WI 1942 armastice

Andre27

Banned
IF we go by the assumption that in 1942 an armistice between the western allies and Nazi Germany was in effect.

France no longer occupied, trade restrictions against Germany lifted and lend lease convoys toward the USSR stopped.

How would this affect the war on the eastern front.

Personally it has been my opinion that it was the added mobility provided by western trucks and locomotives which allowed the Soviets to hold cities like Leningrad, Moscow and ultimately Stalingrad.

In addition, if Moscow had fallen to the German advance then what would be the most plausible place to construct large scale "Siegfried line like" defensive fortifications?

Is it from the Caspian sea north to Leningrad or further east to the western edges of the Ural mountains.

The latter part being inspired by
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=11080408#post11080408
 
No way. There is nothing the Germans can (and are willing to) offer that would satisfy the Allies. Nothing at all. At that point the Allies would ask that the German government be deposed, major war criminals tried in front of international tribunal, Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht dismantled and so on...
 
Hey thanks for the shoutout! :cool:

That being said, as Shaby perfectly put it, by 1942 this too ASB to consider.

BUT!

If we were to get slightly imaginative, I'd actually argue that nothing would be different from OTL.

In regards to a stoppage of LL, sure the US might agree on paper, but hell no they won't stop smuggling supplies to Uncle Joe. That alone would inevitably cause another open conflict a few years (if not a few months) after the ink is dry on such an armistice.

And even still, once Stalingrad happens, the Russian will still outproduce Germany, as now all the industries and material pillaged from occupied France would be completely unavailable to them.

End Result - Hitler still gets curb-stomped
 
If Sauerkraut is served in Moscow in 1942...

With Moscow falling in 1941 the Germans are winning on almost all fronts. Why do they decide now is a good time to stop?
 
Unless you have some plausible scenario for this to happen, it really doesn't belong in this forum. (Non-political Chat or ASB would work better, IMO)

HOW such a massive change happens is critical to WHAT happens. So, we can't even discuss the situation until we have some idea how it happened.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No France, and presumably, the Low Countries?

Germany either goes broke, starves, or both, by the end of 1943.

Only way the Allies go for this is if it is before the Unconditional Surrender statement, and then it is going to have to be, at the least, Status Quo Antebellum 1/1/1940.

Germany can't feed itself, isn't going to be getting any freebies from the WAllies, and will need to pay, in hard currency, for everything it imports, assuming France will sell to them under any circumstances.
 
You Need a POD much earlier

US must still be out of the war (no german DOW on US and NO US DOW on Germany too)

Britains resolve to fight must lapse too (at least NO Churchill) - maybe a cathasthropic defeat in africa with the Germans standing at Suez - ???

Well the more I think the more I see bats instead of butterflies...
 
No way. There is nothing the Germans can (and are willing to) offer that would satisfy the Allies. Nothing at all. At that point the Allies would ask that the German government be deposed, major war criminals tried in front of international tribunal, Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht dismantled and so on...

scenario from Turtledove's war that came early series.

specifically 'The Big Switch'
 
How long is the armistice for? It certainly can't be intended to be indefinite.

Let's say the armistice is intended to be for one year. Germany's plan is to defeat the Soviet Union and emerge from 1942 in such a strong position that the Western Allies admit defeat.

This isn't going to end well for Germany.

Germany can't knock out the Soviet Union in 1942. The Soviets will come under more strain, but their victory in Stalingrad wasn't due to Lend Lease. Without Lend Lease aide, the Red Army will be extremely hampered in its offensive operations in 1943 and future, but Germany won't do a whole lot better. Let's say without the burdens of occupation and distractions with the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and airpower, they do have a more successful Eastern Front. Leningrad falls. Case Blue is partially successful. Germans hold the front along the Volga, but they still don't have the Baku oil fields. There is no real possibility of Soviet collapse, and their ability to project force deeper into Russia is not improved.

France is now unoccupied and able to rebuild its armed forces. It is likely leaning towards Germany as 1942 begins, but pro-Allied elements will quickly gain influence. France at least begins talks with Allies on defeating Japan so it can remove Japanese influence from Indochina.

Axis are no longer threatening the Suez Canal. This allows Britain to divert many more resources to India and Burma. Japan is not able to cut off Burma Road. It is even possible that Britain retakes Singapore before year is out.

The United States does not have face the Second Happy Time when U-boats were sinking many ships off its coastal waters. It still builds up its armed forces same as IOTL. There is no Operation Torch in 1942, but it doesn't need to be. British are safe in Egypt, and US is in diplomatic negotiations with France. FDR's goal is for a joint Anglo-American-French alliance to take out Germany in 1943 and 1944. They just need to get France on board and time the arrival of British and American forces arriving in France - not done on the beaches of Normandy against enemy fire, but in the ports of Brest, Bourdeaux, Marseilles and others.

In the Pacific, the US is able to send substantial reinforcements since there will be no European operations in 1942. They will have the luxury of moving some of those assets back for use in Europe after the year is out. The important ships of the Atlantic Fleet can be transferred to use against Japan, as will several more US Army Divisions. Guadalcanal or similar operation won't be on such a shoe string. By end of 1942, the US likely has control of the Solomons, perhaps even all of New Guinea and Rabaul.

By 1943, the western Allies will have dealt Japan harder defeats than OTL, and be nicely built up to resume the war against Germany. The only question is how much France cooperates. With the Germans still fighting the Soviets, and British and American forces becoming huge, France has every incentive to re-enter the war.

No matter the specific details, Germany has lots its gamble and is in an even worse position than OTL.
 
Personally it has been my opinion that it was the added mobility provided by western trucks and locomotives which allowed the Soviets to hold cities like Leningrad, Moscow and ultimately Stalingrad.

Not in evidence. The overwhelming bulk of vehicles (and lend-lease in general) sent to the USSR arrived in the 1943-1944 timeframe. In 1941-42, the Soviets had to fight almost entirely on their own resources.
 

Andre27

Banned
Not in evidence. The overwhelming bulk of vehicles (and lend-lease in general) sent to the USSR arrived in the 1943-1944 timeframe. In 1941-42, the Soviets had to fight almost entirely on their own resources.

That's your opinion, but other sources claim the opposite.
Not the primary source but one that emerges on top with a quick google is this one:
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

Either way I'd like to respond to those who claim a 1942 armistice is ASB.
It's not as far fetched if a number of things are taken into account.

- Churchill was very adverse against communists and the USSR.

- While Hitler wanted to punish France for the humiliation of WW1, he tried to forge an alliance with Great Brittain. He even delayed strikes against Dunkirk because of that wish.

The theme for the alliance between the western allies and the USSR was "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". What if a communist Russia was regarded as a more dangerous foe than Nazi Germany.

We also have to keep in mind that the holocaust had yet to pick up pace.

Overall it's not ASB though it does require a butterfly or two.
Back on topic: how would things progress according to you in the situation sketched in my OP

Edit:
Interesting newspaper article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html
 
Last edited:
That's your opinion, but other sources claim the opposite.

No it is not. Let us actually examine what professional scholars writing after the fall of the Soviet Union with access to the archival material your little source touts actually say...

Richard Overy said:
Yet for all the importance attached to Soviet resistance, neither Western power contributed enough during 1942 to ensure Soviet survival. The American Lend-Lease aid program, begun in March 1941 for the British Empire and extended to cover the Soviet Union in August that year, provided $5.8 billion of goods for Britain by the end of 1942 but only $1.4 billion for the Soviet Union.

Norman Davies said:
The value of US war deliveries to the United Kingdom is well known. They made all the difference between drowning and staying afloat. But the benefits which they gave to the USSR were not publicized and were rarely acknowledged by Soviet historians. In reality, they were considerable. In this case, however, it is not possible to state that they made the difference between defeat and victory. The Red Army had already gained the upper hand on the Eastern Front at the turn of 1942-43, before the full weight of Western assistance could be felt. The Arctic convoys that were sent from Britain to Murmansk, beginning in 1941, were extremely perilous and hardly defensible in terms of tonnage delivered against tonnage lost.
...
What is more, much of the early Lend-Lease aid was unusable. British tanks were not what the Red Army needed and British Army greatcoats (like German greatcoats) were totally unsuited to the Russian winter. The Soviets had already gained the upper hand on their own account before Western aid began to reach them in quantity.

Your source touts a whole lot about British tanks, but the reality is the Soviets hated the tanks they got if the litany of Red Army After-Action Reports saying how useless they were is any indication. The fact that the Hurricanes and Spitfires were devoted to the extreme north of the Soviet front (which both the Germans and the Soviets regarded as a sideshow) is an indication on how much value they placed on them. The machine tools were nice additions, but not of necessity for the recovery of Soviet production.

- Churchill was very adverse against communists and the USSR.

All evidence indicates that he was even more adverse against fascists. His "if Hitler invaded hell" comment makes that pretty clear.

- While Hitler wanted to punish France for the humiliation of WW1, he tried to forge an alliance with Great Brittain. He even delayed strikes against Dunkirk because of that wish.

Too bad the British didn't trust Hitler to keep his word on anything after Czechoslovakia.

The theme for the alliance between the western allies and the USSR was "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". What if a communist Russia was regarded as a more dangerous foe than Nazi Germany.

By late-1941, it's far too late for that to happen. The Germans have shattered the pre-war Red Army and pushed to the gates of Moscow before being thrown back by Soviet reserves. There is no way under those circumstances that the USSR would be regarded by the WAllies as more dangerous then the Nazis.
 

Andre27

Banned
We can argue all day, but the bottom line is that there are scholars on both sides of the isle.

Personally, considering the tendency of communist Russia to downplay everyone's contribution but their own, i believe the opinion of those scholars who claim the LL saved Russia to carry more value than those who claim the LL was insignificant.

Either way, scholars on both sides and neither of us is fluent is Russian AND has access to Russian historical archives.

Back on topic, it is documented that the lack of trust made any propositions of an alliance between Britain and Germany unlikely.

Unlikely, but not strictly impossible. All that is needed is a minor butterfly in which communist Russia is viewed as a greater danger than Nazi Germany. I realize that an alliance between GB and Nazi Germany, which many view as the personification as evil especially considering the current knowledge of the holocaust, is incomprehensible to many.

However the holocaust had yet to pick up steam in 1941-1942 and if the USSR was considered a greater danger then perhaps pragmatism could facilitate an alliance or at the very least an armistice.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I don't see any ASB in this, but sure we need some PoDs.

Like: The Wallies actually believe it is just a matter of landing in France and roll all the way to Berlin while the Wehrmacht is engaged in the East.

There actually were important American WHO thought something like this, and if if we somehow PoD out Alanbrooke I would seriously fear it could happen. 1943 is more likely however.

(BTW I can't reply for the next week - I go buck and boar hunting in Germany :D )
 

Andre27

Banned
I don't see any ASB in this, but sure we need some PoDs.

Like: The Wallies actually believe it is just a matter of landing in France and roll all the way to Berlin while the Wehrmacht is engaged in the East.

There actually were important American WHO thought something like this, and if if we somehow PoD out Alanbrooke I would seriously fear it could happen. 1943 is more likely however.

(BTW I can't reply for the next week - I go buck and boar hunting in Germany :D )

I hope you had fun though i would personally prefer shooting pictures instead of guns.

Looking forward to your input.
 
Why would the Allies agree to this? In 1942 with both the US and USSR in the war Churchill is pretty convinced that the Allies will win in the end.

The only way you can get an armistice is in 1940 when Britain stands alone, and only with a different government in power (Halifax maybe?). If you get an armistice between the UK and Germany (that somehow lasts) America will not intervene in Europe. In which case it comes down to Hitler vs Stalin (Again the challenge here would be to stop the UK from declaring war on Germany again to support Russia).

Once America and Russia are both involved in the war there is no possible way for the Nazi's to negotiate a way out of this. All the allies are committed to absolutely crushing Germany, and they know they have the men and materiel to do it.
 
Top