Small conflicts in nazi-less Europe.

Suppose that Germany is incapable of pursuing it's irredentist goals, this wouldn't require just the nazis coming to power but Germany being to weak to pursue those goals under any government, in order to have this you need some catastrophic event like a civil war.

So my idea for a 1930's German civil war is this the Nazis are more radical and are against aristocrats and industrialists as much as against communists., thus they are more leftist in their economics and tahe over the the support of the working class from the communists and the social-democrats.

Also some leader(Who?) creats an other german fascist movement this one is more religious and agrarian it get's large support amongst peasants,they are also against aristocrats and industrialists.
The two fascist movements are not having friendly relations however in late 1931 this leader dies and is replaced by somebody who is for a united front with the Nazis.

In the elections of July 1932 this united front wins a majority in the reichstag but they are denied their victory by a military coup(by Whom?) forcing them out of parliment, the united front reacts by revolting , as they have major support amongst both peasants and city-inhabitants they rapidly form militias this is strenghten by the fact that several german army units defect to the front. Thus in August 1932 Germany is wrecked by civil war between the united front and the military plus other anti-fascist groups.

The war rages on for 4 years(How?) during this time Poland and Lithuania divide East Prussia between them(nobody recognizes it though) and the French establish an independent Rheinland Republic. The military is victorious, and after it's over the German economy is wrecked beyond measure, millions of refugees have fled Germany, and Germany lost important portions of it's territory.

It won't be capable of pursuing any kind of military action for a large number of years.

In this scenario many would say that the Soviets would invade Europe(Red Alert 1 scenario), but let's say that Stalin is more cautious.

What conflicts would arise in this Europe.?
There are many posibilities:
1. Hungary vs. Little Entente not likely even with Italian support.
2. Bulgaria vs. Balkan Entente likewise
3. Hungary,Bulgaria and Italy vs. Little Entente/Balkan Entente don't know
4. Poland vs. Lithuania don't know
5. Italy vs. Albania very likely
6. USSR vs. Baltic nations or Finland or Poland or Romania possible but may lead to Anglo-French attack on USSR
7. Fascist Greece vs. Turkey don't know however Italy might help Greece

What others?
 
There are many posibilities:
1. Hungary vs. Little Entente not likely even with Italian support.
2. Bulgaria vs. Balkan Entente likewise
3. Hungary,Bulgaria and Italy vs. Little Entente/Balkan Entente don't know
4. Poland vs. Lithuania don't know
5. Italy vs. Albania very likely
6. USSR vs. Baltic nations or Finland or Poland or Romania possible but may lead to Anglo-French attack on USSR
7. Fascist Greece vs. Turkey don't know however Italy might help Greece

What others?

Hungary was irredentist but too weak to do anything about it. Also, Admiral Horthy was more interested in maintaining internal order than in foreign adventures.

Bulgaria, almost the same, though there's a chance that IMRO could commit some atrocity big enough to draw them into a war with Yugoslavia or Greece.

Italy v. Albania is likely but will be very short.

Italy v. Yugoslavia is possible. Il Duce went through several episodes of trying to pick a fight with the Yugoslavs. OTL Belgrade was timid and consistently refused to take offense; they thought the Italians were much more competent and dangerous than they actually were.

Don't forget Poland v. Czecheslovakia -- their territorial dispute kept relations icy cold through much of the interwar period.


Doug M.
 
Without a strong Germany in central Europe the Soviet Union would invade and conquer Europe in 1941-1942.

Without a strong Germany, the USSR is faced by an alliance of Britain and France and the prospective extension of the Little Entente to ANY state threatened by the Soviets, so no.

Stalin was not as much of a risk-taker as people seem to think. He only acted when the other powers were either distracted, or too weak to intervene - just looking at Poland, Finland, Bessarabia, the Baltic States shows this. Never once did he take the lead, but followed where Germany had already blazed a path for him to be able to pursue irredentist aims with minimum risk

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
slslsl

After the catastrophic loses of the firs world war France has abandoned offensive and conducts a defensive strategy only so count France out, Great Brittan has no army, Italy is to disorganized and week, so say good bye to central and southern Europe
 

mowque

Banned
1940 Russia (without the 'purifying' effect of Barbarossa) versus, Poland, France, England (maybe Italy?), the rest of the little Entente...maybe the USA(?) AND a angry powerful japan in the back? Stalin will have to go off his meds to try that with the weak Red Army. Maybe in 1950, the Soviet Union will be in a much better spot..but not in 1940..IMO
 
After the catastrophic loses of the firs world war France has abandoned offensive and conducts a defensive strategy only so count France out, Great Brittan has no army, Italy is to disorganized and week, so say good bye to central and southern Europe

We're talking the same Soviet Union that was humiliated in OTL by the Winter War? As for Britain, its biggest strength was never its army. What they can and will do is annihilate the Red Fleet, blockade the USSR and, with a little luck, own the skies over it. They can also use that naval dominance to transport troops to the frontline from whoever would contribute. That could mean France (the best defense is offense and there's no point waiting for Stalin over by the damn Rhine) and Italy (which was so disorganized and weak in OTL that it attacked Greece, Ethiopia, Spain, Albania, France, British and French colonies in Africa, Greece again, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union while Mussolini was in power).

I mean get real!
 
Last edited:
Don't forget Poland v. Czecheslovakia -- their territorial dispute kept relations icy cold through much of the interwar period.


Doug M.

This seems unlikely, as regardless of who the German neighbor is it gives him unwelcome oppurtunities.
 
Without a strong Germany, the USSR is faced by an alliance of Britain and France and the prospective extension of the Little Entente to ANY state threatened by the Soviets, so no.

Stalin was not as much of a risk-taker as people seem to think. He only acted when the other powers were either distracted, or too weak to intervene - just looking at Poland, Finland, Bessarabia, the Baltic States shows this. Never once did he take the lead, but followed where Germany had already blazed a path for him to be able to pursue irredentist aims with minimum risk

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Actually, the Anglo-French might view Soviet expansion as a good thing- after all the Soviets are a much better counter balance to the Germans in the east than all those petty, squabbling states.

I think the Anglo-French went to the mat for Poland because Germany was the country doing the invading. If the Baltics get threatened by the USSR I can't see the Anglo-French do more than send nasty diplomatic messages and try some League of Nations sanctions.

I don't think the British or French viewed the USSR, even one annexing Baltic countries, as an existential threat. An expansionist Germany was an existential threat. If your country will do almost ANYTHING not to go to war with an existential threat, what could possibly get your country to go to war with a country not considered one?
 
Actually, the Anglo-French might view Soviet expansion as a good thing- after all the Soviets are a much better counter balance to the Germans in the east than all those petty, squabbling states.

The Germans in TTL are not such a threat that London and Paris will let communism expand into Central Europe, even if they're foolish enough to ignore the good relations between the USSR and Weimar Germany. That would be just insane.

Even in OTL the British and French were unwilling to counter the expansion of German influence in Spain (by which I mean the Nationalist victory) because the Republicans were backed by Stalin and included some Soviet sympathizers. That's how afraid they were of the Soviet Union when they had Nazi Germany next door. Imagine how they'd react if you take Hitler out of the equation.

And those "petty, squabbling states" could do just fine against a Germany that did not experience Hitler's rearmament, especially if you avoid selling them out. Weimar Germany alone would've had a hard time against either Poland or Czechoslovakia.

I don't think the British or French viewed the USSR, even one annexing Baltic countries, as an existential threat. An expansionist Germany was an existential threat. If your country will do almost ANYTHING not to go to war with an existential threat, what could possibly get your country to go to war with a country not considered one?
There was no British or French government between the World Wars, left, right orcenter, that didn't see communism as an existential threat. In the same period Germany was quite content to direct most of its expansionist urges eastward - something which Britain and France encouraged.
 
Top