What if the "AK" or Home Army Openly fought the Soviets in 1945

Worldwide proletarian revolution (which you define as 'conquest' and 'terrorism') is Trotskyism. Stalin onwards professed belief in 'socialism in one country'.

"Socialism in one country" is a lot less isolationist than it sounds.

According to Gaddis's We Know Now, the USSR was still expansionist--instead, it was Russo-centric and controlled by Moscow instead of a more equitable internationalist arrangement.

(In my interpretation of this argument, a Soviet triumph would be a worldwide Russian empire with Communism as the ruling ideology, not some kind of Soviet UN)
 
Allowing Germany to keep territory gained through Hitler's aggression IS rewarding such behavior.

The idea that Austria, a nation with a much longer history than Germany's, should be dissolved to satisfy Germany, is unreasonable and history confirms that Hitler was terrified of an actual plebiscite in Austria taking place. Ditto the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia over a small minority which had never been part of Germany.

The argument that anything with Germans, even a small minority, is rightfully part of Germany is both invalid and immoral considering the utter German contempt towards extending the same privilege to anyone else. As for complaints over Germans being expelled from Ukraine after the butchery the Germans committed there first...

Terms on Louis XIV were not harsher than OTL because he was not conclusively defeated, not because such terms didn't occur to anyone.

Is an early evacuation of the Falaise Pocket the only military event you don't find implausible in the wankfest? The likelihood of such an evacuation taking place once the situation had reached that point is actually quite slim.

As to so many other events, including the Soviets not responding to events as they proceed, a Germany divided and possibly torn by civil strife managing to avoid the collapse of most fronts even as they abandon them without a ceasefire, the Soviets failing to occupy northern Japan even with another 9 months to prepare, the complete reversal of the Soviet policy NOT to take over territory in China...

Not to mention the likelihood of the US and UK deliberately destroying their relations with so many genuine allies by making concessions to Germany, nor the lack of a backlash in American domestic politics. I won't even go on about Zod's ignorance of US domestic opinion at the time.

His suggestion that (Vice) President Wallace be impeached, by a Congress from his own party no less(!), for exercising the powers clearly given to the president, was a rare bit of lunacy.

As for the idea of Germany being less guilty than OTL, or anything remotely resembling West Germany arising in a state replacing Adenaur with Prussian officers...
 
I was under the impression the Allies had forbidden a plebiscite in Austria in the aftermath of WWI because they knew it would lead to Anschluss. Whether the general public wanted Anschluss a generation later is debatable--after all, Austria was under the control of an unpleasant regime as well.

Furthermore, sawing off part of Czechoslovakia is not "dismemberment."
What happened AFTER Munich in which all of the neighbors took a bite was dismemberment.

And I brought up Ukraine as a territory the Germans did NOT have any right too--I was hoping its sheer distance from Germany proper would get the point across.

About the military situation, I read Guderian's memoirs and there were steps that could have been taken as late as 1945 (strategic retreats here, attacking bridgeheads there) that could have slowed the Soviets down and that was pretty close to the all-is-lost point.

If Army Group Center had not yet been totally obliterated (IIRC the obliteration was taking place when July 20 occurred), it might be possible to extricate some of it.
 
As for the idea of Germany being less guilty than OTL, or anything remotely resembling West Germany arising in a state replacing Adenaur with Prussian officers...

1. I meant feelings of guilt. In TTL, Germany (mostly) cleaned its own house a year before the End. Although there're still forcible tours of the concentration camps, the general German public might think the real villains have been dealt with already.

2. Remember, Germany is still occupied. It's not an either/or thing with Adenaur and whatever's left of the Prussian military class and in any case, the Americans have the final say.

What sort of government do you think the Valkyrie crowd wanted?

3. I never said I agreed with all of GZ's ideas. Note in that threat that I'm the voice of reason trying to restrain the psychotic hatred of FDR that does crop up from time to time.

(However, read "The New Dealer's War" sometime. FDR's administration contained its share of idiots and ideologues, including Henry Wallace)
 

Deleted member 1487

Austria actually had a shorter history as a nation in the modern era than Germany. Austria the nation was created in 1918. Austria the kingdom had existed on and off through history, as had the HRE of the German nation, as well as Prussia, Bavaria, etc.
Yes, Hitler did not want to take chance with a vote, but the Austrians were heavily supportive of Anschluss.
 

Terlot

Banned
I'm sorry for using blunt words, but "Katyn peddling" really strikes me as politically motivated propaganda. It is peddled over and over again at expense of other, often more tragic (as far as number of killed Poles is concerned) events, like UPA slaughter of Poles (be honest and admit that you never heard of this one before I mentioned it). And when I see that, out of two events of similar magnitude, one is largely ignored and another trumped ad infinitum, I can't help but wonder if the difference is explained away by political considerations.
I can quite easly explain the difference. They are several reasons
-Katyn was done by Soviet Union of which Russia officialy is a successor state and its symbolic and tradition is idolized often in Russia. Putin openly called the end of the Soviet Union(responsible for Katyn) a disaster.
The killings by UPA were done by a loose violent organisation not by the Ukrainian state. Why some idolize UPA in Ukraine not all do. In Russia the support for former SU is overwhelming both in top echelons of power and on the street.
The murder in Katyn was done to eradicate Polish elites and to ensure succesfull enslavement of Poland to Soviet will.
The killings of UPA were done out of will to preserve an ethnic Ukrainian territory, avange perceived and real wrongs as well as reverse the effects of Polish takeover of Ukrainian lands. Of course the reaction was terrible, but it falls within the realm of conflict people understand. UPA unlike SU didn't want to enslave Polish state or to occupy it.
While the atrocities of UPA are open to research, Russia refuses to open its archives on the Katyn case-fueling beliefs that it tries to hide something more sinister and humilitating-perhaps the fact that this was done in agreement with Nazi Germany with the goal of eradicating Poles for good.
I would say this are the main reasons for different perception in Polish public. Also you are really wrong in regards to claiming it isn't talked about in Poland, it is a very hot issue.

post-war Communist regime could deal with militant opposition on it's ow
It were communist Poles who dealt with anti-communist Polish guerillas in Poland in 1945-1950.
This is incorrect on several points. The chief idea of Polish underground was independence not anti-communism. The bulk of the fighting was done by Soviet NKVD divisions in the years 1944-1947. Also the Operation Tempest actions led to destruction of Home Army


http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai.php?serwis=pl&dzial=82&id=1287&poz=2
In the first period of communist revolution on Polish territories the fight with independence underground was mosty(as shown for example by A. Chmielarz and K. Szwagrzyk) in the hands of NKWD units. In 1945 they were three NKWD divisions counting 35.000 soldiers. From Białostoczyzna till Rzeszowszczyzna sowiet units took over German arests and outposts and started arresting chosen soldiers and politicians of Polish Underground state and NSZ. For example In the time period of January 1945 till August 1946 the 64 division of NKWD eradicated 201 armed units (including some German and Ukrainian), during those fights 1975 were killed and 3370 members of AK and UPA were arrested. According to special request of Bierut, the last division of NKWD (64th) remained in Poland till 1 III 1947, the reasons being the fear that local communist forces will be unable to crush Polish independence underground. Both the "forest people" and soldiers from Polish Military tried to avoid infighting and the forces of UB(Security Ministry) turned out to be to weak.The Security Ministry-too weak to fight militarily-supported NKWD with intelligence.
W pierwszym okresie rewolucji komunistycznej na ziemiach polskich (1944 – 1947) walka z podziemiem niepodległościowym, jak wykazał to m.in. A. Chmielarz i K. Szwagrzyk, spoczywała w rękach – przede wszystkim – jednostek NKWD. W 1945 r. na terenie Polski stacjonowały trzy dywizje NKWD liczące ok. 35 tys. żołnierzy. Od Białostocczyzny po Rzeszowszczyznę jednostki sowiecki przejmowały areszty i więzienia niemieckie instalując tam swoje posterunki, a następnie aresztowały wybranych żołnierzy i polityków Polskiego Państwa Podziemnego (PPP), czy tez NSZ. (...)w okresie od stycznia 1945 do sierpnia 1946 r. dywizja [64 NKWD] zlikwidowała na terytorium Polski 201 oddziałów zbrojnych (w tym niemieckie i ukraińskie. [...] W walkach tych zginęło 1975 ludzi, a zatrzymano 3370 członków AK i UPA. W ramach działań prewencyjnych aresztowano ponad 47 tys. osób” [10] . Na specjalne życzenie Bieruta, ostatnia dywizja NKWD (64) została zatrzymana do dyspozycji „polskich towarzyszy” do 1 III 1947 r. Powodem utrzymania jednostki była obawa o możliwości likwidacji podziemia niepodległościowego siłami samego MBP (w tym KBW). Tak ludzie „leśni”, jak i żołnierze WP z poboru starali się unikać walki bratobójczej, a siły UB okazały się za słabe.(...) Resort BP, za słaby by wykonywać samodzielne zadania, wspierał aktywnieNKWD na terenie montowania agentury


It was know to have 400,000 and maybe upto 600,000 people under Arms .
Not all armed and not in 1945. By that time it was already devestated by Operation Tempest, Warsaw Uprising and arrests by Soviets after joint fights against Germans.
 
Last edited:
MerryPrankster, in fact Germany in the last months of the war did everything possible to hold off the Soviets.

If you have not looked into the career of General Heinrici, the 'master of disaster', commanding much of the Eastern Front from January 1945 to the end, you certainly should. By any account he held out longer than anyone could have imagined.

Given the losses by July 20 I seriously doubt Army Group Center could have salvaged much more than it did and what does a full retreat do except invite further action by the Red Army? Likewise Guderain's proposals, which would also have advanced the Soviet occupation of the Balkans by several months, this before Stalin agreed to throw Churchill the bone of Greece. Put the Iron Curtain in the Adriatic and the Soviets are actually doing better than OTL in the Balkans.

Austria had nearly twenty years to join Germany and yet somehow failed to do so, even during the Great Depression, until occupied. And what was unpleasant about the elected government in Austria in 1938?

Dismemberment is what happened to Czechoslovakia at Munich. Any analysis of the economic, military, transport, etc. damage done confirms this, not to mention the expulsion of @800,000 Czechs and other rendered destitute while 250,000 Germans remained inside the remaining state as a fifth column.

The Germans may feel that they've somehow paid their dues which will only make matters worse vis a vis Jews, Poles and everyone else they mistreated or invaded.

True about FDR and I respect your standing up for him, nor do I dispute the (inevitable) nutjobs of his or any administration but nonetheless any ATL which considers impeaching a president for continuing the policies of a near-saintly figure in the public's eye when that president absolutely has the right to do so...


The Valkyrie crowd included more than enough Prussian officers and others contemptous of democratic values, not to mention war-mongers whose main grudge against Hitler was the tide turning against Germany, rather than any ethical basis.

A Germany restored to a weak Weimer-type republic with powerful voices wanting a kaiser, a new arms race or what have you does not remotely serve Anglo-American interests and how does London or Washington DC sign a treaty with the regime, defend it against the inevitable massive criticism, then throw their German partners under the bus without admitting either moral error or deliberate intent to betray?

There's also possible effects on Germany if, for the second time in 26 years the military overthrows and betrays the government for their own personal goals.
 

Terlot

Banned
The Valkyrie crowd included more than enough Prussian officers and others contemptous of democratic values, not to mention war-mongers whose main grudge against Hitler was the tide turning against Germany, rather than any ethical basis.
Agreed.

A Germany of Valyrie group would mean no European integration and maybe pro-Soviet Central Europe seeing Soviets as lesser evil.
 
Agreed.

A Germany of Valyrie group would mean no European integration and maybe pro-Soviet Central Europe seeing Soviets as lesser evil.
Correction: Valkyrie Germany as painted by General Zod. BTW, it is interested that almost anyone from the Central Europe who stumbles on this GZ's wankfest is not convinced, to say it incredibly mildly...
 
Although the USSR turned into the Russian Empire 2.0 (to a point--Brezhnev still coveted the Middle East and Southern Africa) in its later years, it was founded as a terrorist state bent on world domination.
Bwah! Which radically new economic system did not start as "terrorist bent on world domination" (using language of "old powers")? Feudalism replacing slavery, capitalism replacing feudalism - they were all violent terrorist regimes using pretty scary methods to endure their survival in the middle of hostile world. Yes, USSR was violent and proselyting. It did not make him different from France of late 18 century, for example.
 
Bwah! Which radically new economic system did not start as "terrorist bent on world domination" (using language of "old powers")? Feudalism replacing slavery, capitalism replacing feudalism - they were all violent terrorist regimes using pretty scary methods to endure their survival in the middle of hostile world. Yes, USSR was violent and proselyting. It did not make him different from France of late 18 century, for example.

I don't recall secular millenarian feudalists attempting to spread feudalism by force.

Feudalism came about due to the collapse of law and order in the West in Late Antiquity--it was not an ideology.
 
Top