The Ace and the Deuce--Germany's Best Plan for the 1940s

Hmm. I need to point out that I've presented more of an idea than a fixed timeframe or schedule, and that while I'd like to see this pulled off this is looking a little harder to watch.

One opening does present itself in Michele's remarks--that Richthofen has avoided several antagonistic moves against the allies (no naval buildup, no militarization of the Rhineland, no defaulting on reparations but a negotiation), and the scenario does require the Allies to be at least neutral to an Italian/German war.

I also saw Germany acting far later than 1938-9 to give it time to build up to a sufficient level of forces for the operation. I'm not sure that Italy would use this time to its full advantage--indeed, I'm fairly confident that Italy would almost certainly do nothing of the sort. Indeed, I see some kind of disaster in Yugoslavia, like a all-out Croatian uprising, being the critical diversion that gives Germany a chance to move into Austria and forces the UK and France to support Germany over Italy.

Michele's numbers are therefore probably off, but I don't have a good idea of what to give him instead. The economic calculations are also off the table--I'd concede (and I think it was in the OP) that Germany moved slower on rearmament and had no intention of betting their solvency on a quick victory.

I'm hard pressed to say that the UK and France's lack of actions against Italy (but putting an embargo on their country) was some of attempt to gain or retain the support of Mussolini (That's an extremely odd way of going about it.) I would suspect that I might have underrated the Italian Army (which I recall having very capable alpine divisions), but I suspect that Italy's economy and diplomacy would not remain rosy going into the 1940s.

Still mulling this one over, but I think it a refreshing pace from refighting WW2.
 
One opening does present itself in Michele's remarks--that Richthofen has avoided several antagonistic moves against the allies (no naval buildup, no militarization of the Rhineland, no defaulting on reparations but a negotiation), and the scenario does require the Allies to be at least neutral to an Italian/German war.

As mentioned, it's unlikely that France, even with a much more reasonable German government in charge, isn't on the Italian side in this. Longer-ranging geopolitical considerations apply.

I also saw Germany acting far later than 1938-9 to give it time to build up to a sufficient level of forces for the operation. I'm not sure that Italy would use this time to its full advantage--indeed, I'm fairly confident that Italy would almost certainly do nothing of the sort. Indeed, I see some kind of disaster in Yugoslavia, like a all-out Croatian uprising, being the critical diversion that gives Germany a chance to move into Austria and forces the UK and France to support Germany over Italy.

Michele's numbers are therefore probably off, but I don't have a good idea of what to give him instead. The economic calculations are also off the table--I'd concede (and I think it was in the OP) that Germany moved slower on rearmament and had no intention of betting their solvency on a quick victory.

So all the assessments about the Heer being stronger and better equipped than the Regio Esercito also are out.


I'm hard pressed to say that the UK and France's lack of actions against Italy (but putting an embargo on their country) was some of attempt to gain or retain the support of Mussolini (That's an extremely odd way of going about it.)

A good thing to do would be reading up about the Mussolini-Laval dealings, if you haven't already done that; certainly if you have, you seem to have decided to ignore their meaning to this ATL.

Still mulling this one over, but I think it a refreshing pace from refighting WW2.

Of course. I'm the one who noticed your mentioning this possibility in other threads and I thank you for the effort of putting it together.
 
Having checked the maps, I'm now kicking myself: Germany couldn't get into a land war with Italy unless it had Austria at least as an ally or a truly implausible amount of sealift since they didn't have a land border.

How plausible would it have been for Mussolini to try to make territorial claims against Austria?
 
As mentioned, it's unlikely that France, even with a much more reasonable German government in charge, isn't on the Italian side in this. Longer-ranging geopolitical considerations apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stresa_Front

Of course, Laval is one hell of a snake. Still, with Germany probably making no moves at all in 1935 against Versallies (though perhaps seeking more renegotiations with the UK and France.) I'm not sure the historical path simply isn't Mussolini disagrees with a negotiated plan to get territorial gains in Ethiopia and annexes the whole thing, causing the first real break in Anglo/French relations with Italy. Indeed, if Germany is behaving itself reasonably well, I'm unsure that the Stresa Front would even be created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco–Italian_Agreement

If Germany isn't doing anything at all, why would France try to court Italy in this fashion? I can't see this going forward if Germany is pretty much entirely non-threatening. I do see Michele's point--but I'd have to think this would get butterflied out. Richtohofen's unilateral breach of Versallies would be well after this date--if he even does this without Italy DoWing him first, as Drakensis suggested.

So all the assessments about the Heer being stronger and better equipped than the Regio Esercito also are out.

Not entirely. I'd definitely bet on the smaller Wehrmacht being better armed. Indeed, if the war happens later, its quite possible that Germany's army is also much more modernized than Italy's. Germany purchasing tanks from Skoda (the SdP should be able to keep the Czechs in the market) would be one option; more likely, Germany builds reasonable weapons ITTL. The lack of investment in Wunderwaffen might be missed in the long haul, but outgearing the RE shouldn't be too difficult. While Mussolini is probably not sitting on his hands for this extra time, I strongly suspect the RE is outgeared.

As for Strength--in the long haul, Germany should be able to flatten Italy economically. Unless Italy can hold the lines in the Alps in perpetuity, or somehow drive to Vienna. In all likelihood, Drakensis' scenario would be a good starting point--Germany starts off weaker, Italy opts to DoW, bogs down in southern Austria (how very reminiscent of things long passed) and then Germany goes into fifth gear and drops the hammer of god on Italy.

A good thing to do would be reading up about the Mussolini-Laval dealings, if you haven't already done that; certainly if you have, you seem to have decided to ignore their meaning to this ATL.
Good suggestion, and done.

Of course. I'm the one who noticed your mentioning this possibility in other threads and I thank you for the effort of putting it together.
Sure. It's still very much of a work in progress, but I think this is worth pursuing.
 
Having checked the maps, I'm now kicking myself: Germany couldn't get into a land war with Italy unless it had Austria at least as an ally or a truly implausible amount of sealift since they didn't have a land border.

How plausible would it have been for Mussolini to try to make territorial claims against Austria?

Claim the rest of Tirol? Not very; Mussolini was a personal friend of Dolfuss. That's why I generally see some annexation of Austria as a needed development to get this to happen.

Of course, Mussolini MIGHT opt to launch a land grab if he feels like he can get away with it, but this would assume that he doesn't give a whit about Austria--a development which is probably untrue in any case.

Perhaps an attempt to reinstate Kaiser Otto into Austria results in Germany supporting one side and Italy the other?
 
I would say we need a timeline, even a sketchy one. Without a reference frame, much of this discussion is merely academic.

Blue max, I think that you should revise the economy issue. Unfortunately, this seems to be a major problem :(. By the way after the invasion Ethiopia and the international sanction, Italy got nearer Germany especially by an economic point of view. This should be considered.

As for the diplomatic part, I still think that Italy wouldn't declare war on Germany, unless Mussolini is extremely confident. ITTL woul mean to let him win a major war.

As for the war itself, the objection moved by Michele are good. The war could easily transform into a reply of WW1. In the end Germany would probably win, but the cost could wretch economy and put an end to Richthofen power (Sneak thought: what if France took this opportunity to "settle" the german problem once for all?)
 
Last edited:
As for the war itself, the objection moved by Michele are good. The war could easily transform into a reply of WW1.

Thanks!!

In the end Germany would probably win, but the cost could wretch economy and put an end to Richthofen power (Sneak thought: what if France took this opportunity to "settle" the german problem once for all?)

No need to be sneaky about it. A non-Blitzkrieg war, with the Germans inching their way across Tyrol, gives the French time enough to take the decision that needs to be taken, and also to build up their strength. At which point they'll begin diplomatic noises about Austria becoming German being acceptable, South Tyrol maybe, but nothing more. And they'll rattle their sabers if needed. It's easy, really: for the French the status quo is much better than the possible outcome, so they should and will help the weaker party.
 
Indeed, if Germany is behaving itself reasonably well,

If Germany isn't doing anything at all,

So we're back to square one. Either Germany is behaving "badly", and it thus has something like the Luftwaffe we know from OTL, good armaments, a sizable army - and it's a heck of a worry for the French, who will support the lesser evil. Or it is behaving well, so it's no worry for France, who might choose to wait and see - and when push come to shove, it is then much less of a worry for Italy, too.
 
Another thought:

What if we really roll this one back chronologically--say to 1950?

By this point Mussolini has to have entirely outworn his welcome. I would think he'd have pulled something off in Croatia by this point, and probably have launched a war against Greece if the UK hasn't guaranteed it.

Now France and the UK take the lead role in this situation, and decide that Italy has to get put down--but they want someone else to do it, like Germany.

At this point, Germany has increased its armies to a larger size than the ToV limits, with the full approval of the Western Allies. Since Germany appears to have learned its WW1 lesson, and Italy is looking like a serious problem, the choice is simple--a Friendly, honorable Germany should KO Italy and get Austria and parts of Northern Italy.

Germany, by this point, is an economic titan. With two decades of economic investment that didn't happen OTL in its own economy, Germany's economic strength is probably double what it was in 1933. While Western Europe has grown by nearly the same amount economically, over militarized and under achieving Italy has gained mostly through territitorial gains, and might have gained only perhaps half of its own economic strength.

The German interest is in Austria and South Tirol has been a concern for a long time, and Germany secures the right to get a plebescite as the UK and France opt to release Germany from the ToV. As a result, it does so and Austria opts to join Germany--but Italy's blood is up and its army responds by marching north. In the years to follow, Germany simply gears up far hotter than Italy can match and eventually the RE is in full retreat. The addition of a Croatian puppet in Italian hands means that this war is going to be a two-pronged offensive, but Croatia adds little to the war other than a place to fight.

By 1954, Germany has made it to Rome and Mussolini is fired; unconditional surrender orders are issued. Germany takes Austria, Trentino, and Fruili; France takes Libya, which appears to have oil deposits, and the UK takes the leading interest in putting Greece back together again.
 
RE the above: so in the alt-1950, nobody has nukes?

And we also have to wonder what's going on with the Soviets, and the Americans too...
 
RE the above: so in the alt-1950, nobody has nukes?

And we also have to wonder what's going on with the Soviets, and the Americans too...

Probably not. Nuclear Weapons would be a huge deal to research at this point, and the USA would almost certainly not attempt to fund this kind of monster project without a war going on.

I would presume the Soviet Union has transformed into the third circle of hell. With no WW2 to interrupt Stalin, he's continued to launch massive purges and the 1940s are simply more of the 1930s writ large. OTL's Doctor's Plot seems convincing that Stalin would have purged more of his own people given the opportunity. The Soviet Union stands quietly in the world stage, trading its vast mineral for other assets, but remains isolated.

In 1953, Stalin dies, and in this timeline his rule has been nothing but a quarter century of misery and atrocity. Stalin's excesses and abuses are so serious as to leave any successor no choices about liberalizing the country as Khrushchev did OTL--and so until a better answer can be found, the Soviet Government remains reliant on its secret police until the power strugges are resolved. Count on this remaining an issue well after this situation is resolved. That said, its hard to see the Soviet Union make any kind of recovery with no foundation of winning a massive war on its laurels. OTL's abuses are often justifed as needed to Industrialize Russia and give it the strength to defeat its enemies. No such justificiation exists ITTL, and while the endgame is likely to be imminent and dire, the players are unknowns and the situation will clearly be even more dystopian than OTL. The Soviet Union is now in the situation of having killed off one sixth of its own people, and given the intense pressures on its own people it has succeeded in turn all of its imaginary enemies into legimitimate ones and more.

The United States are probably going to have learned a different lesson--economic isolation is a poor virtue. FDR would be discredited and the New Deal would be mostly discarded as the economy shows no real improvement in 1940 (unlike OTL, where it was stimulated by the war). This is the modern conservative's dream of a USA that achieves greater growth without the marble case federalism that dominated the United States. The United States would be a real player economically, although its army is still tiny. Interestingly, civil rights might have advanced farther than OTL, with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802

never being signed and a massive black march on Washington happening instead. Even if the United States takes additional efforts to fight racism, it would still be prevalent in the Deep South--although a conclusion to this situation could be happening ten years ahead of OTL.

The world, of course, would have gotten over the Great Depression by 1950, even with no war. It would ultimately fall to the internationalists to establish global trading ties which would lead to an economic recovery and growth. That said, Fascist Italy and Militarist Japan's participation in this kind of system would be minimal, and no one at all wants to do business with the Soviet Union (which has defaulted on Czarist Russia's war debts and has claimed in various ways to want to smash capitalism.)

I Suspect Japan is the other sore spot in the world. By 1950, Japan is probably still stuck in China. Embargoes are probably not in effect at this point, but the West would probably have saddled Japan with heavy fees and surcharges for buying their goods instead. If Japan has any kind of peace deal with China, its a bad deal for both sides. And the possibility of another incident hangs heavily over East Asia.
 
What if we really roll this one back chronologically--say to 1950?
The furthest you stray from OTL, the more the butterflies. In the '50 there would be a lot of new factors to be considered.
If Stalin become a menace (and I think that a sure thing), Germany colud be allowed to rearm to counter the "red menace". But for that time the germans could have come to apreciate a less militant style of life and could have fired Richthofen...

Anyway, Blue Max, I think you should clarify the political agenda of Richthofen and of his party. We know what Hitler did and what would have done and this is useful when writing alt-history. Fleshing Richthofen out would be useful in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The longer you stray from OTL, the more the butterflies. In the '50 there would be a lot of new factors to be considered.
If Stalin become a menace (and I think that a sure thing), Germany colud be allowed to rearm to counter the "red menace". But for that time the germans could have come to apreciate a less militant style of life and could have fired Richthofen...

Anyway, Blue Max, I think you should clarify the political agenda of Richthofen and of his party. We know what Hitler did and what would have done and this is useful when writing alt-history. Fleshing Richthofen out would be useful in my opinion.

How would Stalin become a menace to anything other his own country? After the crap he's down to his own country, as well as his armed forces, I can only see the Red Army Marching to a spectacular defeat. The Red Army had the numbers and the technology but their morale is questionable. Indeed, that's going to be a huge slap in the face of any Red Alert scenario--the Red Army starts defecting en masse and Stalin utterly loses all control of the situation. I would assume that Stalin would instead continue his great terror for another decade in the absence of imminent war, rather somewhat tone down the violence in the face of external dangers.

Stalin was a bad guy, to be sure. But Stalin can't move east in any meaningful way without getting a massive war on his hands. Poland had eked out a victory in the 1920s--and this time Poland would have massive international support for a rematch. Romania and Lithuania are probably covered through relationships with France and Poland (although Poland sees Lithuania as its backyard.)

In the North, Finland is backed by Sweden and Germany. And the UK would probably pile aboard too, as it nearly did OTL.

Fleshing out Richthofen adds constraints to the scenario that are almost certainly going to frustrate this exercise, which is why I'm reluctant to do it. Perhaps Germany has a change of leadership from a more passive to a more assertive leader in this period.

Anyhow, I don't see Stalin making war on the west--he was paranoid and unwilling to take the risks involved. I do grant that his successors might consider it the best way to move forward with the shattered wreckage of a country.
 
How would Stalin become a menace to anything other his own country? After the crap he's down to his own country, as well as his armed forces, I can only see the Red Army Marching to a spectacular defeat. The Red Army had the numbers and the technology but their morale is questionable. Indeed, that's going to be a huge slap in the face of any Red Alert scenario--the Red Army starts defecting en masse and Stalin utterly loses all control of the situation.

I wouldn't be so sure, after all they did stop the wehrmacht at the height of his power...And the russians were taken completely by surprise.
Anyway with the "red menace" I didn't actually mean an effective war, but only the possibility of one, just like happened OTL during the cold war. Stalin would move diplomatically and try to nurture as many communist party abroad as possible. He would grab any good opportunity as soon as possible (like IOTL). By the way how are the relations between your Germany and USSR? Friendly or cold. I'd suggest a mix of two, but you are the one calling the shots ;).
 
I wouldn't be so sure, after all they did stop the wehrmacht at the height of his power...And the russians were taken completely by surprise.
Anyway with the "red menace" I didn't actually mean an effective war, but only the possibility of one, just like happened OTL during the cold war. Stalin would move diplomatically and try to nurture as many communist party abroad as possible. He would grab any good opportunity as soon as possible (like IOTL). By the way how are the relations between your Germany and USSR? Friendly or cold. I'd suggest a mix of two, but you are the one calling the shots ;).

Initally, friendly. The Soviet Union has a trading partner with Germany that seems willing to ignore its default on Tsarist Russia's war debts. But as Germany re-establishes ties with the United States and Western Europe, these ties become less important. Germany's future is with the allied bloc, and Middle Eastern Oil and SE Asian Rubber trumps Soviet Oil and rare minerals.

Part of the downturn would be this kind of containment that would be necessary. Stalin might opt to grab territory opportunistically, but he never gets a good opportunity. The Allies move to bring Germany into their club to supplant a increasingly dangerous Mussolini entrenches their grip in Europe.

After Mussolini and his Croatian, Greek, Albanian and Ethiopian puppet regimes are brought down, Germany becomes increasingly cold to the Soviet Union. This is just the course of ideological development applied to a situation where Germany never built a rival alliance to the Allies and instead opts to join them.

Stalin has no chance to expand into Europe--and given that the great terror never ends with the threat of invasion, there's no reason for Stalin to stop doing what he's doing. So the Soviet Union drains of any ideological or cultural development into a hateful dystopia. Yes, a war that gives the Soviet People a reason to support their government and a mission that really deserves their sacrifice might be able to shake off these trends, but since no one is invading the Soviet Union, this is ultimately going to be of the Soviet Union.

It is when Stalin is dead and the next general secretary comes to the fore that the Soviet Union, stripped of any internal culture and knee deep in the blood of its own murdered people, that the Soviets are likely to go to war as a desperate attempt to hold their country together with any kind of glory.

Suffice it to say, this Soviet Union is in a lower weight category than OTL. On Paper, the Soviet Union fields a massive army with considerable economic power and manpower. In reality, said army is run by political appointees to win a battle against enemies that don't exist and with equipment of questionable quality. With no accounting books on its hands, the government's claims of massive growth are partially propaganda in regard to great works being established and partially a massive overcounting of endless shoddy goods. And the manpower consists of men from families broken in the violence, with guns at their backs and hatred in their hearts.

If it isn't immediately obvious, this Soviet Union is a failed state and Stalin is the last man to know it.
 
Well... and the focus for all of this, is? Just getting a German-Italian confrontation? If Germany is such a leviathan by 1950, why shouldn't Italy back down?
 
Well... and the focus for all of this, is? Just getting a German-Italian confrontation? If Germany is such a leviathan by 1950, why shouldn't Italy back down?

I guess because the UK and France are deliberately out to finish off Mussolini, so Italy backing down will involve pulling out of Croatia and Ethiopia--actions which will either provoke a war with leads to Mussolini's defeat, removal, and an end to his puppet states, or a pullout that ends Italian control of most of its European vassals.

In a way, this scenario is a development of "Germany joins the Allies, the Soviets are screwed" and Italy is pushed into the position that Germany had OTL--a belligerent menace that needs to get at first contained, then defeated militarily. While Germany becomes a strong member of the Western Allies even though its probably not democratic.
 
I guess because the UK and France are deliberately out to finish off Mussolini, so Italy backing down will involve pulling out of Croatia and Ethiopia--actions which will either provoke a war with leads to Mussolini's defeat, removal, and an end to his puppet states, or a pullout that ends Italian control of most of its European vassals.

That could easily achieved through "real" economic sanctions (IOTL they were pretty light). Italy doesn't have a lot of raw materials and is completely dependent for oil, steel, rubber and other. An economic blockade would wretch Italy really quickly.
Mussolini would be hard pressed to find a supplier of such materials; the only one I can think of is Stalin... (Italy and Russia against Germany, UK and France? well that would be ugly...for Italy and Russia).
 
Probably not. Nuclear Weapons would be a huge deal to research at this point, and the USA would almost certainly not attempt to fund this kind of monster project without a war going on.
Makes sense, yes.
I would presume the Soviet Union has transformed into the third circle of hell. With no WW2 to interrupt Stalin, he's continued to launch massive purges and the 1940s are simply more of the 1930s writ large. OTL's Doctor's Plot seems convincing that Stalin would have purged more of his own people given the opportunity. The Soviet Union stands quietly in the world stage, trading its vast mineral for other assets, but remains isolated.

In 1953, Stalin dies, and in this timeline his rule has been nothing but a quarter century of misery and atrocity. Stalin's excesses and abuses are so serious as to leave any successor no choices about liberalizing the country as Khrushchev did OTL--and so until a better answer can be found, the Soviet Government remains reliant on its secret police until the power strugges are resolved. Count on this remaining an issue well after this situation is resolved. That said, its hard to see the Soviet Union make any kind of recovery with no foundation of winning a massive war on its laurels. OTL's abuses are often justifed as needed to Industrialize Russia and give it the strength to defeat its enemies. No such justificiation exists ITTL, and while the endgame is likely to be imminent and dire, the players are unknowns and the situation will clearly be even more dystopian than OTL. The Soviet Union is now in the situation of having killed off one sixth of its own people, and given the intense pressures on its own people it has succeeded in turn all of its imaginary enemies into legimitimate ones and more.
... wow. So the USSR is even worse in this TL... poor Russkies, they never seem to have a good time of it :(
The United States are probably going to have learned a different lesson--economic isolation is a poor virtue. FDR would be discredited and the New Deal would be mostly discarded as the economy shows no real improvement in 1940 (unlike OTL, where it was stimulated by the war). This is the modern conservative's dream of a USA that achieves greater growth without the marble case federalism that dominated the United States. The United States would be a real player economically, although its army is still tiny. Interestingly, civil rights might have advanced farther than OTL, with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802

never being signed and a massive black march on Washington happening instead. Even if the United States takes additional efforts to fight racism, it would still be prevalent in the Deep South--although a conclusion to this situation could be happening ten years ahead of OTL.
OK, interesting... though I have never heard the phrase "marble case federalism" before, maybe it's a NAmerican one which hasn't made the jump over here. Meaning, please?
 
Top