would be if the SS "free market" wing is able to win the succession struggle.

The whole thing could end up as a totalitarian one-party state with a central planned economy. This would be if a Bormann and Todt alliance wins.

The whole thing could end up as a weird kleptocratic and semi-feudalist power grab of the "Alte Kämpfer" and Gauleiter.

The whole "National Revolution" and one-party rule could be quietly shelved. Hitler is praised as the great leader who united Germany and his successors occasionally drop some Nazi sounding lines in their speeches.

The Wehrmacht could rush in and try to establish themselves as the true guardians of National Socialism.

Sure, National Socialism is garbage input and with Hitler at the helm its going to end in disaster. But the situation in 1940 was fairly open and could have gone in a number of ways. Even Hitler is not bound to attack the East in 1941, there were some "legitimate" strategic thoughts that compelled Hitler to do that. They were based on faulty assumption sure but the WAllies also underestimated Soviet strength and resilience. The situation in 1940 is relatively favorable to Germany and even with shit input it could have panned out very differently if one considers how "easy" Hitler could be swayed.

Remove Hitler and some other heads and the "garbage input level" of National Socialism might reach levels that allow different levels of performance.

 

[lionhead]

Exactly because of the latter part of your post ...

Everybody seems to rule out the possibility, that Hitler might 'change' his mind and make destroying defeating GB, perfidious albion, having betrayed his very personal hopes, first objective ... at least for the time being.

But thats just speculation whereas the idea that Hitler was adamant about attacking the USSR is based on proven facts. The British were considdered a nuisance, one who started fighting the Nazis even though they were fellow aryans. They needed to defeat the Empire, the democracy, the capitalism and break them so they would stay quiet. In the east however, the Slavic people didn't only have to be defeated, they had to be eliminated, conquered, destroyed. This was far more important than measuring dicks with the UK, US and France. That could come later, thatwas considderd less important.

This basically. Hitler changed his mind regularly and often. An attack on the Soviet Union is likely to occur in the 1940-42 timeframe and very likely to happen if Germany makes peace with the West.

This isn't a certainty though, there could be a hundred reasons why Hitler decides on a Britain First strategy. He could feel personally insulted by the British oligarchy, that prevents a just peace for the Germans and their Anglo-Saxon brethren. Some of his favorite Generals convince him that the Afrikakorps is the way to go. He deludes himself into thinking: "One more defeat and they have to oust Churchill"

Of course Hitler changed his mind often, about military stuff. But he never changed his mind about who his real enemies were, who he needed to get rid of, who was the thorn in his eye. It wasn't the UK.

The whole trope that only "unconditional surrender and nothing else" was possible after Germany initiated WW2 is wrong in my book. Between the end of Fall Gelb and the failure of Barbarossa there is a big window where the war can develop in a lot of ways. Denying that ignores how dangerous the Nazis where, how much acceptance or even symphathy there was for Fascism and that war is more than a block of industrial statistics in a history book.

I agree. In the case of the west. In the east however, not so much. The whole reason for the war was the east, if they don't attack the USSR, they wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. Of course Hitler could force a peace out the UK, if everything had gone as he had hoped(some things actually did), but it didn't. But even if they did, the USSR was next and sooner rather than later. No, the actual Hitler would have never delayed the attack on the USSR because the west was in the way. No he would not have focussed on the UK and US and forgotten about the USSR for the time being. And, more importantly, once the war against the USSR was started, then there was nothing else left but unconditional surrender, because both Germany and USSR wanted nothing else, and therefor so did the west(because either winning meant bad times ahead for the west).

 

[Catspoke]

I agree. In the case of the west. In the east however, not so much. The whole reason for the war was the east, if they don't attack the USSR, they wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. Of course Hitler could force a peace out the UK, if everything had gone as he had hoped(some things actually did), but it didn't. But even if they did, the USSR was next and sooner rather than later. No, the actual Hitler would have never delayed the attack on the USSR because the west was in the way. No he would not have focussed on the UK and US and forgotten about the USSR for the time being. And, more importantly, once the war against the USSR was started, then there was nothing else left but unconditional surrender, because both Germany and USSR wanted nothing else, and therefor so did the west(because either winning meant bad times ahead for the west).

I think you need a scenario where Germany is doing better against Britain. Hitler thinks I have Britain on the ropes all it will take is one more year and Britain will make peace and I will invade the USSR with a whole Europe coalition in 1942, and Japan and Turkey too.

POD: Uboat torpedo problems are fixed with a different testing regime. British shipping loses are higher and a couple of key warships have been sunk (a side effect is the British Narvik counter attack is called off). German leadership decides a Luftwaffe air campaign against shipping can add their increment and force Britain to make peace.

The results are not as good as hoped but seem promising that if continued through 1941 that they will force Britain to make peace. With the British navy passive to avoid losses and shipping loses high, the British don't defend Crete in May 1941. Tobruk and Malta falls in 1941 and the British are driven off the Libya-Egyptian border.

The shipping situation the Atlantic is critical, the British have to reduce the convoys and heavily defend the fewer number.

Regardless December 7th happens just the same, the USA is in and Hitler feels he can't invade the Soviet Union right now in 1942.

----------------------------------------------------

War continues on: While outnumbered and out resourced by the Americans and British, the Germans are on the defense with occupied lands between them and Germany. They have their radars and air defense and don't have to fight every plane the Allies throw over the continent, they pick and choose, to make the attrition favorable. In this TL the Germans have even more Flak and interceptors available and the Allied bombing campaign has to be less often and against less well defended targets.

 

[XLII]

Ok right.

"Will" was more the German's forte, especially because it was meant to overcome tangible obstacles that couldn't be solved but as you say real life isn't a video game and in a material world the numbers weighed too heavily in the WAllies favour for victory not to be assured.

I really, really need those irony tags. "The Indominitable X Will" is a shorthand I use when someone assumes an OTL behaviour will also trigger in an ATL, like a script in a video game (Hearts of Iron 3 was the inspiration where in some versions the UK would always declare on Germany, even if it was a peaceful democracy with no army minding its own business), it was not actually refering to any WAllied will to fight since that depends a lot on the circumstances of the ATL in question. In this case I was mocking the assumption that the USA would always declare, and there would be no other outcome than total victory in any scenario - which is determinism and not alternate history.

Not counting the Civil War? A war where the US lost more, proportionally, than Great Britain in WW2? (comparing the low end of American losses to the high end of British ones) A war that basically set American growth back by over two decades (similar to a more well known Lost Generation).

Or even the War of 1812 was one they could conceivably lose as well. Heck, many argue that they lost, or at best achieved a status quo ante bellum. It certainly wasn't a win, except by saying the US managed to come out of it unscathed after going into a war with practically no military to speak of.

I don't get it. How you went from "not militarily defateable" to "numbers of casualties in the civil war" - those are not related, even if they seem so at first glance. The USA (and the Union) are in the unique position that they can only be forced out of a war by exhaustion. That was the strategy of the Confederacy (which had to get lucky every time, the Union just once), of the VC and so on, and so forth. There is no country on earth which can or could threaten the existance of the USA by force of arms, so that losing against them would spell the end of the USA. Nukes aside, that is. The USA can simply cut their losses, regroup, reform and then come back - if it seems promising. The War of Independence was the only war in which they did not have this ability, since military defeat would persuade the fence-sitters to throw in with the loyalists and weaken the independence fighters by making waverers leave. A war with/by the USA has one of two military outcomes: draw (see: 1812) or victory by the USA. Military defeat (except by nuke, again) is simply not possible since this would require the opposing force to disable the warmaking capacities of the USA.
Politically, the will to fight is another matter. Having a "good reason" here is key. Which is - simplistically - why Japan lost and the VC "won" by forcing a draw.
As an observation, this does not impact the personaly valor of the individual US soldier. It merely makes the post-ex rethoric surrounding the wars seem...strange.

And we're also ignoring that by the time the casualties start mounting, the Allies will be far too invested. They will have moved far enough up in Italy to force the Germans to move in and support. They will have landed in Southern France, maybe even in Northern France as well. There may even be a Balkan diversion at this point. The US forces have air superiority, they have naval superiority, and they will start to approach ground superiority (as the Germans will have to keep troops in the East to prevent the inevitable Soviet Backstab). And this is against a Germany that, while not fighting the Soviets, also do not have access to any resources from the Soviets either.

Your argument seems to rely on a lot of undefined or unspoken assumptions. I don't share them, since you have not told me.
#1 They could simply buy them from the UdSSR - as they did before. Why should they not do so again?
#2 As others have pointed out: The force distribution of the Wehrmacht will shift. The low casualties of the WAllies of OTL were due to overwhelming superiority in all aspects of warfare (average troop quality, supply, air superiority, etc. pp.) and due to the western front having a lower priority than the eastern front. This is not the case in this scenario. This will send WAllied casualties soaring since being downgraded to merely having an advantage removes many of synergistic effects of superiority (such as being able to dictate the engagement circumstances or constraining enemy attacks to predictable avenues).
#3 If FDR does not manage to cook up a "good reason" to justify declaring on Nazi Germany, creating "investment" to justify both blood and treasure becomes hard. Furthermore, if deception is attempted it could very well backfire.
Therefore, I don't think making them quit is as impossible as you make it out. Depending on #3 it hovers somewhere between "either way" and "unlikely". Of course, all this presupposes that the unconditional surrender doctrine is imposed without the pressure by Stalin.

The Germans themselves virtually ensured this after World War I. In light of the experience from 1918 to 1939, only unconditional surrender was acceptable and FDR said as much at the Casablanca Conference.

And Casablanca only happend with UK, UdSSR and USA. Two of them do not have an impact - or any say - right after the fall of France. And may I remind you that the "unconditional surrender" originated with Stalin - who feared precisely the thread topic. And since defeat means genocide, he wanted assurances that the WAllies will not be bought off by the Nazis.
Furthermore, after reviewing media and documents from the 30ties and 40ties, there were considerable sympathies, dealings and support for the Nazis. Ford, IBM, Disney just to name a few with reach. They were seen as a bulwark against the Red Menace by the establishment of various nations. Also, back then, antisemitism was seen as normal - unfortunately. Evidence of those things was quitely removed during the war (because the UdSSR were now allies) and after (since they needed their own narrative about their anti-nazi-fight to counter the soviet appeal in certain sectors). Historiography and culture since has made the USA into anti-fascists since the first hour in the name of liberty.

Furthermore, prior to their official entry into the conflict the US War Department drew up plans to raise 213 divisions in the event the USSR fell. In hindsight, given the huge contribution of British/Commonwealth forces to the war in Europe it seems possible that even this would have been unnecessary and that the Allies could have defeated Germany with the forces on hand - all without the Red Army.

The War Department made plans for fighting every nation on earth. Do remember: Plans are just words on paper until put into action. I'll grant you that in some ATLs those plans would have become reality. In others, not so much. You are assuming that, regardless of circumstances, the War Department will always, always succeed to execute these plans. That is plain wrong.

You do recall that the declaration of war was issued by Hitler on the United States and not vice-versa? President Roosevelt did everything in his power to offer economic and military aid to nations at war with the Axis, but all such actions were legal and there was no Constitutional violation involved. Any movement to impeach FDR on those grounds would have been completely stillborn.

Yes, I do. The threat opener specifies that there is no Barbarossa and there is Pearl Harbour. It asks if a negotiated peace is possible vis-a-vis UK and US. It does not specifiy that war declarations have to be as OTL. As pointed out quickly, the smart move would be to force the USA to declare war. And since this is not determinedhistory.com, I speculated if the OTL-dicey actions of FDR may have consequences in an ATL. The assistance of the USN to the Royal Navy could be interpreted as direct assistance to bellingerent against the other and therefore constitute a declaration of war. Which, if you'll remember, the President is forbidden from doing. This would be grounds for impeachment. OTL, there was a lot of grumbling that that stopped after the USA entered the war. In an ATL, this could be grounds for impeachment - or enough reason not to try and declare war.

 

[lionhead]

I think you need a scenario where Germany is doing better against Britain. Hitler thinks I have Britain on the ropes all it will take is one more year and Britain will make peace and I will invade the USSR with a whole Europe coalition in 1942, and Japan and Turkey too.

POD: Uboat torpedo problems are fixed with a different testing regime. British shipping loses are higher and a couple of key warships have been sunk (a side effect is the British Narvik counter attack is called off). German leadership decides a Luftwaffe air campaign against shipping can add their increment and force Britain to make peace.

The results are not as good as hoped but seem promising that if continued through 1941 that they will force Britain to make peace. With the British navy passive to avoid losses and shipping loses high, the British don't defend Crete in May 1941. Tobruk and Malta falls in 1941 and the British are driven off the Libya-Egyptian border.

The shipping situation the Atlantic is critical, the British have to reduce the convoys and heavily defend the fewer number.

Regardless December 7th happens just the same, the USA is in and Hitler feels he can't invade the Soviet Union right now in 1942.

----------------------------------------------------

War continues on: While outnumbered and out resourced by the Americans and British, the Germans are on the defense with occupied lands between them and Germany. They have their radars and air defense and don't have to fight every plane the Allies throw over the continent, they pick and choose, to make the attrition favorable. In this TL the Germans have even more Flak and interceptors available and the Allied bombing campaign has to be less often and against less well defended targets.

Even if they did better against the UK, or rather, just because they are doing better against the UK an invasion of the USSR at OTL is more likely rather than less. The British and French were considered a nuisance, and if the fight against them went well, then there was more room to attack the USSR. The Germans had already established that the Soviets were completely unprepared for an attack and any delay would mean a better prepared USSR. They were delayed by the west, they were delayed by the Balkans, they were delayed by the African Campaign. They were going to attack.

Japan and Turkey joining against the USSR is highly unlikely and not a good idea for them. I don't think Hitler would see Turkey joining as extra strength, just extra border. Japan would probably be seen as reinforcements but in reality it wasn't.

There are a lot of way for the Germans to do better against the UK, but to get them to make peace a lot more is needed than better working U-boats and a more succesfull air campaign. At least, with Churchill leading the country.

 

[The Red]

In this case I was mocking the assumption that the USA would always declare, and there would be no other outcome than total victory in any scenario - which is determinism and not alternate history.

Determinism is key to alternate history, particularly in regards to questions of possibility which this thread raises. Ultimately certain factors are going to have an overbearing influence on the outcome of a scenario regardless of other changes made. In this case, we can reasonably conclude that America was set to enter the war regardless of whether the Germans were first to attack, and that the overwhelming Anglo-American superiority over Nazi Germany isn't going to end in anything over than their victory. I understand that some people don't like this level of empirical scrutiny, instead preferring an attitude of "It's Alternate History, so anything can be possible" and that's fair enough but it also renders the question moot.

 

[Anchises]

Determinism is key to alternate history, particularly in regards to questions of possibility which this thread raises. Ultimately certain factors are going to have an overbearing influence on the outcome of a scenario regardless of other changes made. In this case, we can reasonably conclude that America was set to enter the war regardless of whether the Germans were first to attack, and that the overwhelming Anglo-American superiority over Nazi Germany isn't going to end in anything over than their victory. I understand that some people don't like this level of empirical scrutiny, instead preferring an attitude of "It's Alternate History, so anything can be possible" and that's fair enough but it also renders the question moot.

People who actually fought the Germans weren't as sure. Again we have to consider that war isn't a simply comparison of industrial stats.

Given the large and influential peace/neutrality factions in Great Britain and the USA a total war is not a sure thing. Neither is a U.S. entry.

Great Britain, France, Belgium, Poland and the Netherlands were "determined" to win in 1939/1940. In an ATL-ah.com everybody would scream ASB "France simply would have attacked while Germany was busy".

Sure, U.S. entry and Nazi defeat were likely but not to this degree.

And in the field of alternate there can be no empirical scrutiny. We are literally in uncharted waters here.

 

[NoMommsen]

Exactly because of the latter part of your post ...

Everybody seems to rule out the possibility, that Hitler might 'change' his mind and make destroying defeating GB, perfidious albion, having betrayed his very personal hopes, first objective ... at least for the time being.

But thats just speculation ...

No, it is a PoD ... for a possible alternate timeline ... on a forum about alternate timelines/history.

... while you 'only describe' (though rightful) our or 'original' timeline ... which after a PoD - see above - would be changed.

 

[NoMommsen]

This seems like a bit of a cop-out, which is fine, but I'm not sure which of my arguments are faith based.

Determinism is key to alternate history, particularly in regards to questions of possibility which this thread raises.
...
Ultimately certain factors are going to have an overbearing influence on the outcome of a scenario regardless of other changes made.
...
In this case, we can reasonably conclude that America was set to enter the war regardless of...
...

There they are.

 

[The Red]

There they are.

Empiricism is faith based?

 

[fasquardon]

I really, really need those irony tags. "The Indominitable X Will" is a shorthand I use when someone assumes an OTL behaviour will also trigger in an ATL, like a script in a video game (Hearts of Iron 3 was the inspiration where in some versions the UK would always declare on Germany, even if it was a peaceful democracy with no army minding its own business), it was not actually refering to any WAllied will to fight since that depends a lot on the circumstances of the ATL in question. In this case I was mocking the assumption that the USA would always declare, and there would be no other outcome than total victory in any scenario - which is determinism and not alternate history.

I agree that hard determinism doesn't exist, but I do think human action has a certain degree of momentum.

Like... It's possible that Hitler might not attack the USSR, but considering the man's goals, biases, the strategic situation of Germany and the apparent weakness of the USSR, it is what you might call "soft determined". That is, more than 50% likely to happen. In Barbarossa's case, I'd say that after the fall of France, it was at least 70% more likely to happen than not and may have been 90+% likely. But until the day the Germans actually cross the border there existed a chance (shrinking every day) that the Germans would NOT pull the trigger.

I think the same thing is true about the US joining WW2. Now... Maybe when talking about events like these, terms like "determined" and "not determined" are too clumsy. On the other hand, it's not like I can rewind the universe and re-run things from June of 1940 1000 times to get a decent statistical sample of how often the "soft determined" events happened, so pretending like I can attach firm probabilities to these events happening doesn't work either.

Just my 2 cents on the debate about terminology...

fasquardon

 

[NoMommsen]

Empiricism is faith based?

No,
... but taking always the same 'empiric' result for granted regardless changed factors and members of an equations comes quite near.

 

[The Red]

Again we have to consider that war isn't a simply comparison of industrial stats.

It's a good framework, especially when discussing a total war. There are other factors as well but many of those are in the WAllies favour as well; the WAllies have naval dominance, the German sphere of control is largely made up of hostile populations, the WAllies will eventually get the bomb, etc.

Given the large and influential peace/neutrality factions in Great Britain and the USA a total war is not a sure thing. Neither is a U.S. entry.

The peace/neutrality faction in the UK had largely been neutralised by the end of 1940 and given that the PoD is a longer Balkan campaign it means that Lend Lease has already been enacted and the US is beginning to get involved in the Battle of the Atlantic. It's also stated that Pearl Harbour still happens, the event that killed off the American isolationist lobby. Even if the Germans don't declare war on the United States ITTL, American entry at some point is a sure thing.

Great Britain, France, Belgium, Poland and the Netherlands were "determined" to win in 1939/1940. In an ATL-ah.com everybody would scream ASB "France simply would have attacked while Germany was busy".

Granted the British were pretty confident but other than that the French were suffering from the political and military divisions that doomed them IOTL, the Benelux were trying to stay neutral with the Dutch being genuinely surprised they were attacked, and the Pole's defensive plans relied on hanging out for long enough for the French to come to the rescue. I don't think it's particularly ASB to wonder why only the UK was still left standing by the end of 1940.

And in the field of alternate there can be no empirical scrutiny. We are literally in uncharted waters here.

In an area such as this where the events are within living memory and have enjoyed a vast amount of research along with a plethora of primary and secondary sources it is quite possible to ascertain certain outcomes, hence why you do have a number of historians who will argue that counterfactuals can be used in academia when there's enough to evidence to make a case for them.

 

[lionhead]

No, it is a PoD ... for a possible alternate timeline ... on a forum about alternate timelines/history.

... while you 'only describe' (though rightful) our or 'original' timeline ... which after a PoD - see above - would be changed.

but we were already discussing an ATL, the one of the OP. The discussion is about the question if peace talks could be possible if there was no barbarossa, wether either side would actually consider it. This asks for possibilities based on facts, not speculation. This a discussion about the historical figures and how they thought.

If you got a scenario of your own, you should say so.

 

[The Red]

No,
... but taking always the same 'empiric' result for granted regardless changed factors and members of an equations comes quite near.

That would be fair enough but I don't see what contrary factors I'm ignoring? I respect other people's arguments and as such I've tried to address every point made.

 

[Anchises]

In an area such as this where the events are within living memory and have enjoyed a vast amount of research along with a plethora of primary and secondary sources it is quite possible to ascertain certain outcomes, hence why you do have a number of historians who will argue that counterfactuals can be used in academia when there's enough to evidence to make a case for them.

The problem is that historical evidence simply isn't the same as evidence in natural sciences.

We have a pretty solid idea which factors influenced WW2 and its outcomes but I am sure we don't know all of them, how they influence each other and we have no way to quantify the majority.

How do you quantify French confidence, their unwillingness to fight or their antiquated military doctrine? We know that it influenced Allied performance in 1940 but how much?

I don't feel like we can simply formalute an equation and simulate ATLs like we do with stuff like the early universe. Even there simulations are just a rough estimate.

I don't think counterfactuals are useful for history as a science at this point in time. I also don't think words like Empiricism are appropriate when we are talking about ATLs.

 

[The Red]

The problem is that historical evidence simply isn't the same as evidence in natural sciences.

We have a pretty solid idea which factors influenced WW2 and its outcomes but I am sure we don't know all of them, how they influence each other and we have no way to quantify the majority.

How do you quantify French confidence, their unwillingness to fight or their antiquated military doctrine? We know that it influenced Allied performance in 1940 but how much?

I don't feel like we can simply formalute an equation and simulate ATLs like we do with stuff like the early universe. Even there simulations are just a rough estimate.

I don't think counterfactuals are useful for history as a science at this point in time. I also don't think words like Empiricism are appropriate when we are talking about ATLs.

Whilst I agree that there are certain variables in history that can't be quantified in the same way that the natural sciences might aim to do so, I don't think that makes empiricism any less valid. We might not be able to measure every factor on the basis of its importance, but we can use them to construct an idea of what might have been going on and we do have quantifiable data, such as industrial stats to help with this. If you accept that you're trying to determine the possibility of a certain event then it's important use what you can to reach a conclusion without resigning yourself to the fact that there's no way to formulate an equation and as such there's no point in trying to determine possibility in the first place. If empiricism is inappropriate in AH when the whole question of "What If" has to be dismissed as bunk and although there are some historians who've come to that conclusion we're on a site dedicated to "What If" so we have to work on the basis that it's a question worth answering.