Western Allies defeat Nazis before Hollocaust, what to do with Germany

Germany was full with concentration camps - Dachau was opened 1933 - but these were prison camps for those opposing the regime, and up until 1939 if you got into one of those you had a decent chance to get out again within a few months (psychologically completely broken, but alive).

The death camps were far out in the east and since general population was aware of the "normal" prison camps they simply assumed that those are a larger version of the same.
I'm going to still go with that it was a combination of not knowing and not wanting to know.

We are social animals and we conform. Or, that's not really saying it right. We do a good job taking care of friends and family and people around us. We typically just don't have the skills of addressing big societal injustices in a way which makes a difference, including pointing out better alternatives.

Look at my own country the United States and how few people actively worked against slavery while it was still going on. And how few people actively worked against mistreatment of Native Americans. The operating principle seems to be, well, we're not bad people, and therefore we're not doing something wrong. That is, it's social first and filling in the logic later.

This runs very deep. This is the whole reason a baby will smile back at you. We're social animals, which is generally a very good thing. Just in certain large-scale situations, it works against us.

And the coin of the realm for effective activism seems to be slightly understating your case. And it's not like in the most important situations or with the most blatant injustices this relaxes. No, on the contrary, this is all the more reason to play your best game.
 
The Holocaust is not just "ethnic cleansing"

People need to make a distinction between "ethnic cleansing", "eliminating countries" and the Holocaust. Within living memory in 1939-40, nations had been eliminated from the map of Europe, massive numbers of people had been uprooted and forced to leave their homes under brutal conditions, and others were subjected to random massacres and brutality under new rulers because of their language, ethnicity, or religion. Although nasty stuff, this was not all that unusual. The Holocaust, in the sense of the massive, organized, state sanctioned, and industrialized extermination of 6-10 million people, really had not yet begun in 1939-40. Arguably it really began in earnest after Barbarossa

Had Germany somehow been invaded, massively defeated, and occupied by the Allies in 1939-40, Germany would be treated very harshly because it was Germany "up to its bad old tricks", not so much because of its treatment of Jews and Poles (although this would be one of the reasons). The Nazis would be removed from power and some tried as war criminals but so would plenty of nationalist conservatives, monarchist, Junkers, and military leaders as well. There would be no distinction between the evil Nazi regime and regular Germans because (1) the Nazi regime was still massively popular in 1939-40 and (2) the Nazis had not yet been able to complete the massive inhumanity that distinguished them from more normal conservative and militarist Germans. Oddly, with Britain and France alone as victors Germany might be treated as bad or worse than it was in 1945.
 

Deleted member 1487

There would be no distinction between the evil Nazi regime and regular Germans because (1) the Nazi regime was still massively popular in 1939-40
Actually that is not true, the Nazi regime had a significant popularity crisis after the DoW on Poland and fear of the German people that they would be defeated due to Hitler's insistence on war, which was only fixed in 1940 with the defeat of France cheaply, which made Hitler wildly popular. Without the victory over France the Nazis and Hitler would be wildly unpopular for bringing defeat to Germany, like the situation after 1943, but much more so because the fanatics don't get a major radicalization boost and have some history of major victories before this. Once defeat is pretty much certain due to the long war in the West you'd probably have a lot of resistance to the regime and significant defeatism.

If you read William Shirer's book on the Third Reich (not the best history, but an interesting perspective of an American there until 1941), he was not a fan of the German people, but even acknowledged how much they were upset at the regime for declaring war on Poland.
 
Actually that is not true, the Nazi regime had a significant popularity crisis after the DoW on Poland and fear of the German people that they would be defeated due to Hitler's insistence on war, which was only fixed in 1940 with the defeat of France cheaply, which made Hitler wildly popular. Without the victory over France the Nazis and Hitler would be wildly unpopular for bringing defeat to Germany, like the situation after 1943, but much more so because the fanatics don't get a major radicalization boost and have some history of major victories before this. Once defeat is pretty much certain due to the long war in the West you'd probably have a lot of resistance to the regime and significant defeatism.

If you read William Shirer's book on the Third Reich (not the best history, but an interesting perspective of an American there until 1941), he was not a fan of the German people, but even acknowledged how much they were upset at the regime for declaring war on Poland.

You are correct. The popularity of the Nazi regime was a reflection of its early successes. I suppose it is possible that the military might even have mounted a coup against the Nazi Regime (as semi-planned) if the war went very poorly for Germany from the start. I'm not sure this would change how Germany was treated by the victorious French and British, however. I believe that any German regime (even a social democratic one) that invaded Poland and sought to reverse the effects of Versailles through war would be seen as symptomatic of a basic German untrustworthiness and be dealt with farm more harshly than 1919.
 
But would the Allies want to keep Germany somewhat stronger to act as a buffer to the east? How could that happen? Or would a Nato type plan where British and French forces are stationed in Germany?

If we imagine the Polish defeated and half-occupied by Russia and then a German collapse against France. Then its a real uncomfortable situation, for the French and the British and many others.
I would suggest a liberation of western Poland and a NATO like defensive pact including a new democratic rearmed Germany.
This Germany is not so dangerous as it was defeated by France.
 

Deleted member 1487

You are correct. The popularity of the Nazi regime was a reflection of its early successes. I suppose it is possible that the military might even have mounted a coup against the Nazi Regime (as semi-planned) if the war went very poorly for Germany from the start. I'm not sure this would change how Germany was treated by the victorious French and British, however. I believe that any German regime (even a social democratic one) that invaded Poland and sought to reverse the effects of Versailles through war would be seen as symptomatic of a basic German untrustworthiness and be dealt with farm more harshly than 1919.
Yeah, in fact there was some serious planning for a coup if Hitler stuck with his 1939 demand for immediate invasion. If the invasion bogged down or was a failure Hitler would have faced a coup attempt; not because the plotters were necessarily against the war or expansion, rather they were anti-defeat and hoping to get a reasonable peace deal from toppling Hitler.

Part of the issue though is the cost of occupying Germany; either France nor Britain could afford to do so, nor could they create a power vacuum in Europe for Stalin to walk into. Cutting a deal would be their best bet to keeping Europe Soviet free and avoiding more economic destabilization, as the ToV's issues were well known and keeping Germany weak was not an option going forward (hence why it was rebuilt after WW2). Germany is a necessary evil to leave intact.
 
Had Germany somehow been invaded, massively defeated, and occupied by the Allies in 1939-40, Germany would be treated very harshly because it was Germany "up to its bad old tricks", not so much because of its treatment of Jews and Poles (although this would be one of the reasons). The Nazis would be removed from power and some tried as war criminals but so would plenty of nationalist conservatives, monarchist, Junkers, and military leaders as well. There would be no distinction between the evil Nazi regime and regular Germans because (1) the Nazi regime was still massively popular in 1939-40 and (2) the Nazis had not yet been able to complete the massive inhumanity that distinguished them from more normal conservative and militarist Germans. Oddly, with Britain and France alone as victors Germany might be treated as bad or worse than it was in 1945.

But. How do you pull this off? In any plausible way?
I can't imagine a scenario where the war starts on time, and Britain and France defeat the Nazis before the Holocaust starts.
Can they defeat the Nazis by 1945 or so, if the Invasion of France fails (see A Blunted Sickle, FFO)? Certainly, but the Holocaust will have started, will probably be well on its way.

If the war starts earlier, before the Nazi's ramp up of war materiel had passed the Allies, then the Franco-Brits (together with several middle European nations) can defeat the Nazis - but invading and occupying Germany, at least for any length of time, is probably beyond them. Kicking the Nazis out of power? Reversing the Anschluß? sure. Redemilitarizing the Rheinland and limiting the size of the German military? Probably.
Massively defeating, invading and occupying? I don't think so. How would they pull that off?
 

Deleted member 1487

But. How do you pull this off? In any plausible way?
I can't imagine a scenario where the war starts on time, and Britain and France defeat the Nazis before the Holocaust starts.
Can they defeat the Nazis by 1945 or so, if the Invasion of France fails (see A Blunted Sickle, FFO)? Certainly, but the Holocaust will have started, will probably be well on its way.

If the war starts earlier, before the Nazi's ramp up of war materiel had passed the Allies, then the Franco-Brits (together with several middle European nations) can defeat the Nazis - but invading and occupying Germany, at least for any length of time, is probably beyond them. Kicking the Nazis out of power? Reversing the Anschluß? sure. Redemilitarizing the Rheinland and limiting the size of the German military? Probably.
Massively defeating, invading and occupying? I don't think so. How would they pull that off?

The Holocaust only started planning after the Fall of France and Invasion of the USSR. If France is not beaten in 1940 and Germany loses in 1941-42 the Holocaust won't be started because there probably would be a coup against Hitler before then and the resources would exist like IOTL. In fact if Germany cannot win in 1940 and the Brits don't withdraw from Narvik then Germany is pretty much screwed come winter when they cannot get Swedish steel exports. In fact the USSR probably invades Poland and Prussia when Germany proper gets invaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
From 1941 to 1945, Jews were targeted and methodically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history, and part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and killings of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazis.[6]
Planned genocide started in 1941, not 1933 or even 1940.
 
Top