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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.

Maybe? It'd be interesting to see what happens afterwards. I mean Stalin was a paranoid guy, and his popularity is going to plummet if he offers terms, more purges are going to be in order to keep his house in check and I think propaganda can only get you so far...
 
It well could, the point of the discussion then is with Stalin out do the Wallies cut a deal before nukes are ready?

Since a lot of people in the US and UK thought the Soviet Union was going to collapse in OTL anyway...

I admit that Hitler dying of radiation poisoning is one of the few ways I would prefer he spend 1945 than OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Since a lot of people in the US and UK thought the Soviet Union was going to collapse in OTL anyway...

I admit that Hitler dying of radiation poisoning is one of the few ways I would prefer he spend 1945 than OTL.
Regardless, were they willing to pay the blood price until 1945? It wasn't clear that nukes would be ready until late 1944/early 1945 IOTL.
 
Another problem is whoever offers terms is going to look weak. In which case the logic is to keep going and knock them out.
 

Deleted member 1487

Another problem is whoever offers terms is going to look weak. In which case the logic is to keep going and knock them out.
Not necessarily. Stalin would understand why Goering or whomever is offering peace: finish off the Wallies; so Stalin would get he could get out, let them beat each other to hell, and in the meantime get ready to backstab.
 
Not necessarily. Stalin would understand why Goering or whomever is offering peace: finish off the Wallies; so Stalin would get he could get out, let them beat each other to hell, and in the meantime get ready to backstab.

He would more likely see it as a sign of weakness, that Goering is unsure of his position now that Hitler is dead and has to ask for terms. Goering or whoever is going to worry that it looks like exactly that.
 
He would more likely see it as a sign of weakness, that Goering is unsure of his position now that Hitler is dead and has to ask for terms. Goering or whoever is going to worry that it looks like exactly that.
I think Goering would be in an even worse position to offer peace than Hitler. Hitler at least was the undisputed head of the Nazi state, while Goering had a ton of rivals and has to establish himself as leader. By the time he would be in a secure enough position to offer peace terms the Allies would be kicking ass and wouldn't see the need for peace.
 
Not necessarily. Stalin would understand why Goering or whomever is offering peace: finish off the Wallies; so Stalin would get he could get out, let them beat each other to hell, and in the meantime get ready to backstab.

That doesn't really seem like a good deal for the NAZIs or Stalin. Why would Stalin think that and what's he going to think when the NAZIs cut a deal with the Wallies? How are the Wallies going to be finished off? Is everyone just going to be content with waiting to the next round. Britain doesn't know if America will join again.

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.

It wouldn't be irrelevant in the post war which is what I'm referring to. The development will happen regardless because it will be clear to the Wallies that it's time to wait for round three. The biggest threat to Anglosphere will remain NAZI occupied Europe and Russia will still be the best means attacking it. As long as it retains Moscow it will bounce back. Italy has been shown that it is a paper tiger. Japan will be defeated. France is going to have to be independent and neutral for this to work. No U-boat pens on the French coast.

And if it is independent how do the NAZI keep it under their control. Do they keep troops in France? Do they partition it?
 
If the only difference is that Hitler is dead, and somebody else who is a committed Nazi, even if not so bonkers, I can't see the W. Allies making any sort of peace with the Germans leaving them free to fight the Russians. Even if the Germans leave all their conquests in the west, they still have Czechoslovakia, Poland, Baltics, and a chunk of Russia (I'm assuming they leave Greece and Yugoslavia as well). In this case would the W. Allies write off Poland? How much support would they give to the Russians? IMHO if the W. Allies have stopped fighting the Germans and they are still at war with Japan i can't see the USA (or the UK) sending anywhere near as much LL to Russia, might even require cash & carry (a use for the Spanish gold the Soviets made off with).

I don't think you can really get a peace without the Nazis being entirely done away with by some internal German process. Since any agreement the W. Allies would tolerate would require Germany to restore Poland, hard to see how the Germans and Russians could keep it going.
 

Deleted member 1487

If the only difference is that Hitler is dead, and somebody else who is a committed Nazi, even if not so bonkers, I can't see the W. Allies making any sort of peace with the Germans leaving them free to fight the Russians. Even if the Germans leave all their conquests in the west, they still have Czechoslovakia, Poland, Baltics, and a chunk of Russia (I'm assuming they leave Greece and Yugoslavia as well). In this case would the W. Allies write off Poland? How much support would they give to the Russians? IMHO if the W. Allies have stopped fighting the Germans and they are still at war with Japan i can't see the USA (or the UK) sending anywhere near as much LL to Russia, might even require cash & carry (a use for the Spanish gold the Soviets made off with).

I don't think you can really get a peace without the Nazis being entirely done away with by some internal German process. Since any agreement the W. Allies would tolerate would require Germany to restore Poland, hard to see how the Germans and Russians could keep it going.

No, I don't expect the Wallies would bail on Russia. I think Stalin might take a deal that leaves the Wallies at war with the West and the Nazis sans Hitler would be more open to dealing with Stalin than Churchill, because they know Winston wasn't dealing.

That doesn't really seem like a good deal for the NAZIs or Stalin. Why would Stalin think that and what's he going to think when the NAZIs cut a deal with the Wallies? How are the Wallies going to be finished off? Is everyone just going to be content with waiting to the next round. Britain doesn't know if America will join again.
I'm assuming that Stalin assumes that the US won't cut a deal that quickly, nor will Britain with US backing; so he's more likely to assume the war in the west will drag out, so in the meantime he can recover and build up. Finishing off the Wallies is the tricky part, may not be possible at all. For the Nazis its better to fight a one front war with their new Eastern resource base and get Stalin to sit out for a while, rather than fight all three empire at once.

It wouldn't be irrelevant in the post war which is what I'm referring to. The development will happen regardless because it will be clear to the Wallies that it's time to wait for round three. The biggest threat to Anglosphere will remain NAZI occupied Europe and Russia will still be the best means attacking it. As long as it retains Moscow it will bounce back. Italy has been shown that it is a paper tiger. Japan will be defeated. France is going to have to be independent and neutral for this to work. No U-boat pens on the French coast.

And if it is independent how do the NAZI keep it under their control. Do they keep troops in France? Do they partition it?
I'm not sure there can be peace before 1944 or 1945 in the West because of the inability of their either side to force a win, so attrition would play a role in that conflict, while by 1944-45 perhaps Stalin jumps back in and maybe the Wallies just wait it out for nukes to be a factor. So far all I think is that Stalin may be open to a deal if its offered in 1942 at the peak of Axis success to get a breather, but I don't know if the Wallies would deal.

I think Goering would be in an even worse position to offer peace than Hitler. Hitler at least was the undisputed head of the Nazi state, while Goering had a ton of rivals and has to establish himself as leader. By the time he would be in a secure enough position to offer peace terms the Allies would be kicking ass and wouldn't see the need for peace.
Well here is the thing, Goering is Hitler's appointed successor as of 1939; even with the issues of 1939-42, he still hasn't been politically marginalized as he was after the appointment of Speer, so he is pretty much the guy the party MUST rally around to survive without Hitler; there is no one in the Nazi party that commanded the respect of the public besides Goering once Hitler is gone. So in most ways he's the defacto leader in 1942 because the party needs him to survive in power without Hitler. Himmler did not have enough power or popularity to assume power, nor did he really want to at this time; Heydrich is too unknown and junior, Goebbels too powerless, and I don't know who else was viable. Its either Goering or the military taking over and the party doesn't want that. Goering would be the undisputed Führer once he steps up, but you're right that a peace offer in January is way too soon; in August though after a series of victories and knowing how dangerous the situation in the West is, Goering has political cover to deal; he wanted to fight the West before getting involved with the East and that would satisfy his desire to settle accounts in the West.

He would more likely see it as a sign of weakness, that Goering is unsure of his position now that Hitler is dead and has to ask for terms. Goering or whoever is going to worry that it looks like exactly that.
See above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Göring#Second_World_War
Göring and other senior officers were concerned that Germany was not yet ready for war, but Hitler insisted on pushing ahead as soon as possible.[68] The invasion of Poland, the opening action of World War II, began at dawn on 1 September 1939.[69] Later in the day, speaking to the Reichstag, Hitler designated Göring as his successor as Führer of all Germany, "If anything should befall me."[70]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göring_Telegram
On the first day of World War II, Hitler made a speech stating that Göring would succeed him "if anything should befall me." This status was underscored in a 1940 decree naming Göring as Reichsmarschall des Grossdeutschen Reiches (Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich), a military rank second only to Hitler's rank of Supreme Commander.
On 29 June 1941, one week into Operation Barbarossa, Hitler issued a secret decree which formally named Göring his successor in the event of his death. It also gave Göring the power to act as Hitler's deputy with full freedom of action in the event Hitler ever lost his freedom of action--either by way of incapacity, disappearance or abduction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Things to remember:
-Hitler's handpicked successor is not going to be seen as especially more trustworthy than Hitler.

-People are not automatons; you can't just replace the disk "Germans have committed atrocities" with "Germans are our friends again" and expect everyone to go along with it. The frontline was not some unbreakable curtain where no news got through and the average Russian was solely dependent on propaganda to learn the truth. People made it out, or were or in contact with friends on the front, or otherwise picked it up through word of mouth. And critically, the people with actual power would absolutely have known the truth

-Post-war OTL, Stalin was invincible thanks to the victory in the Great Patriotic War, which retroactively excused all his crimes. Pre-war, Stalin was almost invincible. During the war? Stalin was able to hold on mostly due to the need for unity against the Nazi threat. A humiliating surrender changes that situation drastically; Stalin needs a victory (at the very least, restoring the pre-war borders) or he very well might be deposed.

-The Allies (East and West) remember what happened last time they made peace with Germany. I'm not talking about Munich or M-R, or any of the other agreements the Nazis tore up. I'm talking about WWI; the feeling of "if we don't crush them utterly, they'll just come back again in a generation" was still very strong.
 
-The Allies (East and West) remember what happened last time they made peace with Germany. I'm not talking about Munich or M-R, or any of the other agreements the Nazis tore up. I'm talking about WWI; the feeling of "if we don't crush them utterly, they'll just come back again in a generation" was still very strong.

I do think it's telling that every time the German resistance tried to cut a deal with the Allies, they were told "we're not playing that game again."
 

Deleted member 1487

I do think it's telling that every time the German resistance tried to cut a deal with the Allies, they were told "we're not playing that game again."
After 1943 when unconditional surrender was decided on. AFAIK they didn't try after the failed 1938 efforts to get the British to back them, then they didn't try and kill Hitler after the 1940 victory until they rebuilt their support in 1941-42 when Hitler started screwing up; so they didn't really have much chance to even ask before 1943 when it was clear the Allies were winning. The big question is what would the Allies do if they got an offer with potential to negotiate at the peak of Axis success in 1942? Of if the Soviets drop out?
 
If the Germans can win a couple of really big victories in 1942, for instance Operation Blauis much more succesful than it was (Stalingrad falls, Army Group South secures the Caucasus oilfields and Rommel conquers Egypt and secures the Suez Canal the Allies are in trouble. After Gazala and the fall of Tobruk Churchill almost had to face a No Conffidence vote. If Egypt fell he would certainly hve to face such a motion and he would likely lose to be succeeded most likely by Lord Halifax. In Russia Stalin would be in big trouble after defeats in the Caucasus and at Stalingrad. He might have to cut a deal with Hitler or indeed h cpuld be overthrown with his sucessr likewise negotiating a seperate peace. Under these conditions it would be possible for Hitler to win the war.

It might not be a complete German victory. A deal might be struck under which Germany withdraws in Western and Southen Europe, In Russia Hitler can dictate a Brest Litovsk style peace and gets what he really wants, Lebensraum in Eastern Europe
 
Top