Valkyrie successful: a different Cold War

[MerryPrankster]

Even so, the independence of Austria would have been restored, and Churchill eventually agreed with significantly adjusting the eastern borders of Germany.

The Valkyrie gang has to throw some bones to the German public or else they'd lose legitimacy and risk being overthrown themselves.

Besides, I was under the impression the Austrians WANTED to be reunited with the Germans, at least in the years immediately after WWI.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Well, TL looks pretty realistic, at least as far as alliance between Nazi and Western Allies is concerned (do not bullshit yourself, "Valkyrie" gang are much closer to Nazi than Yeltsin was to Communist leadership). At least I don't see any contradictions between it and my long-held belief that Nazism is much less threatening for Western civ and more acceptable than Communism. I don't want to go into detailed commenting, but some things jump at me as clearly fantastic elements, being used by TL author to either gloss over Nazi-US alliance or create unreasonable expectations:

1. Would you want to "save Eastern Europe from communism", this TL turns into "Unthinkable" (a.k.a. "Anti-Soviet Crusade") before you notice. I mean, how is it possible to stop Red Army if Allies refused to include Soviets into peace agreement? Yes, there's peace and friendship between German Reich and USA, but how does it reflect on Soviet-German relationships. So, Allies would be facing choice to side with Germany or to allow USSR to grab as much as it could.
2. Finland is toast. IOTL it was pacified and left alone as USSR had a bigger target in it's sights, but ITTL Stalin would likely want all of it, at least to make a point. Again, without military alliance with Finns Allies would not be able to do anything about it.
3. Stalin holds good chunk of Norway at this point and he's unlikely to return it to backstabbing Westerners, so expect satellite "People's Republic of Norway"
4. Poland in 1920-1939 borders is likely toast. Red Army was deep into the country by Summer 1944, so at least Eastern Poland (I'm talking about Poland proper, not territories East of Curzon Line) is bound to become People's republic.
5. Do not expect denazification on any level visible without microscope. Several show trials of most prominent figures is as much as one can hope for, but most likely they'll just "disappear" (partially executed by Army special units but mostly just hidden among general German populace, which would lead to some embarrassing situations later on). Racial politics will be abandoned, but not rejected as wrong way of thinking. Think Turkish denial of Armenian genocide (I don't think that Germany would outlaw accusations of genocide, though) and whole mess of USSR reconciliation with it's bloody history (with Stalin monument at main square of major Georgian city today and Russians looking for balance between things to be proud of and ashamed of in their recent history). Any attempt to bring Nazi crimes to light at least until end of the Cold War would likely be considered Communist subversion directed against American ally (similar to impenetrable shield Allies held IOTL above Baltic Nazi collaborators, protecting them from Nazi hunters).
6. I'm not sure Holocaust would come to light. After all, it was impossible not to know about Holocaust by Summer 1943 at most (when Red Army begun to liberate Ukraine and Baby Yar became known), actually information trickled since Autumn 1941 (if Golda Meir is to be believed), and it didn't prevent Allied refusal to do anything about railroad linking Auschwitz as late as Autumn 1944. Taking into account that most death camps were in Southwestern Poland (likely not occupied by Soviet Union), a lot of Western European Jews perished after Summer 1944 IOTL, and Soviet Jews had two strikes against them (they were "Soviet" and they were Jews, so their punishment was somewhat deserved in eyes of typical WASP of the day), it is entirely possible that disappearance of Jews would be explained away by wartime hardships and overzealous local authorities. After all, it will be important not to rile friendly democratic German regime.
7. Any thought that German government democratically elected without OTL denazification is going to be friendly toward Israel is ASB. Killers are rarely friendly toward their victims and 90%+ of German males either witnessed Holocaust or participated in it. Hamas would turn phylosemitic before electorate of Valkyrie Germany elect "Jew-lovers" in government.

 

[Wendell]

The Valkyrie gang has to throw some bones to the German public or else they'd lose legitimacy and risk being overthrown themselves.

Besides, I was under the impression the Austrians WANTED to be reunited with the Germans, at least in the years immediately after WWI.

Losing the war is losing the war.

 

[Vaude]

Two comments:

- The German Rocket Program. V-2s will almost certainly never be used as a weapon ITTL. The first launch was in September, and by this time Germany was only defending itself from the Soviets. But you can't turn the V-2 around and point them East... they were made to hit cities, civilian targets. What locations could the Germans really target beyond the Red Army that were worth hitting? I would say that they discontinue production entirely, virtually shutting down Peenemunde and the whole operation. The Soviets do not capture Peenemunde. This will hinder their space-tech development. But, in this scenario, the Americans aren't ransacking Germany for their rockets either, nor does Werner Von Braun turn himself in all those other scientists. Certainly, during the occupation of Germany, with the demilitarization process, V-2s and production facilities will be confiscated by the Allies. Would the A-As begin something like Operation Paperclip, however? I believe a lot of German scientists might want to stay in Germany, refusing the A-A the right to imprison them and put them to work. No doubt the more passionate scientists, such as Von Braun, would beg the A-A to use the V-2s they have confiscated for research priorities, and no doubt he and his faction will win some interest. I could see the A-A begin launching scientific A-2s into space from Germany, then once the program got rolling (slower than in OTL) they would relocate the whole operation to the States. It could take a while to get off the ground, however... but with the Cold War beginning sooner, they will have more motivation to invest in the weaponization of the rocket. Still, the biggest divergence is that the Soviets will be entirely without any German aid to their rocketry program, and that could be very interesting.

- The People's Republic of Poland is going to be small. Assuming a line on the Vistula and down to the Carpathians (which I believe is the most plausible), and then on to the Curzon Line, its going to be slimmer than West Germany. Furthermore, the Soviets are liberators there, not vengeful jailers... I don't think they'll be able to play East Germany with East Poland, not in the same way. They are going to have to treat them nice in order to prevent rebellion, and why would they make their occupation slice into a puppet country if they were playing nice? There's going to be a lot of Poles on the western side of the Vistula doing all they can to get back their Eastern half, what they believe is rightfully their country. I believe the best idea for the Soviet Union, and this is a radical one, is to make a Polish Soviet Socialist Republic, with much of the Kresy included, and include it into the USSR through faked elections. Direct annexation of East Poland into the Soviet Union would send more of a message to West Poland and its backers, give Moscow more control over the territory, and allow the Soviets to keep up the facade that they are 'helping' the Poles. The alternative would be creating a puppet state with the entire Kresy included to make them feel like a worthwhile member of the Eastern Bloc, instead of just a sliver of territory earned through war.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Losing the war is losing the war.

Extra dead Americans and British is extra dead Americans and British.

Remember, it's election year.

 

[MerryPrankster]

CG,

Yeltsin was an apprachink (sp?) and IIRC the head of the Russian Communist Party. How can one be closer to Nazism than he was to Communism?

And "Nazi" =/= "anti-Communist." You'll need to do better than that.

1. Ending the war before it reaches the mass-rape-and-burn-vengeance-for-Barbarossa stage does not necessarily mean an Allied attack on the USSR. If Stalin wants to attack the Western Allies, that's his problem.

2. Probable.

3. That's an intersting idea. Just how much of Norway did he hold?

5. Why are you so sure? Given how zealously much of the American leadership held to "unconditional surrender," they'd have to make a buttload of concessions to even get to the Stockholm Conference.

And even if this is considered subversion against an American ally, that doesn't mean it won't happen. As someone pointed out in this thread, I would imagine a very interesting 1960s in Germany--the Valkyrie government would scapegoat the Nazi leadership, the SS, etc. for everything but in the 1960s, we get OTL's youth rebellion and "revisionism."

6. One can be an anti-Semite and still be upset abot the Holocaust. Lots of "we don't want the Jews in our country clubs" WASPs help drown the Third Reich in blood and fire in TTL. There is a difference between being a snob and being a mass murderer.

7. Proof that 90% of the German male population either witnessed or participated in the Holocaust? Recent research has shown you can't blame the SS for the entire thing ("Ordinary Men" and, biased as it is, "Hitler's Willing Executioners"), but one can witness an event and not approve it.

And why are you so certain there won't be denazification in this timeline? It would be easier for the Allies to delegate such work to "friendly locals" than do it themselves. It is in the Valkyrie gang's interest to remove as many threats to their power as they can, plus many Nazis who got away with it in OTL would have been killed or detained in the process of Operation Valkyrie itself.

 

[Jotun]

[..]How do you see the armed forces (and in the broader sense, the Alt-NATO) of TTL Cold War Germany evolve ? Assume the 50s efforts to build the EDC are successful ITTL.

Damn, what did I and my big mouth get me into??

Off the top of my head, I can imagine some speedy military integration at least on a command level for some kind of proto-NATO. Since Germany has lost the war in the West, there will be a tendency to out-American the Americans and out-British the Brits (the Brits to a somewhat lesser degree, though) in certain respects, much as has happened in regard to the USA in West Germany and the USSR in East Germany after OTL WW II. But I don't think this will extend to most combat doctrines, since most of them were quite sound as long as that crazy little Austrian f*** didn't meddle. I see a fruitful exchange of doctrines and tactics:

"Auftragstaktik" (mission-oriented leadership) which has been along since the Prussian Army Reforms of Scharnhorst & co. will remain a distinctly German way of leadership, augmented with the principle of "Innere Führung" (moral leadership, I guess) which has the thinking citizen soldier at its center, along with the right to refuse orders that are against the law - no more invocations of "Befehlsnotstand", or the defense of just having followed orders after committing atrocities. I recommend the Wikipedia article on Auftragstaktik (keyword also for the English version) which is of good quality.
"Innere Führung" might be watered down because of TTL's less severe Holocaust, but I expect not. I can imagine it being developed by General Wolf Graf von Baudissin (its OTL mastermind) even earlier, since the armed forces will not be dissolved as they were OTL and there will be an overwhelming need for the new leadership to distance themselves from the Old Guard. And what better sign of improvement than a radically new leadership concept?
(In my opinion, "Innere Führung" is, hands down, the best military leadership school of thinking ever devised)
In order to present a (relatively) clean slate to the Western Allies, all three services are stripped of their more virulently Nazi and anti-Semitic personnel and swiftly, general political education in varying degrees (depending on rank group) is made mandatory. OTL's Reichswehr was kept intentionally apolitical which made its permeation by Nazism all the easier. A soldier having a solid grounding in (democratic) political knowledge is much more difficult to deceive and seduce.

Direct military results of YTL's events:

- German Army retains Battle group concept, this is adopted by the major Western militaries as well with nascent ideas of forming (temporary) internationally mixed units (think along the lines of the German-French brigade)
- The very German art of the counterattack is also retained (much as it did reappear after the re-armament of OTLs Germany). Some argue the German fascination with counterattacks sprang from the fact that OTL's 3rd Reich Heer was so inundated with proponents of constant offensive that no real defensive doctrine was ever developed.
- No more wasteful and plain idiotic pursuit of constructing "supertanks" (Maus, Ratte and all that claptrap) and other "wonder weapons", instead, the cooler, more rational heads prevail and let tank developers concentrate on well-armed, fast medium tanks. Much earlier birth of the MBT results
- The assault rifle becomes commonplace (StG 44) in the German armed forces, homegrown variants quickly appear in the inventories of the Western armies. No nominal superiority of *Warsaw Pact infantrymen with their AK 47.
- Early versions of ATGMs (research was in progress IOTL, ATGMs were seen as one way to counter the massive numbers of Soviet tanks)
- Widespread use of Special Forces (Brandenburgers, K-Forces and Paratroopers, many of whom ended up in OTL's US Army and the Foreign Legion)
- Quicker appearance of large numbers of self-propelled artillery and self-propelled AAA
- Earlier use of helicopters as transports and eventually gunships
- Jet fighters. 'nuff said
- The navy is in possession of the most advanced and best submarines in the world at that time: Types XXI and XXIII. Design copies appear in the inventories of the Western powers.
- Research into guided anti-ship missiles continues unabated.
- development of ground-air integration continues with influx of Western radar technology (refinement of the Kammhuber Line concept), FACs for frontline units
- Design and production of weapon systems is streamlined, equipment standardized


The formation of some kind of German "atonement legion" for Israel makes sense, IMNSHO.

This is just what I could think of avoiding real work at my desk...

I might do some more research on ORBATs and stuff in the following days, but real-life tasks loom and it might be some time.

 

[DrakonFin]

1. Stalin holds good chunk of Norway at this point and he's unlikely to return it to backstabbing Westerners, so expect satellite "People's Republic of Norway"

That's an intersting idea. Just how much of Norway did he hold?

By November 1944 we could expect the Soviet troops to reach Alta and Hammerfest on the coast. OTL, by this point they included Norwegian troops of "Force 138", a unit created and supplied by the British. It was to work with the Soviets to set up a Norwegian administration in the areas left by the withdrawing Germans. This was called Operation Crofter.

ITTL, Operation Crofter or its counterpart will have to be designed in a way that the troops ferried in can be used to hinder/check Soviet advance in Finnmark. Likely the Germans would have also by November made a deal allowing Allied troops to brought into northern Norway through the ports of Narvik and Tromso. When they set up, Soviet advance south will be stopped.

This would leave to Stalin most of the province of Finnmark. To make it "the People's Republic of Norway", which I would not put past Stalin, would certainly be seen by all sides merely a cynical propaganda ploy: the area does not have 100 000 people today, much less in the 40s. Also, following the German withdrawal policies many towns and villages were burned and as much as 25 000 people "were turned cave dwellers and refugees". Add to this that the local fishing fleets were destroyed by the withdrawing Germans. The PRN would be wholly dependant on the good graces of the Soviet Union.

A suggestion: after a Communist government is set up in Finland, a deal could be struck between USSR and the new Finnish leadership to strip Finland of much of northern Lapland to be incorporated with Finnmark to create a "Norwegian-Sami People's Republic". This entity would look much more viable on the map, and additionally Stalin could use it in Soviet propaganda saying he supports the rights of minority populations. The scorched earth left behind by the Germans in the area could be put to good use, too.

 

[mrmandias]

Would you want to "save Eastern Europe from communism", this TL turns into "Unthinkable" (a.k.a. "Anti-Soviet Crusade") before you notice.

1. Finland is toast. IOTL it was pacified and left alone as USSR had a bigger target in it's sights, but ITTL Stalin would likely want all of it, at least to make a point. Again, without military alliance with Finns Allies would not be able to do anything about it.

2. Do not expect denazification on any level visible without microscope. Several show trials of most prominent figures is as much as one can hope for, but most likely they'll just "disappear" (partially executed by Army special units but mostly just hidden among general German populace, which would lead to some embarrassing situations later on). Racial politics will be abandoned, but not rejected as wrong way of thinking. Think Turkish denial of Armenian genocide (I don't think that Germany would outlaw accusations of genocide, though) and whole mess of USSR reconciliation with it's bloody history (with Stalin monument at main square of major Georgian city today and Russians looking for balance between things to be proud of and ashamed of in their recent history). Any attempt to bring Nazi crimes to light at least until end of the Cold War would likely be considered Communist subversion directed against American ally (similar to impenetrable shield Allies held IOTL above Baltic Nazi collaborators, protecting them from Nazi hunters).

3. I'm not sure Holocaust would come to light. Any thought that German government democratically elected without OTL denazification is going to be friendly toward Israel is ASB. Killers are rarely friendly toward their victims and 90%+ of German males either witnessed Holocaust or participated in it. Hamas would turn phylosemitic before electorate of Valkyrie Germany elect "Jew-lovers" in government.

Agreed that this timeline turns anti-Soviet faster than is plausible. Instead of AA actually agreeing to replace German troops to stave off the advancing soviets, it probably makes more sense that negotiations about what to do about the German troops facing the Soviets stall while the other arrangements proceed, the Generals' Government keeps supplying their soldiers, and eventually the AA decides to fill in for the Germans to keep things simpler. Its going to be more complicated than this TL presents, what with the Free Polish demanding a role, etc. I think the upshot is that you probably end up with a bit more Red Army conquest than portrayed here.

I don't think the memory of the holocaust and German anti-Jewish sentiment is going to be quite as portrayed here. But I do think you're on to something. Dunno how the Federal Republic of Germany is going to treat Israel, but I'm pretty sure that the Holocaust gets downplayed until the New Left in the 60s and 70s starts using it as a hammer to beat up the German government (and the USA and UK, who will be seen as complicit in covering it up to some degree).

 

[CanadianGoose]

- The German Rocket Program.

Yes, this is interesting. IOTL Soviets reverse-engineered V2 into SCUD, but Americans got whole R&D, complete with Von Braun. Neither is going to happen ITTL.

Would the A-As begin something like Operation Paperclip, however?

Who would let them??? Certainly not Germans.

with the Cold War beginning sooner, they will have more motivation to invest in the weaponization of the rocket.

IOTL weaponization had been pushed by Soviets, Americans were quite happy with their SAC capability.

The People's Republic of Poland is going to be small. Assuming a line on the Vistula and down to the Carpathians (which I believe is the most plausible), and then on to the Curzon Line, its going to be slimmer than West Germany.

That depends on who're you going to believe. According to modern Polish views, Stalin deliberately delayed advance in Poland in order to let Germans to deal with AK as to make sovetiation down the road easier. If this is the case, Stalin has good chances to get Central Poland by intensifying his advance.

why would they make their occupation slice into a puppet country if they were playing nice?

To prevent unification and re-creation of rabidly anti-Sovet country on USSR's Western border.

I believe the best idea for the Soviet Union, and this is a radical one, is to make a Polish Soviet Socialist Republic, with much of the Kresy included, and include it into the USSR through faked elections.

Polish SSR is possible if gains in Poland are small (after all, USSR did include Karelo-Finnish SSR at this time), but including much of Kresy into any Polish entity smacks of ASB. Even with "creative accounting" during censuses (for example, pretty much every Catholic burgher there was considered "Polish"), Poles remained minority and amount of bad blood between Polish overlords and Ukrainian/Belarussian farmers was incredible.

Extra dead Americans and British is extra dead Americans and British.

Remember, it's election year.

Yes, this is another strike against AA messing around in E. Europe. I'm not saying that Red Army could crush Allies and triumphantly roll to Channel, but anyone who prepared to fight Reds at this point should brace itself for losses in millions.

Yeltsin was an apprachink (sp?) and IIRC the head of the Russian Communist Party. How can one be closer to Nazism than he was to Communism?

There was no shortage of high-ranking Nazis even among active plotters (does "Arthur Nebe" rings a bell?) and, would they succeed, basically anyone short of Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and half-dozen others would declare himself a supporter.

And "Nazi" =/= "anti-Communist."

It does not from the get-go, although anti-Communism is one of pillars of Nazism. However, inner logic of TL (early Cold War to prevent Stalin's gains in EE) leads to Allies finding themselves in the same bed with Valkyrie Germany (or, to describe the process better, Germany become an Ally) before you know it. AA would need all German co-operation they could get to stop Red Army. That leads to brotherhood in arms. That leads to natural desire to protect a valuable ally

1. Ending the war before it reaches the mass-rape-and-burn-vengeance-for-Barbarossa stage does not necessarily mean an Allied attack on the USSR. If Stalin wants to attack the Western Allies, that's his problem.

I was looking for an answer to question "How are AA going to stop Red Army from advancing, if they signed separate peace with Germany and Soviet-German War is still going on?" which wasn't "Fight Soviets shoulder to shoulder with Wehrmacht and Waffen SS". I couldn't. Could you? I mean, after separate peace is signed, we're basically having enlarged "Winter War" scenario, with USSR battling another Western country. How could Allies stop this battle without effectively entering war on Nazi side?

3. That's an intersting idea. Just how much of Norway did he hold?

Enough to get far better access to Northern Atlantic than he did IOTL.

5. Why are you so sure? Given how zealously much of the American leadership held to "unconditional surrender," they'd have to make a buttload of concessions to even get to the Stockholm Conference.

"American Leadership" you're relying upon (a.k.a. FDR) is dead and buried at this point.

And even if this is considered subversion against an American ally, that doesn't mean it won't happen.

It doesn't. But chances of this happening are much less. Besides, there's question of interpretation, even if facts are uncovered. IOTL Holocaust and tragedy of Belorussian civs and Soviet POWs were given very different interpretation by Western public opinion. Why do you think Holocaust will get it's OTL attention ITTL?

I would imagine a very interesting 1960s in Germany--the Valkyrie government would scapegoat the Nazi leadership, the SS, etc. for everything but in the 1960s, we get OTL's youth rebellion and "revisionism."

Just forget about it. Much of OTL "rebellion" was triggered by denazification program, which was truly unprecedented in human history. Without it (and I have strong feeling that it wouldn't happen ITTL) you're likely to get new Weimar instead, with vets bemoaning Stab-in-the-back and youths enthranced by stories of Old Glory. Just look at OTL Japan (where PMs are regularly praying in temple dedicated to memory of individuals widely considered war criminals), Russia (where a lot of folks still think of Stalin as "effective manager") and Baltics (where Waffen SS vets are considered saviors of nation and Jewish partisans are investigated for war crimes) to get a feeling of most likely German attitude ITTL toward their past.

7. Proof that 90% of the German male population either witnessed or participated in the Holocaust? Recent research has shown you can't blame the SS for the entire thing ("Ordinary Men" and, biased as it is, "Hitler's Willing Executioners"), but one can witness an event and not approve it.

All Army vets who served on Eastern Front. All public servants who provided logistic support for deportations in Germany proper and on occupied territories. OK, it might not be 90%, but it is sure a solid majority. And ones who weren't perps or witnesses will be deeply offended by pesky Jews repeating their accusations against Great German Nation.

And why are you so certain there won't be denazification in this timeline?

I'm not certain, but there're much less chances for it ITTL than IOTL. Alliance is established much earlier and Germany is an important partner.

I think the upshot is that you probably end up with a bit more Red Army conquest than portrayed here.

I would say that USSR has more than 50% chances of getting most of OTL Poland. Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, Northern Norway are toasts, short of swift and outlandishly successfull Unthinkable. And Balkans are going to be fun. IOTL Greek commies were able to wage long civil war even without Soviet support and in Yugoslavia communist Partisans were by far mightiest force in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia. ITTL Stalin, after being cheated by AA, isn't going to restraint himself in supporting every Communist guerilla he could find, so AA are likely to get Viet Nam early and in Europe.

Czechoslovakia is another interesting case. IOTL both leadership and general population were dreaming of finlandization, as long as market economy and internal autonomy were being preserved (blame Munich and Western betrayal). So, any free and fair elections are going to produce very Sovietophilic government in Central Europe, sharing border with USSR. I'm sure New Allies would find a way around it, but loads of fun are guaranteed too.

I don't think the memory of the holocaust and German anti-Jewish sentiment is going to be quite as portrayed here.

I admit I was being pessimistic when I wrote it but, if human experience is any indication, my scenario is more likely than OTL development. Past injustices usually don't generate loads of brotherly love from oppressor to oppressed, if relationships between Japanese and Chinese, British and Indians or Turks and Armenians is any indication

 

[MerryPrankster]

They may not generate lots of brotherly love, but they sure can generate lots and lots of guilt.

Didn't Germany pay reparations to Israel, build submarines for them at reduced rates even today, etc?

British and Indians? Are you talking about during the colonial period or today?

And you missed the point about witnessing the atrocities. Not everyone who saw an atrocity being committed is going to be cheering it on.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Didn't Germany pay reparations to Israel, build submarines for them at reduced rates even today, etc?

AFAIK Israel paid market rates for submarines, which can be considered a form of subsidy, as a lot of companies price fear of Arab sanctions in rates they charge Israeli. However, it is beside the point, as today German-Israel relationships are result of unique denazification program, which had been set into motion by a chain of events started when Soviets and AA worked together. Would denazification program be a bit less energetic than IOTL, you might kiss any "collective guilt" (which largely powers Germany's friendship today and explains lack of massive demontrations against "Israeli apartheid") goodbye. It would likely be replaced by something closer to OTL Baltic attitude, for example (complete absence of any efforts to prosecute Nazi criminals but never-failing zeal to investigate and, if possible, prosecute Jewish partisans for war crimes).

British and Indians? Are you talking about during the colonial period or today?

I mean there's no huge effort from modern-day Brit to support India to make up for past oppression and deaths.

And you missed the point about witnessing the atrocities. Not everyone who saw an atrocity being committed is going to be cheering it on.

I based my prediction on OTL Russo-Polish relationships, as far as Katyn and whole guilt issue is concerned. 99.99999% of Russians had as much to do with Katyn as Central African Pygmys do. However, Polish insistence on yearly Russian apologies for Katyn does not generate a lot of warm a lot of fuzzy feelings toward Poland among ordinary Russians. Lithuanian-Jewish relationships are another example (Lithuanians not only wiped local Jews out by themselves, they were always at hand to do dirty executioner job for Germans in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus etc., but they largely consider themselves victims of Judeo-Bolshevik terror). I believe this is more accurate predictions of what German-Jewish relationships would look like ITTL, taking into account early alliance between AA and Germany.

 

[General Zod]

Heh, I'm happy to see that the TL has endengered so many comments and interests. Some points:

@Valdemaer: your points about demographics of post-war Europe are very interesting and I'm taking them in due consideration for future developments. I can only tell you that differently from your considerations, I would have somewhat more surviving Jews to move the Israel. And whether the ethnic cleansings in Prussia and the Sudetenland, may or may not ultiamtely fail as you point, I do not believe that Prussia and the Sudetes would have different fates. IMO if German presence revives in Prussia, it ought to do so in Sudentenalnd as well, or die out in both places.

I rather see Transylvania and Vojvidina staying in Hugary, but with federal autonomy.

Re: the "restoration of independence" of Austria. There was no such thing. There only was a part of the German nation that after WWI had been forced to be separate from the rest of the German nation, against its will. Much like Mexico had won the Mexican-American War, and had forbidden the union of Texas with the USA.

Re: the Anti-Soviet Crusade. As far as I reckon things, Churchill and the post-Roosevelt American leadership apply the following reasoning as a base for their policy in 1944: our war aims were the liberation of Europe, the defeat of Hitler, and the surrender of Germany in order to enforce proper denazification and demilitarisation of that nation. The fall of the Nazi regime and the surrender of Germany accomplishes all of our war aims quite satisfatingly. That the German people asked us some basic garantees in exchange for an early end to the war and bloodless liberation fo Europe is a bargain we find satisfactory. That they trust us alone, and not the Soviets, to be their caretakers, and asked garantees about it, is also something we find reasonable. As far as we are concerned, Stalin's reasonable war aims were also fulfilled with the complete liberation of his coutry, the fall of Nazsim, and the liberation of Europe. For the sake of peace, we also recognize the territorial gains he got by previous bargains with Hitler, questionable as they may be, and control over the territories and countries he managed to conquest until the end of the war, just like he ought to recognize what we have managed to liberate with our own efforts. We think this may be an adequate basis to regulate the future settlment of Europe and certainly we do not deem suitable or acceptable that we ought to help him expand the control of his very questionable political regime beyond this limit. Under these terms, we can have peace, cooperation, commerce, and collaboration to rebuild the world. If he would choose to use threats or force to change this balance, it only means that he was never any different from Hitler after all, and we should oppose him as we opposed Hitler. We hope can see reason and not press the issue, but if he does, better that we fight another power-mad dictator when we are still fully geared for war. If he does not go all the way to war but remains hostile nonetheless, then we are in for a long-term containtment action.

Stalin is not going to press WWIII in order to expand his conquests because he knows that A) America has got rather more untapped resources than USSR in 1944 B) He would not have any qualms to rearm post-Nazi Germany, Vichy France, and post-fascist Italy to fight WWIII, and expects the A-A to do likewise, and against America + Western Europe, the USSR is doomed C) the nukes are probably coming, and the Americans shall have them years before him.

Denazification is still going to happen ITTL. Both the post-Nazi leadership and the A-A see the need for a housecleaning, both for moral and political reasons, beofre and after Germany becomes a full-fledged ally. As I posted above, it's going to be focused on those who gave the criminal orders and those who transmitted them, not on the rank and file. Out of convenience, the A-A and the German authorities may be willing to let some individuals of exceptional usefulness (scientists, officers) let go scot free as long as they pledge their services to the Cold War cause, much as it happened IOTL. Pragmatism always trumps morality.

Even if the A-A attitude towards the German people is rather nicer ITTL, they are still going to enforce extensive mass reeducation programs about the crimes of Nazism. Think abundant newsreels about and mass visits to the camps.

The A-A begin to think of Germany as a useful major ally earlier ITTL, but still they are going to let it join their company only after it has "rehabilitated".

About the dimensions of Soviet Poland, Stalin is not going to be any nicer to Sovietized Poles ITTL than he was IOTL. He may attempt to woo Western Poland out of the Western block with promises or reunification in a neutral state (much as he did IOTL with Germany), but that's all. If they prove any rebellious, it's time for the Red Army and the NKVD to earn their pay. I've not yet decided whether he would reunify Kresy with East Poland or keep Kresy united with Bielorussia and Ukraine and leave Polish People's Republic as a buffer satellite or annex it to USSR outright. Stalin was very cavalier with nationalities and the internal borders of USSR and vassal countries, moving them as it suited his strategic interests. I see reasons for him going either way.

So let's have another vote on the issue, people: what do you think best: East Poland reunited with pre-war territories, left to stand alone, or annexed to USSR ??

The idea that Stalin could keep Finnmark under his thumb and annex it to the SOviet block sincerely had escaped my notice so far, but it is fine, indeed. IMO setting up a separate Norwegian Communist state in that remote tiny province might be a bit excessive even as a propaganda ploy. I would rather see Finnmark annexed to Red Finland. Of ourse, this is going to PO Norway and Sweden to no end and make them even more eager to seek American protection.

 

[mrmandias]

the "restoration of independence" of Austria. There was no such thing. There only was a part of the German nation that after WWI had been forced to be separate from the rest of the German nation, against its will. Much like Mexico had won the Mexican-American War, and had forbidden the union of Texas with the USA.

WWI was not a war for the union of Germany and Austria. There may have been times post-war when Austria would have wanted to join Germany, dunno, but in the main no, especially around the Anschluss. That doesn't mean that your post-war Germany won't include Austria. Maybe the Allies insist on some kind of vote in Austria and clever German leaders keep putting it off until the Allies are thoroughly entangled with the troubles in Eastern Europe. At which point the idea of a vote is allowed to die a quiet death or else the Allies connive with the Germans to hold a vote at a time and under circumstances when its sure to succeed.

 

[mrmandias]

The real reasont that this New Germany and Israel will have bad relations is that the limited de-nazification won't go far enough to satisfy Israel. Israelis will constantly be dredging up 'Ordinary Men' type evidence that is going to infuriate the German people.

How do you say 'move on' in German?

 

[CanadianGoose]

The real reasont that this New Germany and Israel will have bad relations is that the limited de-nazification won't go far enough to satisfy Israel. Israelis will constantly be dredging up 'Ordinary Men' type evidence that is going to infuriate the German people.

Quite possible too. And "Ordinary Men" would include anyone but Eichmann himself.

 

[CanadianGoose]

]\If they prove any rebellious, it's time for the Red Army and the NKVD to earn their pay.

As far as I know Communist Poles were minding their affairs themselves. Neither Red Army nor Soviet security forces ran day-to-day show in Poland.

 

[Vaude]

The situation in Europe as I see it developing so far. I added Finnmark as a puppet state. Ignore the map outside of Europe.

 

[General Zod]

Agreed that this timeline turns anti-Soviet faster than is plausible. Instead of AA actually agreeing to replace German troops to stave off the advancing soviets, it probably makes more sense that negotiations about what to do about the German troops facing the Soviets stall while the other arrangements proceed, the Generals' Government keeps supplying their soldiers, and eventually the AA decides to fill in for the Germans to keep things simpler. Its going to be more complicated than this TL presents, what with the Free Polish demanding a role, etc. I think the upshot is that you probably end up with a bit more Red Army conquest than portrayed here.

The A-A's attitude about the problem of the Germans and the Soviets facing was "Good news, the Germans and their minor allies are willing to surrender to us, so the war is won. The Germans have asked us some basic garantees about the integrity of their nation, but it's reasonble stuff we can work upon. Your country has been already freed, so you ought to make a ceasefire with the Germans until we arrive and can take custody of them. Then we can arrange details about restoring freedom and democracy for the nations of Eastern Europe".

It's when Stalin keeps pressing on to gain more territory (remember, by this point the Red Army was fighting beyond its borders) that the A-A become more and more cognizant that Soviets might make the anti-Nazi crusade an excuse for a power grab in EE, and that becomes all the more reason to arrange things so that the less ground they gain outside of their borders, the better.

The anti-Soviet Free Polish were beside themselves with joy with the idea that the A-A, not the Soviets, were to take control of Western Poland, of course.

The Soviets, apart from their breakthrough in Romania, which puts Moldavia, Wallachia, Bulgaria, Vardar Macedonia, and Serbia under their thumb, are stalemated on the Summer 1944 frontlines, because the Valkurie government, seeing a possibility to achieve peace with the A-A, throws every military resources it has left on the Eastern front. This makes them able to resist the Soviets on the Neman-Narew-Vistula-Carpathians-Sava-Dvina line, an impassable stand until the A-A arrive, take control of them, and effectively take their place as occupation forces. The A-A see no reason to let the Soviets advance any further than they have got. Either Stalin accepts the defacto demarcation line and negotiates about it (hence the agreements to restore the unity of Poland in due time, the refrendums in Transylvania and Vojvodina, etc. which shall fall because of the Cold War) or he starts shooting the A-A with no better casus belli than "I want my slice of Central Europe". He does not, because it's war he knows he would lose.

It this WWIII war would happen, it would not be "A-A entering war on Nazi side", there is no longer any Nazi side, they have been ousted and post-Nazi Germany has surrendered to the A-A. This effectively puts an end to the Soviet-German war as far as the just war aims of the Soviet Union (liberation of their country, downfall of Nazi Germany) were concerned. If the Soviets have any other residual legitimate concern (punishment of war crimnals, reparations) they are welcome to negotiate them with the A-A who are in charge of Germany according to the surrender terms. If the Soviets attack the A-A occupation troops in Poland and Hungary because they want to take their place, that's just Winter War on a continental scale, another power-mad dictator picking a flimsly excuse to attack Europe. If this war has to be fought, so be it. If we have to use some German troops to fight Stalin, so be it. Stalin used to be our "ally", before he showed his true colors, too. Wars make unconfortable bedfellows.

I think that anyone that tells the Valkurie plotters were more compromised with Nazism than Gorbachev and Yeltsin were compromised with Communism is making a political and moral hypocritical double standard that I do not regard as worthy of debate.

The assumption that all Axis vets who fought on the Eastern front were accomplishes in atrocities is simply ridiculous (by the same standard, all American vets in Vietnam and Iraq would be war criminals). The real culprits here are the officers in charge of units directly involved in atrocities.

 

[mrmandias]

The assumption that all Axis vets who fought on the Eastern front were accomplishes in atrocities is simply ridiculous (by the same standard, all American vets in Vietnam and Iraq would be war criminals). The real culprits here are the officers in charge of units directly involved in atrocities.

The idea that the scale of war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq was comparable to the WWII eastern front is not tenable.