Valkyrie successful: a different Cold War

[General Zod]

I would say that USSR has more than 50% chances of getting most of OTL Poland.

He does if you include pre-war Eastern territories in the account. The border roughly goes from the East Prussia border to the Narew, then follows the Vistula down to the Tatras. OTOH, West Poland gets East Prussia, which compensates their losses in territory, if not Polish population, to a degree.

I wish to call your attention on a funny fact: ITTL, we are going to have two major cities, Warshaw and Belgrade, that are cut in two by the West-East border.

Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, Northern Norway are toasts, short of swift and outlandishly successfull Unthinkable.

Yes.

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.

Hardly a Vietnam. OTL Greek Commies were effectively crushed by the Greek Army with A-A support, even with Tito giving them a sanctuary. There is going to be a Commie insurgency in Greece and Bosnia, but the A-A shall be able to crush it. I have not yet decided whether Stalin would greenlight Commie rebellions in France and Italy, but those insurgencies would be doomed from the start, those countries in the middle of the Western block and Commie mass appeal, while significant, was far from the majority.

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.

The conditions are very different ITTL. Here Czechoslovakia has been liberated by the A-A, so any lingering bad blood about Munich gets quickly buried (even more so since the A-A gifted them with the Sudetenland). TTL's Czechs have no reason to be Sovietophilic.

 

[General Zod]

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

It's not about scale. It's about being directly involved in atrocities or not. The Axis vets busy shooting Russkie soldiers in Stalingrad had as much to do with the units shooting Urkainian Jews as the GI shooting Sunni insurgents with the personnel of Abu Graib.

 

[General Zod]

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.

Once they have put the local security structures in place for Communist Poland, yes you are right (unless some mass rebellion occurs like OTL 1953 East Germany or 1956 Hungary which goes beyond the ability of the local Commies to suppress). I was referring about hypothetical rebellions in the first years of Soviet rule.

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.

Yes, the democratic parliaments of post-WWI german Austria and Sudetenland had voted to join Germany. And, yes, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Anschluss fulfilled the will of the Austrian people. And no, the A-A or the German government would have no need to "cheat" about popular approval for TTL Austria to stay in Germany.

 

[General Zod]

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

Your European map seems fine to me Vaude. Well done and thanks. I'm only doubtful whether Stalin would bother tyo set up Finnmark as a Norwegian Communist state, or just annex it to Communist Finland, since as a separate state it looks rather pathetic. You have covered an area of TTL where my skills are sorely lacking. I hope to give you the means to complete it soon, when I get to write the end of the war in Asia.

A minor question: do you guys think I ought to edit the 1944 TL to make an explicit mention that Stalin occupied Finnmark as well, or is it minor enough that we can leve it to descriptions of post-war Europe ?

 

[CanadianGoose]

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".

This is an attitude useful to deal with bare-arsed savages, not with one of mightiest powers on Earth. Basically, AA provoke Stalin to respond "Yeah, guys, but you forgot to invite us on this pow-wow of brotherly love you had with that sorry bunch of worst evildoers Earth ever knew. Now, we're still at war with Germany and nobody offered us decent peace conditions. If you have 2-3 millions of voters you want killed, you can send them there to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazi" And it deteriorates into Unthinkable from this point on. Exactly as I predicted.

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.

There's little thingy called "security needs". It could be happily ignored in 1992-1999, as far as bankrupt and powerless Russia was concerned, but this game is much harder to play with USSR-1944.

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,

Didn't you forget about Bosnia and Montenegro? And your casual reference to AA working mano-a-mano with Ustasha to stop Reds in Yugoslavia just strengthens my darkest suspicions that denazification would be ASB in this world. If one could imagine a regime more ripe for denazification than Nazi Germany, it was Ustasha Croatia.

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.

This paragraph contains several mortal sins, as far as WWII alternatives are concerned. 1st, it assumes that Nazis own teleportation system, which relocates any available resources immediately as soon as resources become available. Assuming lack of teleportation it is going to take weeks if not months for resources not needed on Western front to be deployed against Russians. 2nd, you are building on "two wars" concept, assuming that Eastern and Western front were roughly equal and same German troops could fight Russians as good as they fought Americans. Sorry to rain on your parade, but Wehrmacht sent West remnants of their units smashed into unrecognizable mess on Eastern front. Western front was considered a vacation.

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.

Well, doesn't it mean that WWI ended in Brest-Litovsk and everything after that were just evil imperialist games? AA betrayed their ally USSR by signing separate peace with regime chock-full of Nazi war criminals. Now they need to enter war on said Nazi's side to prevent USSR from continuing war against perps of worst atrocities known to man (I'm deliberately using propaganda language here, to underscore bare truth under "ousted Nazi" veil)

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.

Now we're getting somethere. Allies negotiating on behalf of Nazis. Well, if that's not an alliance, it is hard to say what is.

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.

Why did you spend so much time playing deeply offended at suggestion that your TL likely degrades into Unthinkable? Now you're admitting yourself that Unthinkable would be likely result of Stalin protesting against AA setting up chain of rabidly anti-Soviet regimes along USSR's Western border.

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.

You might want to try to argue that old Nazi Arthur Nebe (card-carrying member of NSDAP and SA before 1933), whose hands are shoulder-deep red in blood of POWs and political prisoners, is less compromised with Nazism than Yeltsin, who did not work one day in Communist political police, with Communism. Some people argue siller things.

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)

I'm generally incredibly critical of American conduct, but I have to say my eyes almost popped out of eyesockets at this comparison. There's a war and there's a war. There's an army operating under UCMJ, Hague, Geneva and whole bunch of other laws and rules of war andf there's an army operating under Kommissarbefehl and having Einsatzgruppen in it's midst. They are not equal in any sence and comparison is meaningless.

The real culprits here are the officers in charge of units directly involved in atrocities.

Yes, that would be an argument which would be repeated ad nauseam in this world to shield from denazification almost everyone prosecuted IOTL.

The border roughly goes from the East Prussia border to the Narew, then follows the Vistula down to the Tatras.

I'm not sure anything but major handwaving is going to stop Stalin from getting some gains to West of this line before AA formally enter into union with Valkyrie Germany and deploy their armies on the frontline.

I wish to call your attention on a funny fact: ITTL, we are going to have two major cities, Warshaw and Belgrade, that are cut in two by the West-East border.

Unlikely. We're more likely to have enclaved Warsaw (IOTL Western Berlin), liberated by AK from Nazis and included into Western Poland and, whoever would control Belgrade (my bet is on Tito), would likely control entire city.

Hardly a Vietnam. OTL Greek Commies were effectively crushed by the Greek Army with A-A support, even with Tito giving them a sanctuary. There is going to be a Commie insurgency in Greece and Bosnia, but the A-A shall be able to crush it.

Sanctuary is somewhat different from massive supply of war materiel and "advisors", which Tito wasn't in a position to provide. War is going to last longer and claim much more victims, if pro-Western Greek government would ever be strong enough to keep guerilla under the proverbial lid without foreign intervention. And I'm very doubtful about scale of AA success in Bosnia. Even Germans could not do anything about guerilla there, and AA just plainly not as good.

I have not yet decided whether Stalin would greenlight Commie rebellions in France and Italy, but those insurgencies would be doomed from the start, those countries in the middle of the Western block and Commie mass appeal, while significant, was far from the majority.

I don't believe in Commie guerillas there. Italian and French commies are of more use as legitimate political parties in their own countries.

The conditions are very different ITTL. Here Czechoslovakia has been liberated by the A-A, so any lingering bad blood about Munich gets quickly buried (even more so since the A-A gifted them with the Sudetenland). TTL's Czechs have no reason to be Sovietophilic.

Much of Czech lands had been liberated by Americans IOTL, which did not change anything. Look, Czech just had no faith in Western allies as guarantors of Czech independence, and inclusion of Valkyrie Germany into Alliance just going to stroke their worst fears about AA ready to sell them to German imperialists. So, if there would be any difference between Czech pre-1948 attitude IOTL and Czech attitude ITTL, it is that Czech are going to be even more Sovietophilic ITTL.

 

[Nekromans]

Interesting TL, GZ.

 

[mrmandias]

It's not about scale. It's about being directly involved in atrocities or not. The Axis vets busy shooting Russkie soldiers in Stalingrad had as much to do with the units shooting Urkainian Jews as the GI shooting Sunni insurgents with the personnel of Abu Graib.

Axis troops on the Eastern front were directly involved in war crimes on a much larger scale than American troops in Iraq. So much so that your comparision to Iraq and Vietnam is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

 

[MerryPrankster]

CG,

I have a strong suspicion "security needs" is an excuse for imperialism. If it's a buffer they want, a Finlandized Poland with no army will do.

A brutal occupation (there was a war with the Home Army that lasted until 1947 at least) was not necessary. And the Baltics were annexed outright.

The fact that the USSR liked to proclaim its desire to spread Communism and Stalin himself said something to the effect that he didn't do as well as Czar Alexander (who got to Paris) makes me think "security needs" was merely propaganda to feed the useful idiots of the Western left.

Glorious Mother Russia is not entitled to occupy its neighbors and tyrannize their populations.

And "Nazi" is not synonymous with "any German who is not a self-loathing masochist with no national pride." Even if many Valkyrie conspirators were latecomers driven by self-interest (the war was clearly lost), not all of them were.

And Stalin can protest that he doesn't get the Eastern Europeans as his "war booty" to kingdom come if he wants. If he starts shooting at Anglo-American soldiers, he is still the aggressor.

And these states would be "rabidly anti-Soviet" because they would be democratic and their populations hate Communism and Russia for entirely justifiable reasons. Setting up democratic governments that follow the voters' will is not an act of aggression.

M,

I will concede Wehrmacht units were involved in atrocities on a larger scale than US forces in Vietnam or Iraq ("Ordinary Mean").

However, that does not mean that every soldier on the Eastern Front or even a majority of them are guilty of war crimes or approval of war crimes.

CG is trying to brand the majority of Germany's military-aged male population as either killers or sympathizers thereof.

 

[mrmandias]

Merry Prankster,

Agreed.

 

[CanadianGoose]

I have a strong suspicion "security needs" is an excuse for imperialism.

Yes, it is very hard to divide those two. However, try to say that democratic rabidly anti-American regime of today's Venezuela or post-Batista Cuba (Castro regime had been clearly supported by majority of Cubans at this point) to American leadership. There are fine and glorious declarations and there's realpolitik. And realpolitik says that country surrounded by satellites is in better position than country surrounded by bitter enemies. Plain and simple.

If it's a buffer they want, a Finlandized Poland with no army will do.

Not quite and definitely not in 1944. Finland has unique geographic feature of having no land link to Western Europe (frozen spaces up North don't count). Therefore it could not be used as a bridgehead without Finns entering war and welcoming massive numbers of foreign troops at their territory (as they did in 1941). So, by securing Finnish inability to join NATO and participate in war against USSR, Stalin effectively created safe NW border. On the flip side, Poland is natural bridgehead and finlandizing it still places Allied forces within 2-day march from Soviet border. Poland could be finlandized since 1950 (when nukes came into being) and with significant Soviet military presence there, but not before that.

The fact that the USSR liked to proclaim its desire to spread Communism and Stalin himself said something to the effect that he didn't do as well as Czar Alexander (who got to Paris) makes me think "security needs" was merely propaganda to feed the useful idiots of the Western left.

You might be right. There's no definite answer. Expansionist drive was there, as well as messianic Communist drive, as well as natural security paranoia of nations which barely survived most brutal foreign invasion modern world had ever known. And isn't it natural for any regime to trumpet most noble of it's motives and gloss over less noble ones?

And "Nazi" is not synonymous with "any German who is not a self-loathing masochist with no national pride." Even if many Valkyrie conspirators were latecomers driven by self-interest (the war was clearly lost), not all of them were.

Theoretically (did I ever told you Russian joke about "spherical horse in vacuum"?) it isn't. However, as soon as nice theory would come into contact with dirty reality, it very likely would be (I believe that several discussions I had with you and Zod in this thread demonstrated that early Cold War almost inevitably breeds Nazi Germany barely undergoing cosmetic makeover). Just like Communism is nice theory, but it bears very unpleasant fruits every time it grafted to dirty reality of Earth inhabited by Homo Sapiens.

And Stalin can protest that he doesn't get the Eastern Europeans as his "war booty" to kingdom come if he wants. If he starts shooting at Anglo-American soldiers, he is still the aggressor.

And these states would be "rabidly anti-Soviet" because they would be democratic and their populations hate Communism and Russia for entirely justifiable reasons. Setting up democratic governments that follow the voters' will is not an act of aggression.

Again, loud words are nice and dandy, but try to convince an American that letting rabid anti-American Sandinistas in power in Nicaragua is worthy deed. Basically, if we turn your argument around, you propose radical Commies coming to power in Mexico in 1945 and expect USA being OK with that. Rather weird idea, isn't it? And what about countries where either Communist or Russophilic parties had credible chance to win democratic elections? Nobody batted an eye at my suggestion that both peaceful and violent means would be employed by AA to prevent peoples in those countries from freely excercising their democratic rights.

However, that does not mean that every soldier on the Eastern Front or even a majority of them are guilty of war crimes or approval of war crimes.

Majority of them are guilty of at least looking other way while unimaginable atrocities were being committed within half-mile from them tops. I believe we had similar argument before over fate of Russophones in Baltic countries. AFAIR you were saying something in effect of "mere nature of their settlement is sign of complicity in Communist crimes and therefore collective punishment meted on them is justified". However, Commie regime in Baltic countries was absolutely daisy-picking virgin innocent comparing to what Nazi did in USSR. And you still have nerve to accuse me of not being fair toward noble German knights who selflessly fought Communist Beasts.

And, last but not least. I can't believe that nobody remembered 800-pound gorilla present in any room where early Soviet-AA split is discussed. Before Nukes came into being, Americans desperately need Soviet assistance to deal with Japan without sacrificing millions of American lives. And isn't this explanation trumpets questionnable theory of FDR being closeted Commie?

 

[DrakonFin]

I have a strong suspicion "security needs" is an excuse for imperialism.

This kind of reminds me of a scene in The Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna, a classic Finnish war novel. The following exchange takes place, when the soldiers of the Machine Gun Company cross the "old border" (1920 vintage) into the Soviet Union in 1941 (my translation):

"-Were in Russia, boys, Salo said.

Lahtinen limped on, grumpy, looked at the others and growled:

-Yes we are. And here end our rights. I mean from now on, we are thieves and robbers. So that you know.

- Robbers, robbers, muttered Sihvonen angrily.

- Yes, verily we are the ones that are robbers and thieves, crossing borders. The others, they are only protecting their security, when they move borders about.."

 

[CanadianGoose]

This kind of reminds me of a scene in The Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna, a classic Finnish war novel.

Very true. And it all depends on perspective. We've crossed the border of "one person's terrorist is another person's freedomfighter" country pretty early in this thread and I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate to have all viewpoints presented.

 

[General Zod]

CG,

I have a strong suspicion "security needs" is an excuse for imperialism. If it's a buffer they want, a Finlandized Poland with no army will do.

A brutal occupation (there was a war with the Home Army that lasted until 1947 at least) was not necessary. And the Baltics were annexed outright.

The fact that the USSR liked to proclaim its desire to spread Communism and Stalin himself said something to the effect that he didn't do as well as Czar Alexander (who got to Paris) makes me think "security needs" was merely propaganda to feed the useful idiots of the Western left.

Glorious Mother Russia is not entitled to occupy its neighbors and tyrannize their populations.

And "Nazi" is not synonymous with "any German who is not a self-loathing masochist with no national pride." Even if many Valkyrie conspirators were latecomers driven by self-interest (the war was clearly lost), not all of them were.

And Stalin can protest that he doesn't get the Eastern Europeans as his "war booty" to kingdom come if he wants. If he starts shooting at Anglo-American soldiers, he is still the aggressor.

And these states would be "rabidly anti-Soviet" because they would be democratic and their populations hate Communism and Russia for entirely justifiable reasons. Setting up democratic governments that follow the voters' will is not an act of aggression.

M,

I will concede Wehrmacht units were involved in atrocities on a larger scale than US forces in Vietnam or Iraq ("Ordinary Mean").

However, that does not mean that every soldier on the Eastern Front or even a majority of them are guilty of war crimes or approval of war crimes.

CG is trying to brand the majority of Germany's military-aged male population as either killers or sympathizers thereof.

I heartily commend MerryPrankster for stating my point on these arguments probably better than I could have. I eagerly concede that there were huge differences of scale between the Eastern front and Vietnam/Iraq. Making them equal would be outrageous. But making each and every German soldier that served on the Eastern Front a war criminal is equally as outrageous.

As it concerns the Soviet "security needs" and retribution for Nazi crimes:

The sum of the Stockholm and Yalta accords stated that:

-the USSR is recognized in its 1941 borders, questionable as the territorial gains in 1939-41 may have been.

-a sphere of influence (albeit not the right to impose a Communist regime by force) was recognized to the USSR in Finland, Romania (munis Transylvania), Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia.

-Germany was occupied and administered by the Western powers to be denazified and demilitarized. It got garantees about national unity, industrial integrity, territorial integrity in pre-Munich borders (minus Prussia), eventual restoration of political independence, and lack of collective or summary punishments.

-Poland was to be temporarily divided in occupation zones according to last front line, subsequently a unitary neutral democratic market-economy state was to be set up.

-Yugoslavia was to be temporarily set up in occupation zones, according to last front line, then either a unitary neutral democratic market-economy multinational state or a set of indipendent national states were to be set up, acocrding to the results of referendums.

-Transylvania and Vojvodina were to be temporarily occupied by the Western powers, their ownnership to be settled by referendum.

-Nazist war cirminals and criminals against humanity were to be tried by international tribunals.

-Reparations by Axis powers towards invaded countries were acknowledged, their amount to be established by negotiations between the Anglo-Americans occupying powers and the wronged countries.

(of course, some of these provisions shall be made unenforceable by the onset of the Cold War).

As it may be seen, these sets of provisions makes for ample garantees about Soviet security needs and retribution for Nazi crimes. Any claim that they are insufficient and Soviet needs may only be settled by Soviet occupation of Central Europe (which the Red Army never managed to conquer) is outrageous and may only deemed as a pitiful excuse for blatant Soviet land-grabbing, which the Anglo-Americans have no moral nor political obligation to acknowledge or appease.

If Stalin disagrees, that's his problem to live with. If he starts shooting Anglo-American soldiers to grab Central Europe, then he has made himself the world's problem, same as Hitler, and shall be treated accordingly.

He won't since he knows it's a war he would lose, for several reasons: if he attacks Anglo-American soldiers without provocation, Western public opinion shall chalk him as a rabid dog, and spare no effort to bring him down; 1944 America has much better reserves of military potential than 1944 Russia; the A-A might or might not have moral qualms in using German/Italian/Vichy French soldiers as support troops in WWIII, but he would not, and expect the A-A do act as he would, and against America + Western Europe, the USSR is doomed; the nukes might or might not work, but they are coming, and if they work, the USA shall have them years before Russia. That is not a war that he's not going to pick. In a year, the A-A would dine in the Kremlin (assuming it is not radioactive debris).

 

[General Zod]

However, as soon as nice theory would come into contact with dirty reality, it very likely would be (I believe that several discussions I had with you and Zod in this thread demonstrated that early Cold War almost inevitably breeds Nazi Germany barely undergoing cosmetic makeover).

Actually you have demonstrated nothing, as I have stated time and again that denazification at least as extensive as OTL shall be made by the Anglo-Americans as occupying powers. The conditional surrender terms only bind their hands against summary or collective punishments. Of course, if one's idea of an effective denazification is to treat each and every Heer veteran as a war criminal, they are going to be seriously let down. What a tragedy.

And, last but not least. I can't believe that nobody remembered 800-pound gorilla present in any room where early Soviet-AA split is discussed. Before Nukes came into being, Americans desperately need Soviet assistance to deal with Japan without sacrificing millions of American lives. And isn't this explanation trumpets questionnable theory of FDR being closeted Commie?

ITTL, the Western Allies effectively won the war a couple months after D-Day. They are free to transfer all the military potential from a spared year's worth of fighting in Europe to subdue Japan. That's more than enough for the task of subduing Japan. They are already completely cut off from South West Asia by the loss of Taiwan and Philippines, and soon to lose China, Korea, and the Ryukyu and be trapped into an airtight naval blocakde with around-the-clock carpet bombings. If the nukes aren't coming, blockade starvation and ongoing carpet bombings shall bring Japan to its needs just as effectively. That the USA needed Soviets to win the war with Japan was FDR's delusion, which TTL shall disprove.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I do not recall endorsing any persecution of ethnic Russians by the Baltic governments.

It was wrong for the Soviet government to settle them there, but it would also be wrong for the the Baltic governments to actively oppress them.

(Not allowing them classes in Russian isn't abuse, BTW. Beatings are abuse.)

And Poland can be crossed in two days by a modern army? That seems pretty quick.

That's a good argument about the need for Soviet assistance against Japan. GZ?

In any case, you didn't tell me a joke about a spherical horse in a vacuum. Is it a funny joke?

 

[HJ Tulp]

Nice scenario, this will also have serious repurcussions for South East Asia after the war with the Netherlands and France being more ready to face the Nationalist and Communist forces.

 

[Xascul]

Yeah i remember this scenario from the Red Alert games where the Soviet Union become more powerful as a result of Hitler's disappearance. Anyway, I had imagined that the Cold War and World War two would have been combined and the fighting would have taken place across Europe and Africa.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Actually you have demonstrated nothing

I thought we argeed that German-AA military co-operation would be highly likely in order to convince Stalin to accept Stockholm settlement.

I have stated time and again that denazification at least as extensive as OTL shall be made by the Anglo-Americans as occupying powers.

Oh yes, without Nuremberg, without extensive unearthing of Nazi atrocities IOTL made by Soviets (Soviets would likely be collecting evidence ITTL much like they did IOTL, they were quite serious about prosecution of Nazi war criminals, but ITTL Soviet evidence would be summarily dismissed as lies and propaganda, much like Balts do IOTL with Wiesenthal files), with nagging need to secure German co-operation in a world without nukes (and nukes are nowhere to be found for whole year after the POD, so German-AA alliance has full year and scary common foe to develop good relationships). Very, very likely.

Of course, if one's idea of an effective denazification is to treat each and every Heer veteran as a war criminal, they are going to be seriously let down.

I think you seriously mixed up two very distinct branches in our discussion. One is that, without miracle of OTL denazification, democratic government of Germany isn't likely to be burdened by guilt over the Holocaust overmuch, as significant number of voters were too close to Holocaust to admit it and try to make up (see Turks and Armenian genocide as very possible model). Another is that "selective denazification" is very prone to being limited by very top symbolic figures like Eichmann, when influenced by reality of rigid confrontation with Soviets.

ITTL, the Western Allies effectively won the war a couple months after D-Day. They are free to transfer all the military potential from a spared year's worth of fighting in Europe to subdue Japan. That's more than enough for the task of subduing Japan.

I would love to see contemporary documents proving that Americans were in better position to finish Japan off in 1944 than they were in 1945. As far as I know, American military losses in Europe in 1944-1945 were quite low and bombs and artillery shells spent by US army there are not deal-breaker. They were consummables, which American industry could produce in incredible numbers.

If the nukes aren't coming, blockade starvation and ongoing carpet bombings shall bring Japan to its needs just as effectively.

Is it hindsight knowledge or viewpoint held by majority of American military planners of the day? Former is absolutely useless, and latter is better be proved by documents. Before that, TL relies on major handwaving and serious personal biases of it's author.

Not allowing them classes in Russian isn't abuse, BTW. Beatings are abuse.

It is in eyes of beholder. Would you say to Swedes in Finland or Quebecers in Canada that anything (including denial of citizenship) short of outright beating isn't an abuse, they're going to disagree energetically.

And Poland can be crossed in two days by a modern army? That seems pretty quick.

Frankfurt-Oder to Brest is approximately 700 km of highway (google it). And modern Polish Western border is more or less result of Stalin's whim. Old Polish Western border to Brest is 500 km.

In any case, you didn't tell me a joke about a spherical horse in a vacuum. Is it a funny joke?

I don't know if it's funny, but it is very relevant to our discussion. It goes like this:
Someone asked Physics professor to develop a scientifical model of horse pulling hay wagon. Prof chained himself to his desk for 6 months and then said that he developed universal model for spherical horse in vacuum and someone else should apply it to dirty horse on country road, which is just one of many possible implementations of the model.

And this is a major problem I see with Communism theory or Zod's declarations. Cartloads of them are spherical horses in vacuum, looking nice and pretty in theory but completely unrelated to dirty reality of our universe.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

CanadianGoose, actually the sudden availability of even half the shipping involved in Europe alone to the Pacific Theater would advance plans by many months. Egotist though he was, MacArthur was correct that the Pacific Theater generally got the short end of the American supply stick.

 

[Wendell]

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

Remember, it's election year.

It's an election year, and the very possibility of this arrangement could lead to war with the USSR.