WI Nazis defeated before Hollocaust and Barborossa

Suppose either there is a Czech war, a successful quick offensive in September 1939 by Anglo French forces or the NAZIS ARE fought to a standstill in the Summer of 1940 and eventually lose.

What happens?

Plainly something has to be done about Germany. Actually it is arguable that both the Anschluss and the transfer of the Sudetten land was defensible.

I have this idea. Could a German state have been tolerated under a Hapsberg Constitutional Monarchy.

What else have been done?
 

Deleted member 1487

Suppose either there is a Czech war, a successful quick offensive in September 1939 by Anglo French forces or the NAZIS ARE fought to a standstill in the Summer of 1940 and eventually lose.

What happens?

Plainly something has to be done about Germany. Actually it is arguable that both the Anschluss and the transfer of the Sudetten land was defensible.

I have this idea. Could a German state have been tolerated under a Hapsberg Constitutional Monarchy.

What else have been done?
If it's just France+Britain in 1939-40, I doubt they'd want to fight to Berlin, so likely cut a deal with anti-Nazis in the military to overthrow Hitler and cut a deal restoring Poland and probably most of Czechoslovakia. Germany is still necessary to deal with the USSR, which will be grabbing what it wanted in the East; unless the Allies want to fight to exhaustion and leave the door wide open to Stalin then to sweep in and conquer Europe they'd have to tolerate Germany with say pre-Munich borders and a restored Poland to ensure that the balance of power remains. Likely what happens is the Sickelschnitt fails for some reason the war drags on into 1941 and Canaris approaches the Allies (the Brits would be super wary given what happened in Venlo in 1939, the SS used the cover of anti-Nazi military conservatives to lure in MI6 agents and then capture them) about a deal if he removes Hitler and withdraws back to 1937 borders in the West and work out a deal on the rest of Central Europe. I'd imagine if France holds at Sedan and the war drags on then Norway is a failure around Narvik and Germany loses access to Swedish iron ore.
 
...
Plainly something has to be done about Germany. Actually it is arguable that both the Anschluss and the transfer of the Sudetten land was defensible....

That seems rational from our 76 years distance. Unfortunatly the French, Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Cezchs, Danes, & Norwegians are going to take a dim view of anything that leaves a monolithic German state in their midst. There is also the matter of leaving the Germans convinced they have really been beaten & not tricked.

...I have this idea. Could a German state have been tolerated under a Hapsberg Constitutional Monarchy.
...

I'm thinking the best that can be expected is a loose federation of states that are just cohesive enough for a common defense, but not politically capable of aggresive action.
 
That seems rational from our 76 years distance. Unfortunatly the French, Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Cezchs, Danes, & Norwegians are going to take a dim view of anything that leaves a monolithic German state in their midst. There is also the matter of leaving the Germans convinced they have really been beaten & not tricked.

That'll be a really hard sell regardless if this peace comes from a military coup against Hitler, as wiking posits.
 
. The most realistic way to defet Germany before Barbarosa is for Stalin to intervene before the fall of France In that case, a reduced Germany as a buffer between the West and Stalin might be possible

There is no realistic scenario where the Western Allies defeat Hitler on their own. If they start rolling back the 3rd Reich, Stalin will pounce for a share of the booty- Poland, Czechoslavakia, and Germany east of the Oder would seem to be likely targets. France would secure itself on the Rhine and the rump might be allowed as a buffer.

Don't think the Germans are getting very good terms but maybe better than partition
 

Deleted member 94680

There is no realistic scenario where the Western Allies defeat Hitler on their own.

well, as the OP said:

Suppose either there is a Czech war

If the WAllies stand up to Hitler when he tries to occupy the remainder of Czechoslovakia, there is every chance the Heer will launch a coup to remove him. It was the WAllies' lack of action that convinced many of the last doubters to fully support Hitler, resistance by the WAllies would 'prove' Hitler's aggression was dangerous to Germany.

I have this idea. Could a German state have been tolerated under a Hapsberg Constitutional Monarchy.

What else have been done?

I very much doubt the western leaders (many of who were WWI veterans) would countenance a return of the Hapsburgs - who weren't rulers of Germany anyway (bar the Holy Roman Empire).


Whether Germany is divided or not (personally in a 'early war' scenario I can't see that happening) it's likely a democratic form of government would be 'encouraged' to take power. Military rule would be frowned on, monarchical rule - constitutional or not - would be a no-no with recent history proving them dangerous as well. If the Heer coups Hitler out, 1937 borders would probably remain. If there's a full scale War then East Prussia is probably taken but other than that Germany remains as is.
 

Deleted member 1487

well, as the OP said:
If the WAllies stand up to Hitler when he tries to occupy the remainder of Czechoslovakia, there is every chance the Heer will launch a coup to remove him. It was the WAllies' lack of action that convinced many of the last doubters to fully support Hitler, resistance by the WAllies would 'prove' Hitler's aggression was dangerous to Germany.
Then there really isn't a war, its a coup and the Nazis get purged before actual violence breaks out between states; then the coupists decide Germany's fate, as they have support from the Allies to avert war.
 

Deleted member 94680

Then there really isn't a war, its a coup and the Nazis get purged before actual violence breaks out between states; then the coupists decide Germany's fate, as they have support from the Allies to avert war.

Agreed, but pretty much all the main figures in the various coup plots weren't that fluffy when it comes to Eastern Europe, or acquired territories in general. If it's a 'Czech coup' they've hardly had Allied support, it'll have been entirely contained within Germany. How do they react if the WAllies want Austria to be independent as a condition of favourable relations?
 

Deleted member 1487

Agreed, but pretty much all the main figures in the various coup plots weren't that fluffy when it comes to Eastern Europe, or acquired territories in general. If it's a 'Czech coup' they've hardly had Allied support, it'll have been entirely contained within Germany. How do they react if the WAllies want Austria to be independent as a condition of favourable relations?
Likely they won't go to war to make that happen in 1938, they'd be glad to be rid of the war monger Hitler and Germany stopped cold by a coup and disorganized for the years to come while they rearm and get ready for a more muscular foreign policy. Unwinding the Anschluss situation they had just allowed via invasion of Germany was not something they'd be likely to be capable of or want to really get involved with in 1938 or 1939,
 
Suppose the following happened

(Poles prepare better than otl)

Night of Sept 1-2, by agreement much of fighter and bomber command land on French bases.

British and French ultimate run out midnight 01 September 3rd.

At dawn September 3rd every German airbase within 100 miles of France hit hard

Saar offensive pressed seriously

Germans panic.

(Stalin does not take his share of Poland when it becomes clear Poland is not collapsing)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If it's just France+Britain in 1939-40, I doubt they'd want to fight to Berlin, so likely cut a deal with anti-Nazis in the military to overthrow Hitler and cut a deal restoring Poland and probably most of Czechoslovakia. Germany is still necessary to deal with the USSR, which will be grabbing what it wanted in the East; unless the Allies want to fight to exhaustion and leave the door wide open to Stalin then to sweep in and conquer Europe they'd have to tolerate Germany with say pre-Munich borders and a restored Poland to ensure that the balance of power remains. Likely what happens is the Sickelschnitt fails for some reason the war drags on into 1941 and Canaris approaches the Allies (the Brits would be super wary given what happened in Venlo in 1939, the SS used the cover of anti-Nazi military conservatives to lure in MI6 agents and then capture them) about a deal if he removes Hitler and withdraws back to 1937 borders in the West and work out a deal on the rest of Central Europe. I'd imagine if France holds at Sedan and the war drags on then Norway is a failure around Narvik and Germany loses access to Swedish iron ore.
Withdrawing to the 1937 borders would still leave Poland screwed over since the Soviets certainly won't return their part of Poland, though.

Plus, wouldn't giving the Sudetenland--with its entire ethnic German population--back to Czechoslovakia create a German fifth column inside of Czechoslovakia? In turn, wouldn't it be better to allow Germany to keep the Sudetenland?

Also, if the Nazis get overthrown before they are able to kill most European Jews, would there be anywhere near as much hostility in Austria towards a union with Germany? If not, wouldn't it be wiser to allow Germany and Austria to remain united?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Agreed, but pretty much all the main figures in the various coup plots weren't that fluffy when it comes to Eastern Europe, or acquired territories in general. If it's a 'Czech coup' they've hardly had Allied support, it'll have been entirely contained within Germany. How do they react if the WAllies want Austria to be independent as a condition of favourable relations?
Why would the Western Allies want that, though? After all, didn't Austrians only sour on the Anschluss idea after the Nazis launched mass atrocities (which doesn't occur in this TL)?
 

Deleted member 94680

Why would the Western Allies want that, though? After all, didn't Austrians only sour on the Anschluss idea after the Nazis launched mass atrocities (which doesn't occur in this TL)?

Because it was forbidden under Versailles? It's not about what the Austrians want, it's about what the WAllies want.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Because it was forbidden under Versailles? It's not about what the Austrians want, it's about what the WAllies want.
Didn't some--if not many--people in Britain and France come to view Versailles as being unfair and thus being in need of revision by the late 1930s, though?
 
Didn't some--if not many--people in Britain and France come to view Versailles as being unfair and thus being in need of revision by the late 1930s, though?
Not sure unfair is the best way to put it but yes, one of the major failures -perhaps even the failure- of the Treat of Versailles is that no one was willing to go with all of it.

It is why it is so often called both too lenient and too harsh. The people making it fundamentally disagreed on how to go about it and failed to consider things properly so ended up making a treaty that tried to be everything thus got the penalties of both without the benefits.
 
Top