WI: Vichy France an Axis belligerant and no Free French

[Something]

The Mediterranean French Fleet remained wholly loyal to Vichy until Germany invaded Vichy after Torch, then they sunk the ships. ITTL, when France and Germany sign a peace and alliance treaty, they shall remain loyal to the government and support Axis military effort in the Mediterranean. In combination with the Italian Regia Marina, they can easily seize naval supremacy in the Mediterranean. That fleet is the one I was referring in my statement, and it is the one that matters in terms of greately bettering Axis position in the threater. The other fleets do not matter, they are lost to the British one way or another anyway, IOTL or ITTL. But by doing away with them, Churchill can prevent the Axis from gaining supremacy in the Atantic, North Sea, and the Channel, he cannot so in the Mediterranean.

I DEMAND EVIDENCE FOR THIS NOW!

Also your ignoring that even in this timeline, the British would still surround the French fleet and present the ultimatum to the French at Mers El Kébir. You make a fanciful claim and then extrapolate the hell out of it

He was ready to take the Dniepr border before Zitadelle.

You do know that Operation Zitadelle was meant to take out Kursk Bulge AFTER the victory in Stalingrad right?

I suppose that Yoda is going to lend him some Stormtrooper cloning factories, because after Russia is pushed beyond the Volga, it is left no decent manpower center. With Central Asia, Rump Russia is at the very best a big and empty Spain, and in Siberia, what is Stalin going to draft, bears and wolves ?

Too bad that the Germans will never make that far.

And start breaking down, as they have no more the manpower and industrial base to maintain a valid fight.

Quite funny you say that when Kubeychev and the area around it alone had quite a lot of manpower to pull out of. I see no need to comment on industry as I already did that on my last post.

But ITTL Operation Uranus meets efficient French divisions, not to mention the German division that can be spared and used to man the Don and Volga since Stalingrad fell months before. The Soviet offensive shall be stalemated and pushed back.

The German logistics train was SHIT at this point. Hitler had very low regards on the French army after their debacle. Heck he didn't even use many of his own allied troops in Stalingrad. Besides all that, the only thing your going to do is wreck German logistics even more. Even if thses "efficient" French Divisions (I put efficient in quotes as that's an obvious false assumption) make it, they'll die out in winter just like the German Army.

Your argument is just tired old Sovietwank and the arbitrary expectation that Hitler shall find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, no matter how good the odds.

No, Blue Max put up decent claims. All you post are unsupported Vichy/Nazi wank.

Ever heard of the 2nd and 3rd Battle of Kharkov ? Or Operation Mars ?

Operation Mars was meant to break Rzhev salient as well as diverting German troops from Uranus. All 3 of these battles were meant to suceed (in Stalin's mind), they just ended badly.

They may easily try, but in no other point of the front they would get as favorable conditions for a strategic breakout as in the OTL Uranus, which ITTL don't exist. They may still go on with Operation Mars, but Germans were expecting and ready for a Soviet counteroffensive against Army Group Center in late 1942. The Germans are pushed back towards Smolensk and lose the Rzhev salient, and that's the end of it.

Quit making assumptions.

EDIT: As this post is the 1st on a new page it's possible that you'll miss that I also made a post right before this on the last page. Just a reminder.

 

[Eurofed]

WTF? Did you just ignore what I said? It is highly unlikely that Germany will trust the Vichy over Northern France. Even disregarding that the German Army looked down at the French Army during this time, the Vichy is now a turncoat. Trusting a turncoat over recentely conquered territories meant that the Vichy could possibly RETAKE all of France without a fight. Do you think that Germany would trust the Vichy that must? You must be insane.

Germany does not need to keep ALL of its OTL troops in Northern France to ward off against those risks. Personal attacks are not going to improve my respect for your claims.

Stop making up stuff and provide proof (aka citations) to support your claims. After the disaster at Crete Hitler pretty much turned all of his paratroopers to glorified ground troops.

Who says that Crete is going to happen ITTL ?

This in turn made sure that the only way to take Malta was through an amphibious invasion. which in a hotly contested air space (don't bullshit about Vichy Support = Air Supremacy unless) will be disastrous. The Royal Navy still rules the waves.

Hotly contrested air space over Malta ? That's fanciful.

About the British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean, I have been talking all the time about the French Mediterranean Fleet stationed at Toulon, which remained there under Vichy control until Hitler invaded Vichy France in late 1942, then the French scuttled the ships. In an alliance between Vichy and the Axis, those ships would have been at vichy'sa disposal to fight the British. In conbination with the Regia Marina, those wavesw do not look so secure anymore for the RN.

You do know that could work both ways right? A more likely chance of successful Axis conquest of Egypt may induce more reinforcements on the British side

Churchill pulling more troops outta his butt ? He was reinforcing Egypt as fast he could reasonably do, considering that he needed to ward the mainland against a possible Sealion for a considerable time.

and maybe Tenth Army could be called in.

How much different tasks must this magical army do at once ? Conquer Syria and Lebanon, subdue Iraq, defend Egypt ?

I call this bullshit and an extrapolation of the most insane levels. By the time the tide turned against the British, Iraq was already firmly under British control with the rebellion crushed.

The Briish may lose Egypt rather faster than OTL in this scenario.

Ethiopia was taken with 1 South African Division and several independent East African brigades (The Abyssinian Campaigns, pg 74-77). In fact a lot of the troops used were Ethiopean regulars. The natives were heavily hostile against the Italians.

Fine, but ownership of Ethiopia is certainly not vital to Axis success.

Also remember the Royal Navy will still control the Med. as the bulk of the remaining (remember all those ships that left to the allies? Also provide evidence on the French Navy being loyal to the Vichy) would have been destroyed at Mers-el-Kebir.

See the link above.

The airspace would be hotly contested with no hope of sizable amount of Axis troops being able to land in Syria and Lebanon.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you are mistaking the situation of the airspace in the Mediterranean with the one above the British Isles.

Mussollini invaded the Balkans because he was jealous of German SUCCESS.

Mussolini has not reason to invade Greece if he sees that Egypt is coming, since he always desired it much more than Greece. He's still going to invade Yugoslavia as soon as Hitler allows it, but that's another matter.

The building of industry East of the Urals and Central Asia was already starting with Stalins 5-year plan before the war and the production of more railroads in the Soviet Union allowed Stalin to relocate many of the factories in Belarus and Ukraine before the Nazis conquered the land. Even if the magically invincible German Army had more successes in OTL it would not change the output of Soviet Union significantly. Information from Russia's War, pg 150-155.

It seems you are purposefully ignoring my main point. Even if Stalin has *some* industry beyond the Urals, he doesn't have the manpower there.

What is B-L? Also Stalingrad was on the Volga so that makes your statements contradictory.

I was talking of the Volga bend as opposed to the lower Volga.

The Germany armies logistics train is massive and heavily disrupted through partisan activity, this made their army more and more stretched out and vulnerable as they advance . The Soviet Union's short logistics train allowed them to muster reinforments and armies to counterattack easily. That's one of the reasons what made Operation Uranus (in conjuction with Mars) so effective.

Operation Uranus succeeded because a critical amount of German troops were bottled trying to capture Stalingrad (while ITTL it would have been captured beforehand, when it was ill-defended) and the position on the Don were only manned by subpar Hungarian and Romanian division (whileas there shall be Germans not bottled at Stalingrad and the French there). The "logistical difficulties" existed also for the Germans on in Army Group Center, yet Operation Mars was a strategic failure for the Soviets. So the logistical factors you quote were not a substantial cause of the Soviet success at Uranus.

Having answered this post, just to provide the quote about the Vichy France fleet, I think I can wrap this thread now. Once again, an attempt to discuss a plausible scenario of better chances for the Axis in WWII drew out Brit/Sovietwankers with torches and pitchforks, howling for the blood of anyone that dares doubt their pet nations' fated invincibility. Sigh.

Once again, thanks to Aranfan, for being, as always, a valued debating partner and a voice of civilty and reason, even when we are forced to disagree. Welcome to ignore list, Blue Max (I don't take lightly to wild accusations of being a banned sockpuppet) and Something (nothing so serious, but the attitude is annoying, stooping to personal attacks so quickly).

 

[Aranfan]

I urge you to reconsider putting Blue Max on Ignore, for I have almost always found his posts insightful and valuable, even when he's wrong. However, as accusations of sock-puppetry aren't to be taken or made lightly, I will not contest it further.



As you say, we disagree on this topic. It was a fun thread while it lasted, though.

 

[Eurofed]

I urge you to reconsider putting Blue Max on Ignore, for I have almost always found his posts insightful and valuable, even when he's wrong. However, as accusations of sock-puppetry aren't to be taken or made lightly, I will not contest it further.

I may indeed reconsider his Ignore in the future, if I get evidence that his wild accusations cease and desist. I am always ready to reconsider my Ignore list, or at least give a glance to individual posts if otherwise unsufferable people have a stroke of insight, except for Hurgan, whom is likely beyond redemption by now (despite my recurring suggestions to use his sockpuppets and vent his supremacist urges in a productive way by writing a pre-1900 Polewank).

As you say, we disagree on this topic. It was a fun thread while it lasted, though.

Indeed. In my knowledge, an efficient cooperation of fascist Western Europe in WWII is an underdeveloped AH field (although BW came close with his excellent "Manstein in Africa"). We have some very good example of non-Nazi Europe vs. Soviets WWII, such as OW's "Munich" masterpiece, but that's a wholly different scenario.

Unfortunately, the lure of WWII AH quickly distracted us from discussing the scenario of post-war Europe, which is equally interesting. We may consider reopening the thread in that direction, assuming the (more likely, on this I can readily agree) scenario of a "nuke ex machina" Allied victory.

I'm ready to consider as fully plausible and indeed the most likely outcome where the Axis stalemate the Soviets in late 1942 frontlines, and keep the Western Allies off the continent, but they are crushed by American bombers from Britain managing to lay a few well-placed nukes, despite Axis air defense, and the Axis fails to develop a valid WMD deterrent. I'm not willing to brook Britwank or Sovietwank where the Allies get everything right, and the Axis everything wrong.

 

[Aranfan]

Okay, so, planning for the next thread:

Vichy France's DoW on Britain snaps Stalin out of his denial leading the Fascists and Communists to stalemate each other until America marches to Berlin, bringing the Sun's Own Wrath down on anything that stands in their way (nuke ex machina). What year would this happen? I want to say the war would end late '46.

 

[Valdemar II]

EuroFed, I strongly suspect you've been banned from this website previously. Now, I have suspicions only on this point, and I'm not going to make a large deal out of this, but have you considered that some of the statements you've made--like Hitler being good for Germany until 1938--would indeed sound like being a Nazi Sympathizer?

If this is all just a misunderstanding, I try to be a reasonable person, but I think I and many others have good grounds to raise these points. So I'd like to hear it.

General Zod was never banned. He just stopped posting. And whether Eurofed are General Zod (something I have suspected myself) are irrelevant, because Zod was never Banned. Yes Zod wrote much on the Nazi Germany, and some of it was wanks, but wanks are something any active posters make himself guilty of atleast in the start.

 

[Something]

Germany does not need to keep ALL of its OTL troops in Northern France to ward off against those risks. Personal attacks are not going to improve my respect for your claims.

That's the point. It won't need all, but it will need substantial amounts unless you claim that Hitler will go off trusting the French all the sudden (which is obviously idiotic as he clearly didn't even trust some of his own officers).

Who says that Crete is going to happen ITTL ?

Who said it won't. I want hard evidence that it won't not fancficul claims.

Hotly contrested air space over Malta ? That's fanciful.

Prove that it will not such as OTL, again need hard evidence.

About the British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean, I have been talking all the time about the French Mediterranean Fleet stationed at Toulon, which remained there under Vichy control until Hitler invaded Vichy France in late 1942, then the French scuttled the ships. In an alliance between Vichy and the Axis, those ships would have been at vichy'sa disposal to fight the British. In conbination with the Regia Marina, those wavesw do not look so secure anymore for the RN.

You fail to mention the fact that under armistice terms those ships would only be used to defend against hostile governments allowing the Vichy to maintain their fleet without German influence. Adding to the heavy anti-German AND anti-Italian sentiment of the peope the Royal Navy didn't do the same to it as MErs-el-Kebir (which didn't have the same situation in the armistice) as it assumed it would be held against the Germans. Now in this timeline even if the anti-german+Italian resentment magically goes away in Toulon, the British would do the same as in Mers-el-Kebir.

PS: The anti-Allied resentment in Toulon arose in 1942 mainly because of Operation Torch, which hasn't happen yet in this timeline.

Churchill pulling more troops outta his butt ? He was reinforcing Egypt as fast he could reasonably do, considering that he needed to ward the mainland against a possible Sealion for a considerable time.

I hope you realize the Sealion was impossible unless all the British high command go brain-dead (see search engine). Also I already told you where Churchill could get his troops. See below.

How much different tasks must this magical army do at once ? Conquer Syria and Lebanon, subdue Iraq, defend Egypt ?

Wait you called the Tenth Army magical? I gave a CITATION to PROVE it existed and the force it contained. Also the Tenth Army wasn't even the force that conquered Syria, Lebanon, or subdued Iraq.

I want YOU to support your magical "efficient" French divisions. Remember all those anti-German/Italian sentiments in France? Remember all those French who hated the Vichy? Where the crap is the Vichy getting all these supposedly tide-turning "efficient" divisions from?

The Briish may lose Egypt rather faster than OTL in this scenario.

Again a fancful claim. You need to support it.

Fine, but ownership of Ethiopia is certainly not vital to Axis success.

It does prove however that the British don't need to worry about that front and don't need to draw troops away from other fronts to support it like you previously claimed.

See the link above.

See above.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you are mistaking the situation of the airspace in the Mediterranean with the one above the British Isles.

It has around the same implications tactically. Hotly contested airspace and sea = still vulnerable landing fleet. It's one of the reason German High Command wanted TOTAL air supremacy over the English Channel instead of constested airspace.

Mussolini has not reason to invade Greece if he sees that Egypt is coming, since he always desired it much more than Greece. He's still going to invade Yugoslavia as soon as Hitler allows it, but that's another matter.

Note that it's not the Italians taking all the glory in North Africa, it's the Germans. He invaded the Balkans because he wanted his own glory WITHOUT German help. See the picture now?

It seems you are purposefully ignoring my main point. Even if Stalin has *some* industry beyond the Urals, he doesn't have the manpower there.

You miss by main point (which is underlined), the shitty logistics (more troops to supply will make it even worse) and winter (actually the spring thaw will add to that time period because of the mud) will make sure the Germans never reach that far.

I was talking of the Volga bend as opposed to the lower Volga.

k

Operation Uranus succeeded because a critical amount of German troops were bottled trying to capture Stalingrad (while ITTL it would have been captured beforehand, when it was ill-defended) and the position on the Don were only manned by subpar Hungarian and Romanian division (whileas there shall be Germans not bottled at Stalingrad and the French there). The "logistical difficulties" existed also for the Germans on in Army Group Center, yet Operation Mars was a strategic failure for the Soviets. So the logistical factors you quote were not a substantial cause of the Soviet success at Uranus.

The logistical factors I'm trying to bring is that the Russians are able to muster more men and equipment much faster then the Germans. More troops will add to the German logistical nightmare and with the anti-German AND anti-Vichy sentiment in France where would all the tide-turning and "efficient" divisions be coming from (there will be a few, but not a tide-turning amount)? Also how would the Germans not be bottled in Stalingrad? Logistics does not work that way. The 9th Army's front was relatively quiet and not engaged in constant and advance that would use up supplies and the need of constantly changing supply routes. The Soviets attacked and in fact almost broke the 9th Army. The 9th Army won because Model managed to withdraw units from less threatened and dangerous fronts to help as his reserves was depleted. The lack of a beachhead and loss of momentum by the Soviet Army was the decisive point as they couldn't bring in their heavy artillery to the fore. Attacking is harder then defending at this point in the war.

Having answered this post, just to provide the quote about the Vichy France fleet, I think I can wrap this thread now. Once again, an attempt to discuss a plausible scenario of better chances for the Axis in WWII drew out Brit/Sovietwankers with torches and pitchforks, howling for the blood of anyone that dares doubt their pet nations' fated invincibility. Sigh.

Sure it did

Once again, thanks to Aranfan, for being, as always, a valued debating partner and a voice of civilty and reason, even when we are forced to disagree. Welcome to ignore list, Blue Max (I don't take lightly to wild accusations of being a banned sockpuppet) and Something (nothing so serious, but the attitude is annoying, stooping to personal attacks so quickly).

Usually I don't do that, but your extrapolation of events broke a nerve. I'll try to avoid that.

 

[Blue Max]

Wild accusations, eh?

All right. I'll back them up.

First of all, THIS is who I accuse EuroFed of being, in addition to General Zod.

Irioth is, by his own admission in the Paradox Forums, an Italian with German Nationalist Aims. He's not a Nazi, but he supported their geopolitical aim of a "Greater Germany". Note also his casual dismissal of Polish claims or other nations.

To be honest, I've suspected the Irioth/General Zod/EuroFed combination for a long time. Part of the problem is that at first Irioth and I were planning to work on a Mod for HOI2, and I ignored political views--even radical ones--in consideration of what I wanted to do, which was make a mod for HOI2.

If I didn't feel like I knew the person I was talking about, I'd not make this claim. But I've at last learned that Irioth/General Zod/EuroFed isn't interested in learning or collaborating so much as he is all about advocacy of his own right-wing points of view.

The problem with Irioth, besides the part where's in complete violation of Ian's rules against sockpuppetry, is that he's too similar to Nazis in general. Irioth wants, in spite of the impossibility of it all, Germany to emerge from WW2 as a larger nation. His Valkerie TL plainly stated his desire to see a larger Germany emerge. As secondary aims, he is at best apathetic of the Slavic peoples of Poland, Central Europe and the Soviets.

Here are some sources:

Really, it would have been a much happier outcome to WWII in Europe: Germany liberated by its own people without destruction, occupation, disunion, or territorial loss, Europe wholly liberated from Nazis, a couple years less of destruction and bloodshed in Europe, the Final Solution would have made much less progress, Stalin safely contained within his borders. Sadly, it is likely that he would have been insisted on the 1941 borders, so Baltics, Moldavians, Rutenians, etc. would have been toast. But Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians would have been spared the long Commie nightmare. And it's likely that Communism in Russia, too, would have fallen sooner.

The comparison between wartime Roosevelt and GWB is very telling and up to the point.

Roosevelt dying in early 1942 is very very nice, but it requires a second POD to make Truman VP instead of that far left loony Wallace (the worst VP choice ever before Spiro Agnew) chosen as running mate in 1940. However, since neither of them had any substantial influence in the Democratic party (Wallace tried running for president in 1948 with a third party on an Soviet appeasement platform and it took barely one million votes, the Commies and far left fellow-travelers essentially), the POD is entirely feasible.

Truman instead of Roosevelt as US war president would have been great. He would have got rid of the Commie spies and Morgenthau genocidal fanatics, put the basis for Stalin containment in Eastern Europe at the Soviet borders, scrapped unconditional surrender, and be willing to negotiate a honorble peace for Germany. The policies he implemented in 1945-1952 vs. Germany, the UUSR, and Europe, he would have been able to start running during the war, and they would have been far more effective.

These Event's are included, verbatim, in General Zod's Valkerie TL.

Even the choice of General Zod as a user handle can be substantiated by comments made in another thread:

I'm not worried at all, ITTL. Rather, I'm as giddy as a lecher at a porn convention. My life-long comic/sci-fi geek megalomanic empowerment daydream fantasies are being fulfilled. An early death is a very little price to pay for that.

Fear, fear the Superman me. Do you know the Authority comic ? Well, that.

Finally, the third point of the argument is a matter of timing:

Irioth is banned on May 11th, 2008.

General Zod emerges after the banning On May 19th, 2008
His last visit is My 9th, 2009.

EuroFed emerges on June 29th, 2009, probably with the direct desire to avoid being linked with his old self. But like a Boy General and a Wikipedia Editor, he makes no attempt to change his behavior.

And he keeps posting the same PoD Drifting cherry picking ideologically advocating slav screwing bilge all the time and pretends like he's going a point he's debating. The Soviets always lose. Nazi Germany is always redeemed. General Zod's Defense of Herman Goring led Germany is, bluntly, advocacy of Nazism, which is at best flirting with a ban.

I'm not going to keep this secret--I've given up hope on this guy to wisen up on his ideology in favor of learning more. Maybe I/GZ/EF can figure out that you've been far more ideological than methodical and try to get away from seeing Naziwank Lite as a better world than OTL.

On the other hand, he's been doing this for years. I'm out of patience with this crap.

 

[Nikephoros]

So basically, someone disagrees with you on a scenario and you decide to throw a hissy fit?

Honestly, who cares whether Eurofed is General Zod. GENERAL ZOD WAS NEVER BANNED.

Just because two people have very similiar views doesn't mean that they are the same person.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

WTF? Did you just ignore what I said?

Teh Intrenets, they are serious bizness.

These Event's are included, verbatim, in General Zod's Valkerie TL.

Even the choice of General Zod as a user handle can be substantiated by comments made in another thread:



Finally, the third point of the argument is a matter of timing:

Irioth is banned on May 11th, 2008.

General Zod emerges after the banning On May 19th, 2008
His last visit is My 9th, 2009.

EuroFed emerges on June 29th, 2009, probably with the direct desire to avoid being linked with his old self. But like a Boy General and a Wikipedia Editor, he makes no attempt to change his behavior.

And he keeps posting the same PoD Drifting cherry picking ideologically advocating slav screwing bilge all the time and pretends like he's going a point he's debating. The Soviets always lose. Nazi Germany is always redeemed. General Zod's Defense of Herman Goring led Germany is, bluntly, advocacy of Nazism, which is at best flirting with a ban.

I'm not going to keep this secret--I've given up hope on this guy to wisen up on his ideology in favor of learning more. Maybe I/GZ/EF can figure out that you've been far more ideological than methodical and try to get away from seeing Naziwank Lite as a better world than OTL.

On the other hand, he's been doing this for years. I'm out of patience with this crap.

You are correct my friend, he is a subversive and dangerous element, he is a vile heretic that we should burn at once! Burn, burn him with fier!

 

[Onkel Willie]

Wild accusations, eh?

All right. I'll back them up.

First of all, THIS is who I accuse EuroFed of being, in addition to General Zod.

Irioth is, by his own admission in the Paradox Forums, an Italian with German Nationalist Aims. He's not a Nazi, but he supported their geopolitical aim of a "Greater Germany". Note also his casual dismissal of Polish claims or other nations.

To be honest, I've suspected the Irioth/General Zod/EuroFed combination for a long time. Part of the problem is that at first Irioth and I were planning to work on a Mod for HOI2, and I ignored political views--even radical ones--in consideration of what I wanted to do, which was make a mod for HOI2.

If I didn't feel like I knew the person I was talking about, I'd not make this claim. But I've at last learned that Irioth/General Zod/EuroFed isn't interested in learning or collaborating so much as he is all about advocacy of his own right-wing points of view.

The problem with Irioth, besides the part where's in complete violation of Ian's rules against sockpuppetry, is that he's too similar to Nazis in general. Irioth wants, in spite of the impossibility of it all, Germany to emerge from WW2 as a larger nation. His Valkerie TL plainly stated his desire to see a larger Germany emerge. As secondary aims, he is at best apathetic of the Slavic peoples of Poland, Central Europe and the Soviets.

Here are some sources:






These Event's are included, verbatim, in General Zod's Valkerie TL.

Even the choice of General Zod as a user handle can be substantiated by comments made in another thread:



Finally, the third point of the argument is a matter of timing:

Irioth is banned on May 11th, 2008.

General Zod emerges after the banning On May 19th, 2008
His last visit is My 9th, 2009.

EuroFed emerges on June 29th, 2009, probably with the direct desire to avoid being linked with his old self. But like a Boy General and a Wikipedia Editor, he makes no attempt to change his behavior.

And he keeps posting the same PoD Drifting cherry picking ideologically advocating slav screwing bilge all the time and pretends like he's going a point he's debating. The Soviets always lose. Nazi Germany is always redeemed. General Zod's Defense of Herman Goring led Germany is, bluntly, advocacy of Nazism, which is at best flirting with a ban.

I'm not going to keep this secret--I've given up hope on this guy to wisen up on his ideology in favor of learning more. Maybe I/GZ/EF can figure out that you've been far more ideological than methodical and try to get away from seeing Naziwank Lite as a better world than OTL.

On the other hand, he's been doing this for years. I'm out of patience with this crap.

In his defence, I share some of his views too, mainly that Nazism and Stalinism both suck and that a capitalist Germany and a USSR with 1939 borders is better for many people. Sparing eastern Europe the joys of Stalinism is good IMO.

Does that automatically make me another sockpuppet? Yes, I wrote the "Munich Coup" TL which is one of Eurofed's favourite scenarios and I also wrote a TL in cooperation with General Zod known as "The Twin Eagles and the Lion" which leads to a Greater Germany, a powerful Russia and a powerful Italy. Also, if GZ wasn't banned why would he create the Eurofed account? After all, GZ was writing a TL with me around the time when he stopped posting. Why did he do that? This raises my suspicion that something happened to GZ somehow although I don't know what. I don't see why he would quit on a TL that he poured much effort into and which he liked very much on just when things got interesting if something didn't force him to do so.

I do not support Nazism in anyway and neither does he IMHO even if his Greater Germany aspirations make it seem that way as there were more people than just the Nazis who wanted a Greater Germany at the time. These aspirations date back to as early as the 1920s AFAIK. 1914 borders for Germany perhaps are wrong in our eyes, but regaining Posen and Danzig and parts of Silesia is not as there were large German minorities there. As for the Sudetenland, Hitler wasn't the only one with that idea. Many nationalist-conservative people wanted it too, because it was ethnically German at that time. The 1918 and 1919 treaties may have ended Austria-Hungary, but also paved the way for other multiethnic states. In hindsight, Yugoslavia was a bad idea as was Czechoslovakia with its Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Ukrainians, Ruthenians etc. See map below for what I'm talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Czechoslovakia_1930_linguistic_map_-_created_2008-10-30.svg

In regards to the eastern front, it's true that with the loss of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states important population centres were lost as was Ukrainian grain and the Donets Basin which I think is what Eurofed means. Sure, Stalin moved factories east in what I think is a truly Herculean effort and very admirable, but he didn't move all of them. Without Lend-Lease his tankproduction would have been lower as he would've been forced to produce trucks and locomotives himself while a Leningrad-Astrakhan line would force Stalin to ship oil to Turkmenistan. Central Asia didn't have as much infrastructure as the western Soviet Union did which makes supply for the Red Army troublesome at best. Germany won't be getting Ural borders, in like ever of course although a Leningrad-Astrakhan line is not wholly impossible, given some pro-Axis butterflies.

You OTOH make it sound like Soviet victory and a border on the Rhine is inevitable which I think is Eurofed's point of contention. A German defeat seemed far from inevitable in early 1942. Sure, Moscow was safe, but OTOH the Rzhev-Vyazma offensive wasn't that successful, was it? Both Stalin and Hitler made decisions before and during the war that could make or break the war in the east.

As for the surrender issue, Stalin could wage a guerrilla and probably will with popular support considering Hitler's moronic racial policies. A surrender is somewhat implausible with Hitler's genocidal campaign although Hitler could knock out the USSR as a big player, making it a large Vietnam instead. However, Stalin might just surrender if he thinks he can stab Hitler in the back later after rebuilding and regrouping his forces although I wonder whether Hitler wouldn't see through this ruse since he would probably do the same once he quells the partisan insurgency in the occupied western-Soviet territories (which may have been a reason why Hitler didn't accept Stalin's peace offerings).

My point is that people that have similar views are not necessarily the same people. I suggest you ignore each other. Also, you seem to ignore his view that Stalinism and Nazism should both be removed as far as he (and I) is concerned. Stalin and Hitler are both genocidal whackjobs IMHO. Keeping Stalinism contained to 1939 (or 1941) borders with all of Europe safely in the liberal democratic camp is not bad, is it?

I'm telling you I'm not an Italian with philo-German aspirations. I'm Dutch with German ancestors and I like wanking the countries (Italy, Germany, Russia and perhaps China) who have had the worst cases of bad leadership and bad luck in the 20th century. Also, I think you're exaggerating Hitler's incompetence. He made some good decision at the start of the war. His idiocy stemmed from his attempt to micro manage everything when his victory streak was over. For example, the no retreat order arguably saved Army Group Centre from a much, much worse defeat before Moscow. No wonder he tried his luck again at Stalingrad (also because that baffoon Goering said he supply the sixth army, basing this off earlier successful supplies by air albeit on a smaller scale). Also, Hitler was being fed drugs such as eye drops with cocaine by his physician (Morell I think his name was). The stress he was under, his restlessness, his obsessions and his will to achieve his goals before he died (which he expected to be soon, considering his ill health which manifested itself in the latter half of the 30s according to Hitler's most recent biographer) combined with his victory streak in 1940-'41 induced a number of faulty decisions.

Note that I'm not making excuses for Hitler. I despise him for ruining my ancestral fatherland . The guy should have been locked away in a mental institution as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Eurofed]

A big heartfelt thank you and hug for the support. Onkel Willie, with your usual eloquence you have expressed my own ideas better than I could ever had. I have been much supportive of your own "Munich Coup" TL because, besides being of excellent quality, it develops pretty much what I regard as the "realistic optimal" outcome for WWII, if we must have a Versailles, Hitler, and Lenin/Stalin at all in the first place.

A WWII that deals away with Nazism (if at all possible before it can do any real lasting damage to Europe), Stalinism (regrettably not without a large-scale bloodshed, but overthrowing Communism before WWII once it had taken root was not realistic, although I root for those Kronsdat sailors as much as I do for anti-Nazi plotters), unites Europe and keeps it safe and strong in capitalist liberal democracy, produces a sane and civil Greater Germany in 1938-39 borders (yeah, I think it both a fair/just outcome and one that makes a great deal of overall long-term good for Europe), that's how I want WWII to unfold and end. The Munich coup is near-perfect for this goal. A successful Valkyrie is nowhere is good by orders of magnitude, because most of the damage wrought by Nazism has already been done, but at least contains it considerably and pushes the TL towards an outcome that is substantially more optimal than OTL. If someone deems it sympathy for Nazism because they are fans of OTL-plus Soviet/Slav wank and revenge porn (which saved almost no one of the Holocaust victims), too bad. And yeah, besides the terrible dystopia of Stalinism bleeding beyond the Soviet borders, what else I really can't suffer in Sovietwanking is the arrogant sense of entitlement that the invincible Red Army was destined to reach the Channel the moment that Barbarossa (or Unthinkable/WWIII) had started, plausibility be damned, if the American spoilsports had not interfered with their nuke deterrent.

 

[Aranfan]

So would an end to the war in late '46 be realistic with belligerent Vichy?

 

[Onkel Willie]

Possibly, if it happens early enough, but it'd require a saner Hitler or no Hitler. Suppose he dies of a heart attack in August 1940 or perhaps a plane crash and Goering and Goebbels win the ensuing power struggle against the SS which is not yet as powerful as it was in 1943 and beyond. Goering becomes president and Goebbels Chancellor since they deem that Hitler is the only one worthy of the title Führer. By now, the Battle of Britain is lost to Germany which may provide an incentive, more so because Goering was more of a Wilhelmine Imperialist in terms of foreign policy.

He offers a restoration of French independence and sovereignty under Pétain and his Vichy regime in return for declaration of war on Britain (minus Alsace-Lorraine). As an appetizer, Goering throws in a division of the Low Countries/Belgium. Luxembourg (including the Belgian province of the same name) is annexed, Francophone Belgium (Wallonia) is awarded to France while the Netherlands are restored to independence under NSB leader Anton Mussert who gains Dutch-speaking Flanders for his country.

France DoWs Britain and the French fleet in Toulon joins the Regia Marina while Germany is granted full use of French bases in northern Africa. There you have it, France is in the war. How it'll contine then is more difficult. Historically, Goering merely wanted a sphere of influence in Europe and was opposed to Barbarossa which raises the question whether Stalin would attack this non-Hitlerite Germany in '42/'43. Maybe a successful Mediterranean Strategy and an early switch to war production could ensue. Goering was more moderate and wanted 1914 borders with Poland so maybe the General-Government becomes a puppet state, de jure independent, but de facto a vassal of course.

Suddenly, Britain's casus belli is shaky and its former ally is fighting alongside Germany and a victory in the Mediterranean Sea for Commonwealth forces is a lot less certain IMO, more so if Goering decides to focus on this theatre. Morale will certainly drop a notch with France buddying up with Berlin, restored Polish and Dutch 'independence' and moderate German claims. Goering only wants 1914 borders plus some colonies which probably won't include any British ones. Maybe the Brits would have less incentive to fight this sane Germany, especially if Goering makes peace offers on terms of restoring pre-1914 colonies and settling all but the lunatic irredentist claims and perhaps even an anti-Soviet alliance and restoring Czechoslovakian (minus Sudetenland) and Polish (with 1914 borders) independence.

And yeah, besides the terrible dystopia of Stalinism bleeding beyond the Soviet borders, what else I really can't suffer in Sovietwanking is the arrogant sense of entitlement that the invincible Red Army was destined to reach the Channel the moment that Barbarossa (or Unthinkable/WWIII) had started, plausibility be damned, if the American spoilsports had not interfered with their nuke deterrent.

Indeed, people seem to forget in what shape the Red Army was in during 1944-'45. The bottom of the manpower pool was in sight, not to mention the fact that if the USSR was to push its luck and try for a border on the English Channel, Lend-Lease would have ended immediately. Their supply situation wasn't too great either and I doubt whether they would have reached the Weser/Rhine in the event of a WW 2.5. They could have caused trouble, but American air plane production exceeded theirs by far and then Soviet cities would have been subjected to the same 1.000 plane raids that Germany and Japan had suffered combined with nuclear bombing whenever a bomb is finished. Would the Soviet people (not to mention his generals and party officials) tolerate this war for no reason? No, they wouldn't. Now if the Allies attacked first, I could see them fighting these traitors till the bitter end which will result in high death tolls for both sides and eventually a devastated Russia. Good luck in trying to convince the exhausted British into this. There's a reason they called this Operation Unthinkable.

 

[Eurofed]

So would an end to the war in late '46 be realistic with belligerent Vichy?

I think so. Essentially, it boils down to how successful the Allied air offensive capability would be successful against Axis air defense, to land those handful of nukes on European cities that would win the war, after Vichy contribution stalemates the Soviets into exhaustion something close in 1942-43 lines, and the Western Allies outside of Europe. I think the issue is sufficiently open to butterflies and it may easily happen, it just needs the Anglo-American air offense being decent and the Axis air defense not so good, and Germany failing to develop a credible WMD deterrent (meaning missiles with chemical/radiological warheads to threaten British cities) in time.

I think this a field where you can profitably and believably make late Adolf (going down more and more in the spirals of senility, owing to Parkinson or tertiary syphilis, whichever it was in 1945) screw up things with some lamebrained directive. Otherwise, the Americans would not have that many nukes to successfully saturate Axis air defenses, they had 11 nukes at the end of 1946.

 

[Aranfan]

Is 11 how many they made or how many they had? In either case, if WWII is still on then wouldn't they amp up production? The Cold War only really started in earnest when the Russians tested their first nuke in '49 after all.

 

[Eurofed]

Is 11 how many they made or how many they had? In either case, if WWII is still on then wouldn't they amp up production? The Cold War only really started in earnest when the Russians tested their first nuke in '49 after all.

I have a PDF article of the Bulletin of American Scientists (July/August 2006, source thebulletin.org) with a nifty table telling how many warheads the five official nuclear states had from 1945 to 2006. Most useful to devise late WWII or early WWIII scenarioes. For America, it was: 1945 6 (I suppose this includes the ones they used, since it indicates one Soviet in 1949); 1946 11; 1947 32; 1948 110; 1949 235; 1950 369 (USSR 5); 1951 640 (USSR 25).

I honestly dunno whether and how much the Americans could have amped up production, on a hunch I suppose that IOTL they were rolling them off the assembly line pretty much as fast as they could, given that they were breaking ground with a wholly new technology and industry. It's not like the Truman Administration really trusted the Soviets, even if the Cold War really took wing in 1947-48 (not '49, that's where the nuclear competition starts).