Maybe ITTL the Germans use a freighter class that is specifically designed for conversion to AMCs. After all the British built liners like the Lusitania and the Mauretania that were designed to be converted to AMCs during war. The Germans could build merchant ships with beefed up structural integrity, predetermined gun mounts and other features to make them better AMCs.
Wagner’s Germany: An Axis Victory TL
- Thread starter CrimsonKing
- Start date
The Nile is certainly one of the decreasing number of things the British have in their favor.
The settlers will be joining to stop the Axis in considerable numbers.
I promised earlier that the update after this one would cover the global situation. But these are all worthy topics and will be covered.
Welcome, I'm glad you like it. The British political situation is indeed rather grim, and will be featured prominently in the next installment.
It is. The war is not going to last all that much longer.
And provide adequate logistical support and equipment for the crossing of the river.
Hilfskreuzer - German auxiliary cruiser commerce raiders
Photo of HK Stier, a German auxiliary cruiser commerce raider
In the decades between WW1 and WW2 IOTL the proponents of heavy gun warships continued to dominate the admiralties of navies around the world. Vast quantities of money, personnel and material resources were devoted to development, construction and operation of ever bigger and better cruisers, battleships and (to a lesser extent) carriers. What was leftover mostly went to submarines. Commerce raiders got little or nothing. And yet the WW2 German fleet of 9 Hilfskreuzer (HK) auxiliary cruiser commerce raiders (such as the legendary Atlantis) sank or captured 870,000 tons of Allied ships. The HK fleet were nine mostly mediocre freighters converted into auxiliary cruiser commerce raiders at a total fleet cost of around 1% of the cost of the battleship Bismarck. Here's a website that discusses these auxiliary cruiser commerce raiders:
https://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/hilfskreuzer_introduction.html
It's intriguing to imagine what the prewar OTL proposed fleet of 50 HK ships might have accomplished in the first couple years of WW2. They were to be conversions of fast freighters, mostly refrigerated banana boats, that had to be fast to rush their perishable cargos from tropical ports to American and European markets. The HK plans intended their main guns to be rapid-firing 8-inch guns (rather than the 40 year old obsolete 5.9-inchers mounted on the nine HK's in OTL). Like a couple of the later OTL HK's, all 50 HK's would carry two seaplanes (one operational and one in storage), deck and hull torpedo tubes, and a 40-knot Leichtes Schnellboot (E-Boat) capable of 40 knots and carrying two torpedoes. Just imagine the chaos that these 50 fast, heavily-armed, HK auxiliary cruisers would have created in the shipping lanes of the oceans around the world. And the vast numbers of allied warships and other military resources that would have had to be devoted to protecting shipping and hunting down the HKs. And this fleet of 50 HK auxiliary cruiser commerce raiders would have cost a small fraction of what was spent on the Bismarck. I suggest that ITTL that Wagner's navy build the 50 HK auxiliary cruisers before the war begins, as the scuttled OTL HK plans proposed. It would be fascinating to see one of the updates mention exploits of these stealthy powerful warships that, like the Siebel ferries in the Med, are one more superb example of how the best German engineering and ingenuity could at times produce designs that were also amazingly cost-effective.
A very interesting idea. I will have a look at incorporating it.
I have decided to include the Hilfskreuzer in TTL. They are now mentioned in the post on pre-war weapons which covers the Kriegsmarine, and a paragraph on their wartime career will be added to the chapter on the Battle of the Atlantic either tomorrow or the next day.
Thanks. I think a properly supported HK program could yield considerable gains, especially if combined with a strengthened and enlarged Etappendienst system.
Another aspect is that with 50 purpose built HKs, you could launch coordinated attacks with U-Boats on Convoys; for example a few HKs could infiltrate a scattered convoy to wreak havoc.
One additional mission for HK's could be as a tender for E-Boats in coastal operations.
Like I said, a fleet of properly designed and supported HKs could be very cost effective and successful.
One of the next few updates will cover exactly this.
I agree. From what I've read on the HKs since they were brought up, they were another major missed opportunity for the pre-war KM.
Here is the added paragraph: "A strong supplement to the wolf packs was the fleet of fifty Hilfskreuzer, the "wolves in sheep's clothing." These unassuming vessels caused damage and confusion far beyond, and in fact, in direct inversion to, their tranquil facade. A thoroughly frustrated merchant ship captain described what followed after the convoy of which his ship was part was attacked by one. "At around midday, a lone freighter appeared in the distance, headed on a course slightly divergent from our own. It was given little thought and by sundown was no longer visible on the horizon. A few hours later, the night was rocked with twin explosions in rapid succession as two of the ships were hit by torpedoes which had been launched by the fast attack craft deployed from the enemy vessel. On the following morning, we ran into a minefield which it had apparently used the rest of the evening laying." In the first few months of the war at sea, the Hilfskreuzer sank an average of 100,000 tons of Allied shipping each month, with numbers somewhat decreasing afterwards but remaining impressive. They also, as the captain's account might allow to be inferred, forced the Admiralty to spend funds and materials on the construction of cruisers which they would have much preferred to be used for destroyers and corvettes to counter the U-boats."
I think the setbacks the British have suffered suffice to reasonably bring them to the negotiating table, don't they? This will be further clarified when the world situation and the further developments in German-Soviet ties are covered.
Last edited:
The British need at least one decisive victory over the Axis alliance to be able to negotiate on favorable terms. If they can smash Manstein while the Germans attempt to cross the Nile or attack Cairo, then that would suffice as one to get Wagner to the bargaining table. Since Britain's possessions are all in colonies, then they really don't stand to lose much by signing an armistice.
It goes unsaid, but Churchill will need to sign a treaty with the US as soon as possible after peace is declared to create a mutual military Alliance
So, aside from my feeling bad for basically half of Germany's population for ahem, ideological reasons I have to ask; how can a lasting peace be expected to live once spies and intelligence gathering reveal certain... Things about the Reich? Or is Wagner against the systematic murder of people over the name of their God? (Also where's Mother Russia)
This of course assumes Churchill can stay as PM; considering all the setbacks up to this point, I'm surprised he has not been removed by now. At best, he's clinging to power by his fingernails. He may not last long enough to get his needed victory.
I would not suggest that the HKs go head to head with convoy escorts. This would likely result in serious damage that would be difficult if not impossible to repair without a long dangerous voyage to an Axis port. The HKs were intended to function as stealth raiders, attacking targets of opportunity that had little or no ability to fight back.
The "reefer banana boats" would likely be the prewar commercial freighter type that would operate as an HK ITTL during the war. Before the war these refrigerated freighters would transport bananas and other perishables quickly from Central America to the USA and Europe. The cruise speed of these freighters was 18.5 knots fully loaded with perishables. It's reasonable to assume that they would have similar cruise performance fitted out as HKs. Once the war began they'd be fitted out with armaments and become HKs. Here's an interesting website that discusses reefer freighters converted to AMCs by various countries, including the USA, during WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_boat_(ship)
Joining a WW2 convoy was much more than just showing up and joining the crowd. Convoys escorts knew everything about each ship in a convoy prior to the departure of the convoy. There's no way an HK could spoof the escorts and safely join a convoy assembling at a port. Freighters did not join convoys enroute: any ship that came over the horizon seeking the shelter of a convoy would be immediately told by escorts to keep its distance and attacked if it didn't.
The HKs would be very effective during the first year of the war, somewhat effective during the second year, and rapidly become ineffective from the third year on. The allied convoys by the end of the second year IOTL were incorporating many more fast and heavy escorts, upgraded radar systems, and escort carriers. During the second year it would be time to cease the commerce raider role and focus more on handling refueling, rearming and repair for a hopefully huge fleet of modern XXI uboats that would handle the convoys: http://uboat.net/types/xxi.htm
The Etappendienst role could continue. So could commando raids and espionage missions using the eboats they carried.
Last edited:
Yeah, sigh ... though it's fun to imagine ways that Wagner's Germany might win WW2 it's not fun imagining what the Nazis would do in the occupied territories and puppet states. It'd be interesting to read an update that discussed what Wagner's Germany was doing in lands they controlled, and what their postwar plans might be. Here's hoping that the murderous psychotic goals of the preWagner Nazi's have been largely abandoned in favor of something far less genocidal and based more on economic considerations and global realpolitik. Perhaps it could evolve into something similar to apartheid South Africa with its bantustans and racial policies, and perhaps also including forced emigration to some north African colonial territory (such as Morocco). Germany's racial policies and practices would still be heinous but at least not exterminating everyone they disliked.
I'm pretty sure Crimson posted once that the Germans ITTL are more like Japan. They see the people of other nations as inferior but have little to no desire to exterminate them if instead they can be used to labor for the Germans or simply moved out of the way. He said once that the Germans main actions against the Jews in this TL are more Jim Crow Laws x2 than death camps.
JJohnson
Banned
I'm probably too late to comment but if this Axis acts more intelligently than OTL, they might do well to annex Dunkirk and Belgium to the Netherlands, and re-absorb Eupen-Malmedy back into this version of Germany. Or dismantle Belgium and have the Flemish speaking region merge with the Netherlands, including Brussels, and have the Luxemburg province merge with Luxembourg the country. It might work with their racial ideologies about Germanic peoples and could (maybe, maybe not) earn some brownie points in those countries. Rump Belgium could be given the remnant of Nord-Pas-de-Calais and some form of sea access to compensate for lost territory, and become "Wallonia" or something.
JJohnson
Banned
Probably too late now to say, but have a plebescite with this France to:
-give Corsica, Nice, Savoy to Italy, but in exchange for cash/gold and/or oil for x number of years from Libya
-give Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in exchange for Wallonia; annex Dunkirk and the Flemish-speakers to the Netherlands; exchange for cash/gold and perhaps the Belgian Congo; in exchange, German troops also withdraw and repair what they destroyed / compensate for damages.
-Spain? No idea here. But if they collapse or stab the Germans in the back, have the Germans take the Plazas de soberanía and/or Balearic islands, Canary Islands, and annex them to their empire. Then, in part of a peace deal with the UK, give the UK those islands in exchange for recognition of their territorial gains.
HK Komoran's battle with HMAS Sydney IOTL is a good example of this.
I was thinking more of HK's attacking lone ships, stragglers and isolated ships from a scattered convoy.
Agreed; in fact, I would imagine only 10-15 HKs at the most would actually be used for commerce raiding. The majority of HK's would be used for supplying UBoats and surface ships with a few being used for raids and spy missions. As the convoys became better protected, surviving HK's would be taken off commerce raiding and assigned to support UBoat or EBoat operations. I was also thinking of them acting as Seaplane tenders for German recon operations. Some could also function as weather ships.
The way I see it, what gives the British some amount of leverage despite all the defeats they've suffered in making the Axis want to negotiate is the blockade, which despite the trade agreements which have been worked out so far with the USSR, still significantly impacts the European economy. For Churchill, I'm assuming he needs to be removed before the beginning of peace talks, nevertheless it is certainly true that deepening ties with the US will be the priority for whoever's in charge.
The paragraph has been modified to take these factors into account.
The status of the Soviet Union will be made clear in the next few updates.
Giving TTL Nazis a mentality similar to that of Japan is, to me, as far as things can be plausibly pushed. There will be an update, after the coming of peace with Britain, on how the Axis empire is economically and politically managed.
I'll leave the terms of the French entry into the Axis as is for now. Perhaps later on they can be reexamined when looking back to check for suitable revisions.
Personally I think an alliance with the US is rather, well I wouldn't say ASB, but rather improbable. Dewey is not nearly as anti-German as FDR was, and IIRC America has links to the German oil, steel, and automobile industries. And there's still the isolationist bloc to consider. I've no doubt they've shrunk, what with the US naval expansion and 'cash and lift', but they're still there. The closest I can see to an alliance would be a defensive alliance, as in the US wouldn't be obliged to join the war if the British declare war on anyone, though they would be if someone declared war on Britain. Even then it'd be a fight in the US Congress, both to accept an alliance and ratify a declaration of war (more so the latter).
Going to a peace treaty between Britain and the Axis, either Churchill has to step down on his own accord or forced out of office before negotiations begin. I agree though with Crimson King on this: Britain doesn't really need a 'win' to negotiate on even terms. The blockade alone is enough. However the terms of the treaty are going to be tricky. For starters certain terms of the Second Treaty of Versailles will prove...troublesome. Starting with the Low Countries, Belgium is in risk of being divided, considering the agreed-upon plebiscites in Wallonia and Flanders, which if won by France and the Netherlands sees the two provinces going to the respective victors. North Africa and the Med are fait accompli by this point, the territorial changes there - Morocco and Gibraltar to Spain, Tunisia, Malta, and Egypt to Italy - plus Axis dominance in the theater leave the British no choice. Central and West Africa are different: Britain will probably have to accept French control of the (former) Belgian Congo, but the British colonies in West Africa - implicitly recognized by France's Axis allies as French SOI - are a different matter. Most likely they'll stay with Britain for now, but in the interests of Axis unity the implicit French claims over them as enshrined within the Second Treaty of Versailles will remain...and an indicator that this is no peace, but an armistice with the two sides glaring at each other, waiting warily for the figurative knife in the back, and each sharpening their respective knife for the first such opportunity.
I have to stress this out: it is critical for France and Italy to stay German allies. And that means supporting their claims over key territories to make their being German partners seem more attractive than siding with Britain. Germany's great enemy is still the USSR after all, but if they can keep France and Italy alongside, Germany can focus itself and the East European allies (Romania, Hungary, Poland - they'll probably get back lost territory from the Soviets - and Finland, Greece and Yugoslavia, possibly Turkey) against the Soviets, and leave the Western and Mediterranean Fronts to the French and the Italians. Oh they'll need some support (Greece and Yugoslavia can help in the Med too), but this iteration of the Third Reich being what it is at least Germany wouldn't have to prop them up.
And speaking of the Soviet Union, Germany has bought some time in the event of peace with Britain to catch its breath and prepare. I don't know if the Germans know about the T-34, but even if they don't and development of the Panther and Tiger proceed normally, I can see Germany still up-gunning the Panzer IV to maintain its edge. IIRC the Panzer IV's up-gunned variants were able to match the T-34, and in light of that I suggest phasing it out slowly. Proportionately-decrease production of Panzer IVs and increase the production of Panthers as armored divisions are reequipped with the new tanks. Stugs should be kept in production, though decreased to a point: Tigers are good for first-echelon units, but considering how expensive heavy tanks are, it might be more economical to substitute Stugs for Tigers in second-echelon and reserve units.
The Luftwaffe's new aircraft were mentioned in the earlier article about mass production, with the Fw-190 slowly replacing the Me-109 from the Battle of France onwards, and the Ju-88 and Ju-87 being slowly phased out with newer, more-advanced models from the invasion of the Soviet Union onwards as well. Someone mentioned Type-XXI U-boats replacing the Type-VII, all of which is good, but I suggest doing it steadily, and not rushing it like IOTL. Sending out flawed machines onto the battlefield is a waste of money and resources, probably costing more than waiting to finish development properly before putting them into production.
Connected to this is mechanization of the German motorized divisions. Preferably it can be started before war starts, but if not, slowly phase the motorized divisions out of the first-echelon to the second-echelon and reserves. There's no need to rush, the motorized divisions are serviceable as they are.
However, while new technology is good (the German battlecruisers currently based in French ports also need to be constantly kept up to date*), the most important part of invading the Soviet Union is C3I. Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence: the last part seems well-handled by Heydrich, and while I don't doubt British Intelligence and the NKVD will eventually crack some of the Axis codes just keeping pace should be enough. C3 is very important though, AFAIK the OTL Axis' activities were significantly-miraculous considering the chaos and anarchy of the Axis C3I IOTL. A dry run has already been conducted in the campaign against Britain, with the Franco-German distraction operations along the Channel Coast, the Franco-German-Italian-Spanish naval operations and siege of Gibraltar, the French operations in Africa, and the German-Italian operations in North Africa and the Med. Now those have to be expanded further: the Axis should review their AARs twice if not thrice or more, find and correct their mistakes, and improve what can and should be improved.
Connected to this is Japan: Japan can be a useful ally, but a dangerous one as well, as their ambitions risk a war with both the Soviets and the US at once - a fatal prospect. Now war with America is an implicit eventuality, but should be done after the Soviet threat has been neutralized. To that end Germany should 'bribe' Japan into going north, and be content (for now) with bases in Indochina in SE Asia. The bribe would take the form of technology, such as assistance in adopting assembly line mass production and improved armor. Like say, chassis, guns, and schematics for the Panzer IV, seeing as the Panther and Tiger are already going into mass production. As mentioned by a fellow AH member, Japan can easily make their own Stug-equivalents with the Chi-Ha chassis, they just have to mount a 7.5cm fixed gun and a sloped glacis plate. To get the most out of this, German trainers also need to help the Japanese bring their tactical doctrines up to speed, and with assembly line mass production of Japanese SMGs (serviceable IIRC IOTL just never produced en masse) and trucks Japan would have the motorized divisions needed to support the armored divisions.
Territory-wise Japan should stay out of Kamchatka: too close to the US, and stressing Japanese logistics to the limit. Even with assembly line mass production, Japan probably wouldn't have a large stock of trucks like the Germans, who've been pumping them out years before the war started, to say nothing of limited ports (to say nothing of Japan's merchant marine) and rail systems in Kamchatka. Sakhalin, the Maritime Province, and Khabarovsk should be Japan's focus, with a stake in the Siberian puppet they and the rest of the Axis would probably establish.
*Germany's battlecruisers don't need to go back to Germany for refitting. Move by rail the parts and specialists, and use the French yards to refit them. The French would probably learn something from it, but letting them do so as an informal arrangement/concession would make for a sign of trust between allies, just like Germany entrusting to them the Western Front. The British would probably mock it and think it an opportunity, but if Germany treats the French well then between the British 'sneak attack' on the French Navy, and the free hand the Germans are letting the French have in Africa (whereas the British would insist on preserving the status quo) the French would more likely want to kick British ass than stab Germans in the back. And speaking of that, here's another way to help further bind France to Germany: hold a plebiscite in Elsass-Lothringen. No doubt the French-speaking parts will go back to France, but the German-speaking parts will stay with Germany. A gentleman's deal to honorably settle the breach between the two powers once and for all, though it can be done after the war, with the afterglow of victory helping ease it along.
EDIT: someone mentioned Jim Crow x2 treatment for Jews, and IIRC Jewish scientists are working on Germany's nuclear weapons program. However under Jim Crow blacks could serve in the US military, they just couldn't be officers (AFAIK). Is this the same for Germany? IIRC Manstein (I'm not sure but I remember a German flag officer over this) IOTL protested the removal/persecution of Jews in the military, and that military service was already a mark of loyalty to Germany as it were.
Going to a peace treaty between Britain and the Axis, either Churchill has to step down on his own accord or forced out of office before negotiations begin. I agree though with Crimson King on this: Britain doesn't really need a 'win' to negotiate on even terms. The blockade alone is enough. However the terms of the treaty are going to be tricky. For starters certain terms of the Second Treaty of Versailles will prove...troublesome. Starting with the Low Countries, Belgium is in risk of being divided, considering the agreed-upon plebiscites in Wallonia and Flanders, which if won by France and the Netherlands sees the two provinces going to the respective victors. North Africa and the Med are fait accompli by this point, the territorial changes there - Morocco and Gibraltar to Spain, Tunisia, Malta, and Egypt to Italy - plus Axis dominance in the theater leave the British no choice. Central and West Africa are different: Britain will probably have to accept French control of the (former) Belgian Congo, but the British colonies in West Africa - implicitly recognized by France's Axis allies as French SOI - are a different matter. Most likely they'll stay with Britain for now, but in the interests of Axis unity the implicit French claims over them as enshrined within the Second Treaty of Versailles will remain...and an indicator that this is no peace, but an armistice with the two sides glaring at each other, waiting warily for the figurative knife in the back, and each sharpening their respective knife for the first such opportunity.
I have to stress this out: it is critical for France and Italy to stay German allies. And that means supporting their claims over key territories to make their being German partners seem more attractive than siding with Britain. Germany's great enemy is still the USSR after all, but if they can keep France and Italy alongside, Germany can focus itself and the East European allies (Romania, Hungary, Poland - they'll probably get back lost territory from the Soviets - and Finland, Greece and Yugoslavia, possibly Turkey) against the Soviets, and leave the Western and Mediterranean Fronts to the French and the Italians. Oh they'll need some support (Greece and Yugoslavia can help in the Med too), but this iteration of the Third Reich being what it is at least Germany wouldn't have to prop them up.
And speaking of the Soviet Union, Germany has bought some time in the event of peace with Britain to catch its breath and prepare. I don't know if the Germans know about the T-34, but even if they don't and development of the Panther and Tiger proceed normally, I can see Germany still up-gunning the Panzer IV to maintain its edge. IIRC the Panzer IV's up-gunned variants were able to match the T-34, and in light of that I suggest phasing it out slowly. Proportionately-decrease production of Panzer IVs and increase the production of Panthers as armored divisions are reequipped with the new tanks. Stugs should be kept in production, though decreased to a point: Tigers are good for first-echelon units, but considering how expensive heavy tanks are, it might be more economical to substitute Stugs for Tigers in second-echelon and reserve units.
The Luftwaffe's new aircraft were mentioned in the earlier article about mass production, with the Fw-190 slowly replacing the Me-109 from the Battle of France onwards, and the Ju-88 and Ju-87 being slowly phased out with newer, more-advanced models from the invasion of the Soviet Union onwards as well. Someone mentioned Type-XXI U-boats replacing the Type-VII, all of which is good, but I suggest doing it steadily, and not rushing it like IOTL. Sending out flawed machines onto the battlefield is a waste of money and resources, probably costing more than waiting to finish development properly before putting them into production.
Connected to this is mechanization of the German motorized divisions. Preferably it can be started before war starts, but if not, slowly phase the motorized divisions out of the first-echelon to the second-echelon and reserves. There's no need to rush, the motorized divisions are serviceable as they are.
However, while new technology is good (the German battlecruisers currently based in French ports also need to be constantly kept up to date*), the most important part of invading the Soviet Union is C3I. Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence: the last part seems well-handled by Heydrich, and while I don't doubt British Intelligence and the NKVD will eventually crack some of the Axis codes just keeping pace should be enough. C3 is very important though, AFAIK the OTL Axis' activities were significantly-miraculous considering the chaos and anarchy of the Axis C3I IOTL. A dry run has already been conducted in the campaign against Britain, with the Franco-German distraction operations along the Channel Coast, the Franco-German-Italian-Spanish naval operations and siege of Gibraltar, the French operations in Africa, and the German-Italian operations in North Africa and the Med. Now those have to be expanded further: the Axis should review their AARs twice if not thrice or more, find and correct their mistakes, and improve what can and should be improved.
Connected to this is Japan: Japan can be a useful ally, but a dangerous one as well, as their ambitions risk a war with both the Soviets and the US at once - a fatal prospect. Now war with America is an implicit eventuality, but should be done after the Soviet threat has been neutralized. To that end Germany should 'bribe' Japan into going north, and be content (for now) with bases in Indochina in SE Asia. The bribe would take the form of technology, such as assistance in adopting assembly line mass production and improved armor. Like say, chassis, guns, and schematics for the Panzer IV, seeing as the Panther and Tiger are already going into mass production. As mentioned by a fellow AH member, Japan can easily make their own Stug-equivalents with the Chi-Ha chassis, they just have to mount a 7.5cm fixed gun and a sloped glacis plate. To get the most out of this, German trainers also need to help the Japanese bring their tactical doctrines up to speed, and with assembly line mass production of Japanese SMGs (serviceable IIRC IOTL just never produced en masse) and trucks Japan would have the motorized divisions needed to support the armored divisions.
Territory-wise Japan should stay out of Kamchatka: too close to the US, and stressing Japanese logistics to the limit. Even with assembly line mass production, Japan probably wouldn't have a large stock of trucks like the Germans, who've been pumping them out years before the war started, to say nothing of limited ports (to say nothing of Japan's merchant marine) and rail systems in Kamchatka. Sakhalin, the Maritime Province, and Khabarovsk should be Japan's focus, with a stake in the Siberian puppet they and the rest of the Axis would probably establish.
*Germany's battlecruisers don't need to go back to Germany for refitting. Move by rail the parts and specialists, and use the French yards to refit them. The French would probably learn something from it, but letting them do so as an informal arrangement/concession would make for a sign of trust between allies, just like Germany entrusting to them the Western Front. The British would probably mock it and think it an opportunity, but if Germany treats the French well then between the British 'sneak attack' on the French Navy, and the free hand the Germans are letting the French have in Africa (whereas the British would insist on preserving the status quo) the French would more likely want to kick British ass than stab Germans in the back. And speaking of that, here's another way to help further bind France to Germany: hold a plebiscite in Elsass-Lothringen. No doubt the French-speaking parts will go back to France, but the German-speaking parts will stay with Germany. A gentleman's deal to honorably settle the breach between the two powers once and for all, though it can be done after the war, with the afterglow of victory helping ease it along.
EDIT: someone mentioned Jim Crow x2 treatment for Jews, and IIRC Jewish scientists are working on Germany's nuclear weapons program. However under Jim Crow blacks could serve in the US military, they just couldn't be officers (AFAIK). Is this the same for Germany? IIRC Manstein (I'm not sure but I remember a German flag officer over this) IOTL protested the removal/persecution of Jews in the military, and that military service was already a mark of loyalty to Germany as it were.
Last edited:
JJohnson
Banned
If you want to throw history for a loop, have them be the cause of creating Israel. Instead of being genocidal, just move the Polish from Germany to Poland, and so on.