Occupied Germany (and Austria)

Status
Not open for further replies.

historylesson

I am not sure how plausible this scenario is but I wanted to mention it as I think it could generate some interesting discussions.

Germany and Austria were occupied after WWII by the Allies and the occupation zones were as seen below:
194548.gif


My question is, what if the two countries remained occupied after WWII? Is this a possibility first of all and if you think it is, how would things have turned out?
What would Europe look like in 2013?

This is what I had in mind.
Britain keeps the German British zone, which becomes one of the United Kingdom's countries. The US also give them Bremen but keep Bremerhaven which becomes a US Territory. France annexes the French zone of both Germany and Austria, while the Soviet zone of Germany becomes a Soviet Republic. The American zone of both Germany and Austria eventually become independent and are united with the rest of Austria (with the exception of Tyrol which is annexed by France) into a new country with it's capital in either Vienna or Munich.

When the USSR collapses, Eastern Germany which is a Soviet Republic becomes independent and joins Germany-Austria (the country that was formed from the union of the American zone in Germany and the part of Austria that wasn't annexed by France.

What would have been the impact of something like this happening?
 
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

Absorbing so many millions of a now hostile minority would prove an unnecessary drain on the states, even the USSR, would be in violation of the Atlantic Charter for the Western Allies (the USSR didn't give a crap, but had their own reasons to not want to annex large chunks of Germany), would in the long run be impossible to hold, and generally give the allies no additional benefit except to make occupying Germany twenty times harder.
 

pompejus

Well, I could see France annexing the Saarland or even a bit more of the Rhineland, but that's it. I doubt Britain or the USA wants to have part of Germany. I even doubt France would want the entire Rhineland, like it did 100 years before. I could, in theory, see the allies agreeing other neighbouring countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Luxemburg, Chechoslovakia, Hungary or Yugoslavia (maybe even Italy) to annex part of Germany. But in the end you still have a Germany left, even if it is smaller.
 
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

pompejus said:
Well, I could see France annexing the Saarland or even a bit more of the Rhineland, but that's it. I doubt Britain or the USA wants to have part of Germany. I even doubt France would want the entire Rhineland, like it did 100 years before. I could, in theory, see the allies agreeing other neighbouring countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Luxemburg, Chechoslovakia, Hungary or Yugoslavia (maybe even Italy) to annex part of Germany. But in the end you still have a Germany left, even if it is smaller.
Click to expand...

France did draw up a plan for the annexation of the entire Rhineland plus the Ruhr, but they realized that if they wanted to hold such a large chunk of territory, they'd have to engage in Polish-style expulsions, as had happened East of the Oder. The other allies refused to consent to this, partly because of those who foresaw a future where Germany would be a value ally and bulwark against the Soviets, partly because what was left of Germany wouldn't be able to hold so many more refugees, which would have caused mass starvation, and partly because there was no surer way to ensure all of what was left of Germany became Communist.

The Netherlands and Denmark also had abortive plans to annex parts of Germany; the Bakker-Schut plan for the Netherlands, which would have in its most ambitious form doubled the territorial size of the Netherlands, and which also would only have been viable with Polish expulsions; and Denmark's attempts to annex more of Schleswig.

Belgium and Luxemburg, perhaps could also theoretically annex territory, but I've never read of any plans for such. Same for Czechoslovakia, really.

Italy, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, on the other hand, I don't see gaining any territorial concessions at all in Germany. Austria, of course, is a different question. Yugoslavia and Hungary both had territorial interests in Austria; Yugoslavia wished to annex large chunks of Carinthia and proposed such a plan, and Hungary probably would have liked to have more of Burgenland. Italy has the requisite border with Austria, but I don't really see what they would get (while I've read that Italy wanted all Tyrol, not just South Tyrol, I've never read of any concrete plan to annex it). In this case, however, it's unlikely for Austria to lose territory so long as the allies consider it "Nazi Germany's first victim," rather than another German state. Indeed, given that Italy was an active Fascist country, it wouldn't have been impossible for Italy to have had to make concessions in German-speaking South Tyrol to Austria.

Too, there were suggestions among members of the Allies to permanently partition Germany (West and East was fundamentally considered by all to be in theory a temporary division stemming from occupational exigencies, though many in the Allies would have liked to see such a division be permanent); from a relatively staid North/South partition (West/East as happened OTL simply came off as strategic exigencies; North/South would be a clear cultural divide, and would lend itself better to a permanent division) to division of Germany into member states. None of those came to fruition.

But overall, yes, I agree that for Germany to simply disappear from the map is extremely unlikely.
 
anotherlurker

anotherlurker

Zmflavius said:
But overall, yes, I agree that for Germany to simply disappear from the map is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

maybe if stalin got to the rhine first? there's plenty room in siberia and the trains run on time. the overall motivation for the w-allies to protest would probably be low right after the war.
 
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

anotherlurker said:
maybe if stalin got to the rhine first? there's plenty room in siberia and the trains run on time. the overall motivation for the w-allies to protest would probably be low right after the war.
Click to expand...

Even not then; actually, to be frank, especially not then. While many in the allies would have supported such a measure, even the comparatively lighter Morgenthau Plan was sunk by the storm of protest raised by many of the allies. And then, there is the fact that even Stalin has his own reasons to not order a genocide of the German people (just starting with how difficult it would be to resettle Germany).
 

pompejus

Zmflavius said:
France did draw up a plan for the annexation of the entire Rhineland plus the Ruhr, but they realized that if they wanted to hold such a large chunk of territory, they'd have to engage in Polish-style expulsions, as had happened East of the Oder. The other allies refused to consent to this, partly because of those who foresaw a future where Germany would be a value ally and bulwark against the Soviets, partly because what was left of Germany wouldn't be able to hold so many more refugees, which would have caused mass starvation, and partly because there was no surer way to ensure all of what was left of Germany became Communist.
Click to expand...

Realy? I thought that the last time they proposed it was after WWI and they were smarter than that after WWII. Hmmm, apparently old habits die hard.
 
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

pompejus said:
Realy? I thought that the last time they proposed it was after WWI and they were smarter than that after WWII. Hmmm, apparently old habits die hard.
Click to expand...

Yep, they did. And were pushing it all the way up to 1950. By that time, they'd given up on it, and settled for the European Coal and Steel community. Which gave France a lot of what they wanted from the Monnet Plan, except the land itself.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top