WI Morgenthau Plan replaced by Occupation and Enforced return to Democracy

hammo1j

Donor
The Morgenthau Plan was conceived by the USA as a way to ensure that Germany never raised aggressive war again. It split Germany into pieces and would never permit it to have an industrial society again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

However the actual effect was to stiffen German resolve.

General George Marshall complained to Morgenthau that German resistance had strengthened.[48] Hoping to get Morgenthau to relent on his plan for Germany, President Roosevelt's son-in-law Lt. Colonel John Boettiger who worked in the War Department explained to Morgenthau how the American troops that had had to fight for five weeks against fierce German resistance to capture the city of Aachen had complained to him that the Morgenthau Plan was "worth thirty divisions to the Germans." Morgenthau refused to relent.[49]

On December 11, OSS operative William Donovan sent Roosevelt a telegraph message from Bern, warning him of the consequences that the knowledge of the Morgenthau plan had had on German resistance; by showing them that the enemy planned the enslavement of Germany it had welded together ordinary Germans and the regime; the Germans continue to fight because they are convinced that defeat will bring nothing but oppression and exploitation.[50] The message was a translation of a recent article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

This cost thousands of lives.

Doubly unfortunate was that the author of the plan, Morgenthau, was an American Jew. The Nazis lied that the Jews were the cause of Germany's downfall, so to present evidence of a Hare Brained Scheme to destroy the country authored by a Jewish American was Gold Dust to Goebbels.

I honestly thought that the contents of the Morgethau plan was an exaggeration by Anti Semites to claim an undue influence in the conduct of the War against Germany by the Jews, but it truly was for real! I am sure that the Jews would not be behind the plan because it meant the war dragged on and millions were unnecessarily killed in the Halocaust. However Roosevelt must be condemned to the point where he loses his reputation for this monumental blunder.

What if the Morgenthau Plan was replaced by the following:

Conditional on the negotiations being with a non Nazi Led Regime, the US and UK would accept the cessation of hostilities from Germany and occupy the country with the purpose of returning it to its pre War borders and to a Democratic Government.
 
Last edited:

hammo1j

Donor
The point of the new version of the Plan is not to specifically to help Germany, but to allow the Western Allies to gain maximum influence in Europe with fewest casualties.

Germany retaining her borders is likely to not be practical but the Allies are not bound to keep their promise. OTH Germany is likely to lose far less territory and have a better economy than OTL.

There is very little Stalin could do if the allies unilaterally offered these terms to Germany, since the relationship was very one sided with the Western Allies providing vast amounts of free munitions to the USSR.

Naturally there is going to be trouble when the Western Allies and the Red Army meet, but as in OTL its likely to be a stalemate with equally balanced forces.

Stalin can hardly publicy nurse a greivance against the West for stopping the War Early and saving the lives of Millions of Russians. What he wanted Privately - the seizure of a vast tract of Europe - would be another matter.
 
The problem is still Roosevelt; his line is far too pro-Soviet for this to happen. You'd have to disable him somehow, and without getting people like Wallace, Truman or Eisenhower in charge instead.
 

hammo1j

Donor
The problem is still Roosevelt; his line is far too pro-Soviet for this to happen.

I dont believe that any politician supports a country other than his own.

Roosevelt must have mistakenly believed that the US would benefit from the public knowledge of the Morgenthau plan.

Perhaps he believed that it would stiffen Allied Resolve.
I think it unlikely that he believed the Germany people were inherently criminal and war like and required to be crushed utterly since that approach had failed before.

Far more likely was that he believed that a battered Europe would lose its ascendancy and be permenantly beholden unto a newly strong and fully militarised USA, the new world leader.
 
That plan was insane. I can see a Jew pissed off enough at Germany due to the Holocaust back it but Roosevelt? That was stupid.
 
The point of the new version of the Plan is not to specifically to help Germany, but to allow the Western Allies to gain maximum influence in Europe with fewest casualties.

Germany retaining her borders is likely to not be practical but the Allies are not bound to keep their promise. OTH Germany is likely to lose far less territory and have a better economy than OTL.

There is very little Stalin could do if the allies unilaterally offered these terms to Germany, since the relationship was very one sided with the Western Allies providing vast amounts of free munitions to the USSR.

Naturally there is going to be trouble when the Western Allies and the Red Army meet, but as in OTL its likely to be a stalemate with equally balanced forces.

Stalin can hardly publicy nurse a greivance against the West for stopping the War Early and saving the lives of Millions of Russians. What he wanted Privately - the seizure of a vast tract of Europe - would be another matter.


Here is where the entire idea falls down. Stalin and his USSR were not merely hanging on to the coat-tails of the "allies" nor were they just coincidentally fighting the same enemy as the "allies". If you notice I use the term allies in quotation marks, because a trend in modern times is to speak of the allies as including only the USA and UK (and occassionally the Free French) but that is as inaccurate as saying the WWI allies included only the UK and France with the USA and Russia just happening to fight Germany separately and it doesn't matter what justification is used because in the end it still inaccurate. Stalin was a paranoid and oppressive dictator, but the fact is that his country was one of the Allies. In fact Roosevelt came up with the term "United Nations" back in 1941/42 as the term officially used to denote the Allies. The term "Western Allies" is more accurate when referring to the USA and UK, but even then it isn't like there was even a grouping of the "Western Allies" under such a term formally. The high point of collaboration was the Combined Chiefs of Staffs (which usually only met during grand wartime conferences) as well as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF - which came about due to practical requirements for the Normandy invasion. If the US, British and Canadians weren't going to be invading the same region there would be no need for a unified command since there would have been no need for cooperation and avoidance of potentially fatal accidents or mistakes - note that joint/unified commands were also established involving the free French and the Dutch for similar reasons but since the Americans and British weren't fighting in eastern Europe there was no need for a joint command with the Soviets as it would have been a waste of time and precious money and everybody knew that).

Essentially getting Churchill and Roosevelt to disregard Stalin is about as likely as having Hitler get lucky by having a falling out between the Allies. As much as we may detest Stalin, he is not going to be disregarded by Churchill and Roosevelt unless you have an entirely different World War II where Stalin is more of a resistance leader like De Gaulle instead of the leader of a country with an army of millions fighting the same Nazi Germany that Churchill's British troops and Roosevelt's American troops are fighting. Even De Gaulle wasn't sidelined all that often.

Having Roosevelt and Churchill pretend Stalin didn't exist is ASB, not to mention totally inconsistent with how they actually dealt with Stalin historically.

Besides, at the time period you were referring to for a change in the Morgenthau Plan, Churchill and Roosevelt and the other Allies had long ago agreed to unconditional surrender of the Axis and since the Allies are obviously winning by late 1944 they wouldn't feel any need to modify the demand for unconditional surrender (even with Japan it was kept for the most part and only slightly modified because late 1945 and the prospect of a seaborne invasion of Japan was totally different from late 1944 and the land invasion of Germany).

What would probably work to reduce German resistance is the following:

"The Morgenthau Plan is shelved and that the Allies intend to occupy the country with the purpose of returning it to a democratic government."

No need to speak about borders (unrealistic to expect by 1944 that the Germans wouldn't have had border changes, the Poles and French alone would demand it and even the Dutch were thinking of transfers and actually got minor changes and by 1943 the Allies had actually agreed to Poland's frontier being roughly based on the Oder and for Germany to lose East Prussia), also no need to speak of conditional terms (they wouldn't have been forthcoming anyway from the Allies since they don't want a repeat of 1918 which lead to where they were in 1944-1945). The Germans aren't stupid - any plan which promises no border changes by the UK and US would probably been seen (and termed) as a ruse since it should be fairly obvious that the UK and US cannot guarantee eastern Germany and east Prussia since the Soviets are already there and any plan announced by the UK and US only would probably be seen as not worth its weight in paper since Germany would have to deal with the Soviets and the French after the war anyway. And if the Germans suspect the UK and US are lying why would they reduce their resistance to British, American, Canadian and Free French forces invading from the west?

The western Allies had already pretty much extended their influence as far as possible anyway without having a different WWII entirely. If the whole purpose of the modified plan is to have the British and Americans meet the Soviets to the east of Berlin then all the plan will have done is save the Soviets the trouble of losing men in Berlin (although Stalin will lost out on the propaganda victory of having the Soviet army take Berlin) - The occupation zones were basically agreed to back in early 1943 (and the British and Soviets had very similar ideas about how the occupation zones should be) and were fine tuned (i.e. no major changes) in 1943-1944. So any attempt to get a change there would probably need the war to be different from 1942 at the latest so that when the Allies do discuss occupation zones the 1943 agreement which envisioned the US in the southwest, UK in the northwest and USSR in the east (I don't know how anyone can get Berlin to be anywhere but in the east) is entirely different (maybe along the lines of what Roosevelt originally wanted but was dissuaded from because it would require the British and Americans to have different disposition during the Normandy invasion).
 

hammo1j

Donor
Here comes a potential TL in Installments how WWII pans out with alternative terms for Germany.

President X is the totally pragmatic leader of USA. He does not hate or love the Nazis, the Jews, the British or the Soviets. He uses all without favour or attachment while it is good for America. Its not a long shot to have a leader like this rather than FDR whose reasons why he did what he did will be examined later.

The POD is just after the Battle of Kursk Aug 1943.

Josef Stalin itched his scrotum, scratchy in the heat of the Soviet Summer. As he took a swig from the ever present vodka bottle, he felt for the time being that he could relax a little.

The Germans had attacked with all they had at Kursk, but the Red Army had turned things round in the Greatest Mechanised Battle in the History of Man. Now it was the Germans' time to go on the defensive, as Zhukov took the initiative.

A knock on the door disturbed his reverie. A timid diplomatic attache for the American Embassy entered. He was clearly fearful that the policy of "shoot the messenger" might be enforced as he was bearing bad news.

"Comrade Stalin, the Americans and British have just issued this communique to Germany on the BBC."

Stalin read the document displaying no outward emotion but inwardly he was seething. He was due to fly to Tehran to meet Churchill and President X in months to rubber stamp the conduct of the war with the Unconditional Surrender of the Nazis (exactly what he wanted) and now this!

The Western Allies were offering Germany a surrender without loss of territory. They knew this would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union especially now the struggle had been turned round at such great cost. But inwardly he admired President X. He had done as Stalin would have done, made them Allies while it suited his needs and then cast them aside when that need no longer applied.

Now they were no longer Allies, but would they be enemies? Certainly Stalin knew that there would be no negotiations like he had offered when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow - he would have to continue the fight. But what to do with the Western Allies? If he broke off relations then the free Munitions so thoughfully supplied by the Allies would dry up. The fight against the Germans would be won, but the final victory could be delayed.

Holding back his natural rage, Stalin contemplated his options in a statesman like way.
 

bard32

Banned
The Morgenthau Plan was conceived by the USA as a way to ensure that Germany never raised aggressive war again. It split Germany into pieces and would never permit it to have an industrial society again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

However the actual effect was to stiffen German resolve.



This cost thousands of lives.

Doubly unfortunate was that the author of the plan, Morgenthau, was an American Jew. The Nazis lied that the Jews were the cause of Germany's downfall, so to present evidence of a Hare Brained Scheme to destroy the country authored by a Jewish American was Gold Dust to Goebbels.

I honestly thought that the contents of the Morgethau plan was an exaggeration by Anti Semites to claim an undue influence in the conduct of the War against Germany by the Jews, but it truly was for real! I am sure that the Jews would not be behind the plan because it meant the war dragged on and millions were unnecessarily killed in the Halocaust. However Roosevelt must be condemned to the point where he loses his reputation for this monumental blunder.

What if the Morgenthau Plan was replaced by the following:

Conditional on the negotiations being with a non Nazi Led Regime, the US and UK would accept the cessation of hostilities from Germany and occupy the country with the purpose of returning it to its pre War borders and to a Democratic Government.

Would this be in the sector occupied by the Western Allies, Britain, France,
and the United States, or the Soviet sector, as well? In 1945, the plan was to keep Germany weak and divided.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Hi Chris

Thanks for your reply - I was composing part 1 of the TL while you were posting so you did not know that my POD is earlier than Morgenthau was originally issued.

The point that I make is that the Western Allies (WAs), for want of a better term, only need to support Stalin while he is losing the war which would leave the WAs to fight Hitler alone . As soon as the USSR started winning then the requirement to be an ally disappears. After all is Stalin going to come to a truce with the Nazis when he is on a roll?

Remember there were only the single co-ordinated operation of WW2 which was the sinking of the Tirpitz where 617 flew from Russian territory and the armies might as well have been independent as Stalin certainly never made the WAs privvy to any of his plans.

Besides if the WA's did piss Stalin off what was he going to do?

OTL Roosevelt and Churchill had the winning hand of cards which for whatever reason Roosevelt refused to profit from.

No need to speak about borders (unrealistic to expect by 1944 that the Germans wouldn't have had border changes, the Poles and French alone would demand it and even the Dutch were thinking of transfers and actually got minor changes and by 1943 the Allies had actually agreed to Poland's frontier being roughly based on the Oder and for Germany to lose East Prussia), also no need to speak of conditional terms (they wouldn't have been forthcoming anyway from the Allies since they don't want a repeat of 1918 which lead to where they were in 1944-1945). The Germans aren't stupid - any plan which promises no border changes by the UK and US would probably been seen (and termed) as a ruse since it should be fairly obvious that the UK and US cannot guarantee eastern Germany and east Prussia since the Soviets are already there and any plan announced by the UK and US only would probably be seen as not worth its weight in paper since Germany would have to deal with the Soviets and the French after the war anyway. And if the Germans suspect the UK and US are lying why would they reduce their resistance to British, American, Canadian and Free French forces invading from the west

I agree with you on this and if I put in a final version I'll leave the offer of pre-War borders and couched it more in your terms of a controlled return to democracy and self determiination. But I would keep the 'undivided Germany' offer on the table.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Would this be in the sector occupied by the Western Allies, Britain, France,
and the United States, or the Soviet sector, as well? In 1945, the plan was to keep Germany weak and divided.

Thanks for your question, Bard32. The plan is that there is no pre-division of Germany because the WAs are going to get it all because their speed of advance is likely to be so much quicker than the Soviets under this new plan.

OTL it is conceivable that the Allies thought that with the difficulties of launching a Sea Bourne invasion, the USSR might get most of Germany and even some of Europe to the West of this. In which case they argued, pre-dividing territory made sense in that they would get back some of Germany under treaty. In practice, the treaty was not worth the paper it was written on. Since the allied presence in Europe under those circumstances would necessarily be weak, the Russians would tear up the treaty and tough out the situation with their superior military muscle.
 
Here comes a potential TL in Installments how WWII pans out with alternative terms for Germany.

President X is the totally pragmatic leader of USA. He does not hate or love the Nazis, the Jews, the British or the Soviets. He uses all without favour or attachment while it is good for America. Its not a long shot to have a leader like this rather than FDR whose reasons why he did what he did will be examined later.

The POD is just after the Battle of Kursk Aug 1943.

Josef Stalin itched his scrotum, scratchy in the heat of the Soviet Summer. As he took a swig from the ever present vodka bottle, he felt for the time being that he could relax a little.

The Germans had attacked with all they had at Kursk, but the Red Army had turned things round in the Greatest Mechanised Battle in the History of Man. Now it was the Germans' time to go on the defensive, as Zhukov took the initiative.

A knock on the door disturbed his reverie. A timid diplomatic attache for the American Embassy entered. He was clearly fearful that the policy of "shoot the messenger" might be enforced as he was bearing bad news.

"Comrade Stalin, the Americans and British have just issued this communique to Germany on the BBC."

Stalin read the document displaying no outward emotion but inwardly he was seething. He was due to fly to Tehran to meet Churchill and President X in months to rubber stamp the conduct of the war with the Unconditional Surrender of the Nazis (exactly what he wanted) and now this!

The Western Allies were offering Germany a surrender without loss of territory. They knew this would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union especially now the struggle had been turned round at such great cost. But inwardly he admired President X. He had done as Stalin would have done, made them Allies while it suited his needs and then cast them aside when that need no longer applied.

Now they were no longer Allies, but would they be enemies? Certainly Stalin knew that there would be no negotiations like he had offered when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow - he would have to continue the fight. But what to do with the Western Allies? If he broke off relations then the free Munitions so thoughfully supplied by the Allies would dry up. The fight against the Germans would be won, but the final victory could be delayed.

Holding back his natural rage, Stalin contemplated his options in a statesman like way.

You do realise that this might mean a third world war after the second or a large part of Europe under sovjet domination? Either the same of maybe even more if the Sovjets decide to push more and get as much of Europe as possible under its control? Of course that could mean that the Russians make some rash decision and by that giving the edge to the western allies, but I think that the western allies doing something rash is as (or maybe even more) likely. Communist Greece, Austria and maybe even parts of Italy aren't impossible or even unlikely. I hope you are not so naive to think that the nazi would surrender themselves to the western allies. At best some alternative government after a coup would (like von Staufenberg's).
 

hammo1j

Donor
You do realise that this might mean a third world war after the second or a large part of Europe under sovjet domination?
OTL this is what happened but WWIII did not kick off because Stalin was smart enough to realise that the West and SU are evenly matched and it is not a battle to reclaim home turf.

Either the same of maybe even more if the Sovjets decide to push more and get as much of Europe as possible under its control?

WA's lend lease very important in OTL (Trucks and Radios etc) can be used as a governor as it can be scaled back if the Soviets are winning too quickly against the Germans.

I hope you are not so naive to think that the nazi would surrender themselves to the western allies. At best some alternative government after a coup would (like von Staufenberg's).

My TL will have the alternative government forming first, but the WA's must continue fighting until their surrender terms are accepted. It is either their terms or annihilation by the Soviets. The leadership may not want to relinquish power but the German People will force them down the only possible route since they will see the WA's as the only protection against the SU.

It is my assertion that in our real TL we have been brainwashed in to believing that an Alliance with the SU was absolutely necessary. Once logic is applied though this assumption becomes entirely unreasonable and the best course of action, as always, is to keep your opponents guessing and play one off against the other.
 
Last edited:

hammo1j

Donor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Canaris
The problem is still Roosevelt; his line is far too pro-Soviet for this to happen. You'd have to disable him somehow

You could have him catch some sort of crippling disease maybe?

I am not going to deal with the problem of Roosevelt. I suffices to say that there are thousands of more pragmatic figures he might be replaced with. IMHO, contrary to the legend, he was a poor wartime leader who did a great disservice to his country


Pompejus said

You do realise that this might mean a third world war after the second or a large part of Europe under sovjet domination? Either the same of maybe even more if the Sovjets decide to push more and get as much of Europe as possible under its control?

I would like an explanation of how this could happen or why there would be a greater risk to the West in OTL when my analysis shows much less risk. Perhaps I have missed something.
 
Top