WI: Nazi-Soviet Peace in 1944

Cited from report of military council of 1st Belorussian Front about actions of 1st Polish Army in outskirts of Warsaw.

Text in russian. Document #74.

The city was already pretty much levelled and the Soviets could still have suppressed German troops and supplies from coming into the city.
Even the soviet troops was suffered from limited air support during this period (some reports from the link above says that). Probably VVS wasn't so powerful in this region.
 
Cited from report of military council of 1st Belorussian Front about actions of 1st Polish Army in outskirts of Warsaw.

Text in russian. Document #74.

Being a Soviet report I suppose it's validity is questionable but I suppose you're right.



Even the soviet troops was suffered from limited air support during this period (some reports from the link above says that). Probably VVS wasn't so powerful in this region.

They hardly even tried though, in an area with little German air cover.

Still as Blackwave says the whole affair is questionable, maybe it's better to just agree to disagree.
 
Katyn Massacre.


Not pulling out of Northern Iran








I agree the Germans would never be able to change their strategic situation but Stalin also had to face the reality of a wrecked nation and the fact his manpower reserves wouldn't last forever. The terms were favourable to the Soviet Union and it could have also given him the chance to conquer more of he Japanese empire than OTL and take most of what he had OTL in Europe if not more.


The Soviets intervened in Iran along with Britain and the United States because they considered the Shah to be pro German. The Soviets made an agreement to withdraw their troops from Iran once the war was over, and Soviet troops were withdrawn in May 1946.

The Soviet Union wanted reparations from Germany to help rebuild. They wouldn't be able to get that in a peace deal with Germany, and such a deal would have caused them to lose American loans, which they also needed in order to rebuild.
 
The Soviets intervened in Iran along with Britain and the United States because they considered the Shah to be pro German. The Soviets made an agreement to withdraw their troops from Iran once the war was over, and Soviet troops were withdrawn in May 1946.

The pull out date was meant to be March 1946, and they only withdrew in May after being offered oil concessions. They also established two separatist puppet states which they defended until their withdrawal.

The Soviet Union wanted reparations from Germany to help rebuild. They wouldn't be able to get that in a peace deal with Germany, and such a deal would have caused them to lose American loans, which they also needed in order to rebuild.

I'm sure you'd find the money saved on ending the war sooner would more than cover the cost.
 
The pull out date was meant to be March 1946, and they only withdrew in May after being offered oil concessions. They also established two separatist puppet states which they defended until their withdrawal.



I'm sure you'd find the money saved on ending the war sooner would more than cover the cost.

Just to interject, by this point ending wouldn't make much of a difference to rebuilding costs in the USSR itself.
 
Just to interject, by this point ending wouldn't make much of a difference to rebuilding costs in the USSR itself.

Well the Soviets produced roughly 30,000 armoured fighting vehicles alone in 1945. Imagine if all that money went into rebuilding...
 
Well the Soviets produced roughly 30,000 armoured fighting vehicles alone in 1945. Imagine if all that money went into rebuilding...

When you do the mathematics, a few thousand armored vehicles don't really compare to the destruction wrecked upon the USSR at that point in terms of cost. Besides, the Sovs would produce them anyway as part of replenishing their armies.
 
Or the Soviets, without Lend Lease earlier, might simply produce trucks instead of tanks.



The Red, I truly can't imagine Stalin accepting any deal once D-Day and Bagration are underway. At that point fighting to the end gets him more than Germany can possibly offer in any treaty that doesn't involve unconditional surrender, so what does he gain?

Consider it from Stalin's perspective. As of July/August 1944 if he stays in he expects to acquire Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans(less Greece) and a huge slice of Germany plus massive US aid plus more gains in the Pacific and that's the worst case scenario. What can Berlin possibly offer him to match that?
 

Rubicon

Banned
You all are looking at this from the wrong perspective, ie number crunching. Stalin had this many divisions, he had this much manpower left, and this many tanks. Irrelevant.

Stalin was a paranoid f*ck to the point of madness. Make him believe that the Western Allies are about to strike a peace deal with Nazi-Germany and he will piss himself and rush to give away a peace deal to Germany. The really, really hard part would be to come up with a plausible explanation to make Hitler sign it.

How to make Stalin believe that Nazi-Germany and the Western Allies is about to strike a deal? Let one of his spies in Madrid have thought he saw the German and British ambassador eat lunch with each other or something equally stupid, it would drive Stalins paranoia into overgear.

How to make Hitler accept a peace deal? Let Hitler have a moment of brief sanity? Ok, that's ASB, sorry. Well make him come up with a new plan that this would get him the time his Wunderwaffen needed to kick the Western Allies off the continent so he could deal with Stalin later, or something equaly stupid, it all depends on how it is written.

But IMHO it is not ASB for Stalin to sue for peace even after Bagration, IF it is written well enough and IF there is a reasonable explanation (Stalins paranoia should be a sufficent reason). Hitler is the tougher part, but IF written well enough and given sufficently reasonable explanation, Hitler might accept a peace deal. Of course neither would trust each other, and a new war would very likely erupt before 1950.
 
When you do the mathematics, a few thousand armored vehicles don't really compare to the destruction wrecked upon the USSR at that point in terms of cost. Besides, the Sovs would produce them anyway as part of replenishing their armies.

They would only need a fraction of this number if they were at peace, and think of what they could do with all those resources and money saved.
 
Or the Soviets, without Lend Lease earlier, might simply produce trucks instead of tanks.

True but trucks are less expensive to make and they wouldn't need nearly as many of them.



The Red, I truly can't imagine Stalin accepting any deal once D-Day and Bagration are underway. At that point fighting to the end gets him more than Germany can possibly offer in any treaty that doesn't involve unconditional surrender, so what does he gain?

Consider it from Stalin's perspective. As of July/August 1944 if he stays in he expects to acquire Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans(less Greece) and a huge slice of Germany plus massive US aid plus more gains in the Pacific and that's the worst case scenario. What can Berlin possibly offer him to match that?

Well the Germand deal essentially gives him all of Eastern Europe apart from Prussia and Czechoslovakia, the deal would give the Soviets a breather with which they could begin to rebuild. It would allow him to make bigger gains in the Pacific than OTL and the chance to gain whatever he had in Europe OTL, if not more at a later date facing weaker German forces.
 
You all are looking at this from the wrong perspective, ie number crunching. Stalin had this many divisions, he had this much manpower left, and this many tanks. Irrelevant.

Hardly, as in OTL, as the war dragged on Stalin became more and more conscious of casualties and equipment losses.


Stalin was a paranoid f*ck to the point of madness. Make him believe that the Western Allies are about to strike a peace deal with Nazi-Germany and he will piss himself and rush to give away a peace deal to Germany. The really, really hard part would be to come up with a plausible explanation to make Hitler sign it.

Hitler could be persuaded if he thought it would give him time to force a peace on the western allies and then return to the east.

But IMHO it is not ASB for Stalin to sue for peace even after Bagration, IF it is written well enough and IF there is a reasonable explanation (Stalins paranoia should be a sufficent reason). Hitler is the tougher part, but IF written well enough and given sufficently reasonable explanation, Hitler might accept a peace deal. Of course neither would trust each other, and a new war would very likely erupt before 1950.

I agree, although I doubt the Nazis would be fighting the Soviets again unless Stalin wanted to, the western allies would have crushed Hitler eventually if at much greater loss than OTL and maybe mushroom clouds over Germany. Also you're forgetting that Hitler considered proposing the deal, not the other way around.
 
Different story

Exactly, although the Soviets didn't have a good recored of this either. The interned some of the pilots from the doolittle raid for pulling a similar stunt.
The Sovs were neutral in the Pacific. But if no one knew the B-25 crew was there, they would have been sent to the biological warfare laboratories for experimentation as human guinea pigs. That's what happened to all the other Allied downed pilots whenever the Sovs were certain the aircrews fate was unknown.

And if anybody thinks I'm making that up, a memo signed by Stalin weeks before he died ordered the liquidation of the surviving "allies" is a centerpiece exhibit in the Lubyanka Museum.
 
unless, by some miricle, Bagration gets stuffed

Its not impossible par say... you just need the POD the year before. Stalin did reach the end of his manpower limits by Spring of '45.

I would suggest that if the Germans forgoe the Kursk offensive there is some possibility of this. While the strength of the Soviet defenses at Kursk were unparralled it is often overlook how strong the German defenses were at the same front (Kharkov had 7 powerful defensive lines guarding it that the Germans spend nearly 6 months building)

The Soviets, if they attacked first would have been slaughtered by the fresh and mobile Panzer divisions and the Germans would have had all the advantages of the defensive. It would also prempt the Germans from stupidly shifting all their armor to crush the mius bridgeheads (this was one of Hitler's biggest folleys and it allowed Army Group South to get completely whooped after they tired themselves out at Kursk
 
Stalin knew about Manhatten

Hardly, as in OTL, as the war dragged on Stalin became more and more conscious of casualties and equipment losses.
Hitler could be persuaded if he thought it would give him time to force a peace on the western allies and then return to the east.
I agree, although I doubt the Nazis would be fighting the Soviets again unless Stalin wanted to, the western allies would have crushed Hitler eventually if at much greater loss than OTL and maybe mushroom clouds over Germany. Also you're forgetting that Hitler considered proposing the deal, not the other way around.
I'm afraid many of us have a tendency, in AH, to engage in looking thru the wrong end of the telescope. By the time of Potsdam, the Sovs already had a completed Fatman bomb, copied down to the last thumbtack. It was only missing fuel. Stalin knew about the Manhatten bomb. He knew he stood a good chance of getting what he got OTL, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. If he had pulled out, not only would Lend-Lease stop at once, it would stop forever. And it was Lend-Lease food that was feeding the Soviet Army. Domestic food production went to the civilian population. The Cold War would start before WWII had ended! Stalin had a respect for numbers, and such a betrayal of his nominal "allies" would never be forgiven. He could rejoin the war later, but he would be merely tolerated and there would be NO Yalta, NO Potsdam. The lines would be where they stopped, period. OTL that would mean the Czech republic in NATO, and the DDR is a tiny rump state, if it exists at all. And what does an openly hostile relationship between Russia and the Western Allies do to German military resistance? Even Valkyrie might work! OK, now I'm getting ASB:rolleyes:. But this Stalin we're talking about. Would Stalin risk a United Germany in the Allied camp? Talk about nightmares!

As I see it, the forces of OTL are pretty overwhelming at this point. Stalin wisely ordered that no grand offensives be launched until well after D-Day. The next grand offensive was timed with the closing days of the Bulge. The third grand offensive was (sort of) time with the crossing of the Rhine. He wisely made sure that either the Germans were busy attacking the Allies or the Allies were busy attacking the Germans. That's why they call it TWO FRONT WAR. When one of the guys on the outside cuts a deal with the guy in the middle, only the middleman is helped in the long run.

Long story short(Too late): never happens. Hitler and Stalin make a deal in 1944? Only if the deal is brokered by Skippy the Alien Space Bat:D
 
Valkyrie

Actually, if you accept a peace/ceasefire with the Soviet Union while the Nazis are fighting in the West, suddenly Valkyrie would find itself getting juiced up on steroids! Even members of the SS would see this as an inherent betrayal, as every casualty on the Western (only?) Front being a useless waste. The question is whether assuming that the actual Plot isn't butterflied seriously, what happens when Hitler tries to put down the uprising? He can hardly claim Germany's been stabbed in the back by internal traitors to the Reich when HE'S
just made kissy face with the Bolsheviks after getting HOW many German soldiers killed? For nothing? And with no guarantee the Russians won't come pouring across the border when ever they feel like it? And with everything the Germans have done to Russia what'll they do to Germany? And most of their best troops in the West? "We are naked before our greatest enemy and it's all the Fuehrer's fault!":eek:

The real problem for Valkyrie could be security. They may find themselves with more help than they can handle? Does anyone else think a 1944 treaty between Stalin and Hitler aids Valkyrie? Or hurts it?:confused:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problems with this is that even if the German offer peace Stalin has no reason to accept it. He could care less about Red Army losses so the get the troops home idea is moot.

On the other hand he has more than one reason to reject the offer.

1. Germany is finished. The Reich has been knocked out, it just hasn't hit the canvas yet. Why take a slice of the pie, when you can have the whole pie? There is a lot of booty to be had in Germany proper, not the least being some remarkably clever scientists and engineers along with their technology.

2. The Western Allies would be understandably outraged. This means that the USSR has a hostile power way closer to its frontier than will be the case if it takes all the ground that becomes the Warsaw Pact. The hostile power will also have nuclear weapons that Stalin will lack, at least in the short term.

3. The agreement to go to war against the Japanese gives Stalin a chance to gain territory and influence in the Far East, including increasing influence in China. Breaking the deal with the Allies about no separate peace takes that off the table.


In short, the early end to the war doesn't benefit STALIN at all, and will blunt many of his plans.
 
The problems with this is that even if the German offer peace Stalin has no reason to accept it. He could care less about Red Army losses so the get the troops home idea is moot.

On the other hand he has more than one reason to reject the offer.

1. Germany is finished. The Reich has been knocked out, it just hasn't hit the canvas yet. Why take a slice of the pie, when you can have the whole pie? There is a lot of booty to be had in Germany proper, not the least being some remarkably clever scientists and engineers along with their technology.

2. The Western Allies would be understandably outraged. This means that the USSR has a hostile power way closer to its frontier than will be the case if it takes all the ground that becomes the Warsaw Pact. The hostile power will also have nuclear weapons that Stalin will lack, at least in the short term.

3. The agreement to go to war against the Japanese gives Stalin a chance to gain territory and influence in the Far East, including increasing influence in China. Breaking the deal with the Allies about no separate peace takes that off the table.


In short, the early end to the war doesn't benefit STALIN at all, and will blunt many of his plans.

In an otl situation it was very unlikely to take place in '44 bargration was too successful one could see the writing on the wall. You need POD's somewhere in '42 or '43 where the Germans have more strategic reserves and don't get handled so roughly at Kursk or maybe they salvage something out of stalingrad and also don't let their 8th/17th army in the Crimea get cut off (a disaster not often written about)

Stalin, whilst not being particularly careful with human life did keep an eye on his human bank account and was accutely aware of how exauhsted his nation was by the end of the war... a better performance (maybe even just adopting the backhand blow as opposed to zittadel) in a couple of battles would bring this problem to a head earlier whilst the Germans are still on Russian territory and have some room to negotiate
 
Top