Was a negotiated peace in Europe after Jan. 1st 1942 possible?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

The preponderance of evidence indicates there was not any talks pre-Kursk and your sources say there were never any option of doing it pre-Stalingrad.
It says flat out on page 5:

You can't get more specific then that.
If you read the OP I do flatly say Hitler will have to be dead to get around the all or nothing mindset, leaving a person more open to negotiation, like Goering, to offer a Brest-Litovsk peace. The quote specifically states that the reason peace was impossible was because Hitler wasn't offering it. Had a Nazi/German leader offered something less than total submission then a chance for peace exists that did not exist IOTL because of Hitler. So Hitler dead as a POD, Goering offers a deal in August 1942 that is less than defeat: recognize that we own what we've taken and we give you back some territory as a good faith gesture; then have a 50 miles demilitarized zone. That deal was never on offer IOTL, Hitler wasn't going to do it; so if someone does Stalin isn't necessarily going to pass it up and the above passage indicates that was the case, because he now has an option for peace that isn't total defeat.
 

Deleted member 1487

Incorrect. The Soviets had already witnessed and documented German atrocities within territory taken back during the winter of 1941-42 and the treatment of Soviet PoWs was widely known by this point (there are few others kind of news that spreads through an army faster then how the enemy treats his PoWs). The partisan bands provided details of what was happening even further west. The Soviet people in 1942 did not need hindsight to know that this was a death struggle... they were already living it.
Source please?
 

Deleted member 1487

And if the NKVD (who were Russian themselves remember) decides Stalin is himself a threat to the country by selling his country short? The Russian people wanted blood and they were going to get it.

Hell, you don't even need a full fledged coup. Just one brigade commander on either side who thinks the leadership sold out could restart the war by ordering his troops to attack claiming "orders from above" while shouting for reinforcements saying he was "treacherously attacked." Since both sides were sure that the other side was capable of such treachery and looking for it reinforcements would come. Meanwhile the side that was attacked would be doing the same thing and before you know it the war is back on. The war in the East was not going to end before the Red Army is sitting on Berlin.
huh? Beria only had his job because of Stalin, if he topples Stalin he's dead shortly thereafter (like IOTL after Stalin's death).

Both sides pull away and have geographic boundaries that make that extermely difficult. Also tactic clashes aren't going to restart a war, that shit happens in peace deals and all sides make accomodations for that. WW3 didn't start when violence happened by acccident between the Wallies and Soviets in Germany or between the Soviets and Germans after a number of incidents in Poland in 1939.
 
If you read the OP I do flatly say Hitler will have to be dead to get around the all or nothing mindset, leaving a person more open to negotiation, like Goering, to offer a Brest-Litovsk peace. The quote specifically states that the reason peace was impossible was because Hitler wasn't offering it. Had a Nazi/German leader offered something less than total submission then a chance for peace exists that did not exist IOTL because of Hitler. So Hitler dead as a POD, Goering offers a deal in August 1942 that is less than defeat: recognize that we own what we've taken and we give you back some territory as a good faith gesture; then have a 50 miles demilitarized zone. That deal was never on offer IOTL, Hitler wasn't going to do it; so if someone does Stalin isn't necessarily going to pass it up and the above passage indicates that was the case, because he now has an option for peace that isn't total defeat.


The very best case scenario for the Germans is a cease fire for a while the Soviets build up and then attack. It was very clear by then that the German government could not be trusted and Stalin certainly couldn't be . The only way Stalin can remotely get away with this is to convince his generals this is merely a breather for round 2.
 
huh? Beria only had his job because of Stalin, if he topples Stalin he's dead shortly thereafter (like IOTL after Stalin's death).

Both sides pull away and have geographic boundaries that make that extermely difficult. Also tactic clashes aren't going to restart a war, that shit happens in peace deals and all sides make accomodations for that. WW3 didn't start when violence happened by acccident between the Wallies and Soviets in Germany or between the Soviets and Germans after a number of incidents in Poland in 1939.

1) If Beria cuts a deal with any of the Russian generals it is quite likely.

2) You are greatly overestimating how strictly each side would keep the accord and greatly underestimating the great distrust between them. By this time German-Soviet relations make the Israeli-Palestinian relations look all warm and fuzzy.
 
Source please?

In, The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis Pg. 108-111 the author discusses how very aware the Soviet population of Nazi atrocities, which helped swell the partisan movement.

EDIT:

Also give War in the Wild East: The German Army and Soviet Partisans a look if you're interested (I got really caught up in reading about this stuff after reading Calbear's AANW, and then it made me sad and I stopped...), discusses the contempt that the Germans openly displayed to the Ukrainian and Soviet populations which served to bolster the partisan movements. The Soviet population were very aware of what they were seen as.

Spoilers, it's really fucking depressing...
 
Last edited:
Source please?

You need sources showing that the Soviets retook territory occupied by the Germans in winter of 1941-42 and that there were partisan bands up-and-running and that the Soviet people were entirely committed to the fight and what not?

Well, there is this...

In, The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis Pg. 108-111 the author discusses how very aware the Soviet population of Nazi atrocities, which helped swell the partisan movement.

And for some more personal anecdotes...

Inferno: The World at War said:
Initial bewilderment among the Russian people following the invasion was rapidly supplanted by hatred for the invaders. A Soviet fighter landed back at its field with human flesh adhering to its radiator grille, after a German ammunition truck exploded beneath it. The squadron commander curiously picked off fragments, and summoned the unit doctor to examine them. He pronounced: "Aryan meat!" A war correspondent wrote in his diary: "Everyone laughs. Yes, a pitiless time - a time of iron - has come!"
...
The Soviet Twenty-ninth army, cut off west of Rzhev, fought almost to the last man. There was no repeat of the mass surrenders of the previous summer, not least because Zhukov's soldiers now knew the fate awaiting them if they accepted captivity.

I mean, this is Eastern Front 101 right here.
 
What are you basing that on?

Source please?

I don't think you really need documentation for this. The word is going to spread, sure no one knows the details but who cares. They know there is a metal wall of death coming.

Otherwise this is a very interesting topic. I think you'll need to kill off more people then Hitler though. Your right about the after treaty part. What's going to stop the Allies from developing sufficient infrastructure through Iran? That's if it's needed. How are the Japanese supposed to take over the Russian Far East while fighting the allies. If continental Europe is viewed as a lost cause then the Allies are striking harder at them.

In the end I don't think this will prevent Russia from rebuilding in a few decades.

Also where does France fit in?
 
If you read the OP I do flatly say Hitler will have to be dead to get around the all or nothing mindset, leaving a person more open to negotiation, like Goering, to offer a Brest-Litovsk peace. The quote specifically states that the reason peace was impossible was because Hitler wasn't offering it.

Incorrect. Since you clearly did not actually read it, I'll clarify for you: it is talking about the Soviets. Not the Germans, the Soviets. Their perception is not going to change just because Goering is now in charge any more then the WAllies will. By this point to them, a Nazi is a Nazi.

Had a Nazi/German leader offered something less than total submission then a chance for peace exists that did not exist IOTL because of Hitler. So Hitler dead as a POD, Goering offers a deal in August 1942 that is less than defeat: recognize that we own what we've taken and we give you back some territory as a good faith gesture; then have a 50 miles demilitarized zone. That deal was never on offer IOTL, Hitler wasn't going to do it; so if someone does Stalin isn't necessarily going to pass it up and the above passage indicates that was the case, because he now has an option for peace that isn't total defeat.

Yes, he will pass it up because it pretty much is an offer for capitulation. Which the historical record, including the sources you have presented in this thread thus far, indicates that the Soviets were adamant in rejecting.
 

Deleted member 1487

In, The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941-1944: A Critical Historiographical Analysis Pg. 108-111 the author discusses how very aware the Soviet population of Nazi atrocities, which helped swell the partisan movement.

EDIT:

Also give War in the Wild East: The German Army and Soviet Partisans a look if you're interested (I got really caught up in reading about this stuff after reading Calbear's AANW, and then it made me sad and I stopped...), discusses the contempt that the Germans openly displayed to the Ukrainian and Soviet populations which served to bolster the partisan movements. The Soviet population were very aware of what they were seen as.

Spoilers, it's really fucking depressing...

Yeah, people behind the lines knew what was up, did the Soviet public behind Soviet lines know?
 

Deleted member 1487

You need sources showing that the Soviets retook territory occupied by the Germans in winter of 1941-42 and that there were partisan bands up-and-running and that the Soviet people were entirely committed to the fight and what not?

Well, there is this...



And for some more personal anecdotes...



I mean, this is Eastern Front 101 right here.

There were still were mass Soviet surrenders in 1942. That anecdote says nothing about the Soviets knowing what happened to their PoWs in 1941. They were told pre-war not to expect any quarter and got the same story during it.

As to the Soviets behind German lines knowing what was up, yes they did, but did the Soviets behind Soviet lines know what was really up or were they just getting propaganda? If so propaganda can be changed to support a peace deal if the leadership opts to go that route, just like how all sorts of anti-Fascist propaganda changed overnight once the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed.
 

Deleted member 1487

Incorrect. Since you clearly did not actually read it, I'll clarify for you: it is talking about the Soviets. Not the Germans, the Soviets. Their perception is not going to change just because Goering is now in charge any more then the WAllies will. By this point to them, a Nazi is a Nazi.
It was saying there was no hope for peace because Hitler gave the Soviets no options for peace. ITTL Goering is by making an offer, an offer which never existed IOTL except in 1943 (its unclear who initiated). You're making a statement you cannot support.


Yes, he will pass it up because it pretty much is an offer for capitulation. Which the historical record, including the sources you have presented in this thread thus far, indicates that the Soviets were adamant in rejecting.
They only refer to the 1943 offer by which time the Soviets had the upper hand; had they gotten an offer why they were losing that said the suffering can stop if you agree to accepting the loss of land you've already lost in return for some sensitive bits back (around Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad) there isn't indication that Stalin would not accept. All we know is that the offer in 1943 in the run up to Kursk after the Soviets had rolled back the Germans from Stalingrad and Tunisia happened was a return to the 1941 border and would accept no less because they were winning.
 

Deleted member 1487

There was that Soviet propaganda you're dismissing.
Propaganda that can and will change if Stalin opts to accept. The entire point is that the claim that the Soviet public behind Soviet lines knew for sure what was going on independent of the government is not proven, nor that their perspective wouldn't be controlled and directed by the Soviet government in support of peace if Stalin accepts.
 
The problem is that it requires the Nazi leadership to not be idiots in a way they weren't OTL; even in 1943, their proposed peace feelers envisioned them holding onto Ukraine; so a 1942 peace treaty would only happen if the Germans decisively won, i.e., captured Stalingrad.

This then ends with atomic fire on the Third Reich.
 
Propaganda that can and will change if Stalin opts to accept. The entire point is that the claim that the Soviet public behind Soviet lines knew for sure what was going on independent of the government is not proven, nor that their perspective wouldn't be controlled and directed by the Soviet government in support of peace if Stalin accepts.

It's not proven, you've just rejected the sources provided and have failed to offer any counterevidence.
 
Yeah, people behind the lines knew what was up, did the Soviet public behind Soviet lines know?

Well I guess for that you just look at the propaganda coming out at the time, just from Wikipedia it reads

"Stalin himself declared in a 1941 broadcast that Germany waged war to exterminate the peoples of the USSR. Propaganda published in Pravda denounced all Germans as killers, bloodsuckers, and cannibals, and much play was made of atrocity claims. Hatred was actively and overtly encouraged.They were told that the Germans took no prisoners. Partisans were encouraged to see themselves as avengers. Many anti-German films in the Nazi era revolved about the persecution of Jews in Germany, such as Professor Mamlock and The Oppenheim Family.Girl No. 217 depicted the horrors inflicted on Russian POWs, especially the enslavement of the main character Tanya to an inhuman German family, reflecting the harsh treatment of OST-Arbeiter in Nazi Germany."

Considering this was the official state line on the Germans... I'd say the Soviet public were very aware of the situation at hand, combined with the news that would have been coming back from the front and occupied territories from refugees and escaped POW's would have given the propaganda credence. I don't know if you can put that back in the bottle after the thought.
 

Deleted member 1487

Otherwise this is a very interesting topic. I think you'll need to kill off more people then Hitler though. Your right about the after treaty part. What's going to stop the Allies from developing sufficient infrastructure through Iran? That's if it's needed. How are the Japanese supposed to take over the Russian Far East while fighting the allies. If continental Europe is viewed as a lost cause then the Allies are striking harder at them.

In the end I don't think this will prevent Russia from rebuilding in a few decades.

Also where does France fit in?

The question is if Stalin drops out do the Wallies drop LL and Iran becomes irrelevant? It cost A LOT to build up the Far East and Iranian routes to the USSR (tens of billions of dollars in 1940 value), so they could just drop it all and use that money for their own ends.

The Soviets are for sure going to stabilize and prepare for round 2 when convenient, but will be hampered without LL. I don't think the Japanese get anything, so they take over nothing. Of course their money is still good and I'm sure they'd love to buy from the west to get ready for reentry.

France fits in probably like IOTL. Unless the Allies do Torch and it gets fully occupied its still Vichy and is independent if there is peace in the west, though German occupied.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well I guess for that you just look at the propaganda coming out at the time, just from Wikipedia it reads

"Stalin himself declared in a 1941 broadcast that Germany waged war to exterminate the peoples of the USSR. Propaganda published in Pravda denounced all Germans as killers, bloodsuckers, and cannibals, and much play was made of atrocity claims. Hatred was actively and overtly encouraged.They were told that the Germans took no prisoners. Partisans were encouraged to see themselves as avengers. Many anti-German films in the Nazi era revolved about the persecution of Jews in Germany, such as Professor Mamlock and The Oppenheim Family.[110] Girl No. 217 depicted the horrors inflicted on Russian POWs, especially the enslavement of the main character Tanya to an inhuman German family,[171] reflecting the harsh treatment of OST-Arbeiter in Nazi Germany."

Considering this was the official state line on the Germans... I'd say the Soviet public were very aware of the situation at hand.

They were saying all sorts of things to motivate the public as soon as the war started and before the genocidal acts began. Of course they had reason to assume that was coming due to Mein Kampf and all of Hitler's statements. The thing is if Stalin accepts peace he can play things all sorts of ways in propaganda, saying Goering is different than Hitler, hard times call for hard decisions, the peace deal preserved the Soviet people and revolution, they need to stand firm and prepare for further defensive actions to ensure there is not another invasion, etc.
 

Deleted member 1487

The problem is that it requires the Nazi leadership to not be idiots in a way they weren't OTL; even in 1943, their proposed peace feelers envisioned them holding onto Ukraine; so a 1942 peace treaty would only happen if the Germans decisively won, i.e., captured Stalingrad.

This then ends with atomic fire on the Third Reich.
It well could, the point of the discussion then is with Stalin out do the Wallies cut a deal before nukes are ready?
 
Top