Discussion:
A Very Large World War II Dilemma for Britain and France
Add Reply
WolfBear
2015-03-21 22:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was inspired to create this scenario and thread by one of Rich Rostrom's comments on another thread on a similar topic to this one.

Anyway, here is the scenario:

Due to France keeping its strategic reserve at Rheims (as per the original plan) instead of sending it to the Low Countries, the German attack through the Ardennes fails in 1940. Thus, the Manstein Plan fails and the Germans become bogged down in Belgium and in northern France. In 1941-1942, the French and British very slowly begin to advance in Belgium and in northern France (they obviously don't reach the Siegfried Line yet, though), but with an enormous number of French and British military deaths and casualties; meanwhile, during this time, Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can. In 1942 or 1943, opponents of Hitler and the Nazis in the German military and elsewhere successfully stage a coup against Hitler and the Nazis (they waited until 1942 or 1943 to do this in order to reduce the risk that they will get accused of "stabbing Germany in the back"; likewise, they wanted to make sure that Hitler genuinely ran out of luck by now).

Afterwards, these successful coup plotters immediately stop the Holocaust and secretly offer Britain and France a peace deal: There would be a status quo ante bellum in the West, a restoration of Germany's 1914 borders in the East, and a German retention of both Austria and the Sudetenland (as well as a German retention of both its Czech and its Slovak puppet states); also, Germany would allow the restoration of an independent Polish state on the parts of Poland which are beyond Germany's 1914 borders and which are currently occupied by Germany. Both Britain and France reject this German peace deal and instead decide to continue fighting.

In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German government decides to "play hardball" with Britain and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's 1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German government once again offers Britain and France the very same peace deal which they have previously rejected (well, other than the part about a restoration of a genuinely independent Poland), hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet state is certainly not genuinely independent).

Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure an additional massive number of (British and French) military deaths and casualties in order to get Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II borders in the east?

Remember--Britain and France will probably eventually defeat Germany in this scenario, but it will require an even greater number of military deaths and casualties on their part and any areas which Germany will withdraw from will simply be occupied by the Soviet Union afterwards. Are Britain and France genuinely willing to endure several hundred thousand or more additional military deaths on their side just so that Stalin's puppet Polish state, rather than Germany, will be the one who is controlling Danzig, the Polish Corridor, Posen, and eastern Upper Silesia? Or are Britain and France likely to simply say "Screw it!" in this scenario and accept this German peace deal (possibly with a clause which will open the door to a re-negotiation of Germany's border with Poland if/after Poland ever breaks free from Soviet control/rule (in order for Britain and France to "save face" in front of both their public and the Polish public who is now living under Soviet control/rule))?

Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(

Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-22 02:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German government decides to "play hardball" with Britain and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's 1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German government once again offers Britain and France the very same peace deal which they have previously rejected (well, other than the part about a restoration of a genuinely independent Poland), hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet state is certainly not genuinely independent).
So for the sake of argument Stalin is now on the 1914 German/Russian
border (which you will note includes Warsaw on the Russian side) - do
you SERIOUSLY think Stalin would stay on his side of the line one
micro-second longer than it took to get his logistics in order? Any
more than Samsanov and Rennenkampf did? The catch of course is that
Stalin's generals would be considerably more cooperative with each
other than their 1914 counterparts.
Post by WolfBear
Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure an additional massive number of (British and French) military deaths and casualties in order to get Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II borders in the east?
In this scenario I would think you get the Red Army on the Vistula or
points west in near-record time. How this is good for the German cause
is beyond me.
Post by WolfBear
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
Seems to me Stalin would have been overcome by ecstasy in this
scenario. How this is good for western interests I do not know.
WolfBear
2015-03-22 05:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German government decides to "play hardball" with Britain and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's 1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German government once again offers Britain and France the very same peace deal which they have previously rejected (well, other than the part about a restoration of a genuinely independent Poland), hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet state is certainly not genuinely independent).
So for the sake of argument Stalin is now on the 1914 German/Russian
border (which you will note includes Warsaw on the Russian side) - do
you SERIOUSLY think Stalin would stay on his side of the line one
micro-second longer than it took to get his logistics in order? Any
more than Samsanov and Rennenkampf did? The catch of course is that
Stalin's generals would be considerably more cooperative with each
other than their 1914 counterparts.
Post by WolfBear
Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure an additional massive number of (British and French) military deaths and casualties in order to get Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II borders in the east?
In this scenario I would think you get the Red Army on the Vistula or
points west in near-record time. How this is good for the German cause
is beyond me.
Post by WolfBear
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
Seems to me Stalin would have been overcome by ecstasy in this
scenario. How this is good for western interests I do not know.
By that rationale, though, shouldn't Stalin have attacked Germany in, say, mid-May 1940, while Germany was busy in the Low Countries and in France?

Also, it is worth noting that Germany still has a decent amount of fight left in 1942-1943 in this scenario.

Anyway, I am willing to re-design this scenario, but basically I want a scenario where the new, non-Nazi German government tries blackmailing Britain and France into allowing Germany to keep its 1914 borders in the east with the threat that it will allow the Bolsheviks to conquer additional territory if Britain and France refuse to accept this German peace offer.
WolfBear
2015-03-22 05:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German government decides to "play hardball" with Britain and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's 1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German government once again offers Britain and France the very same peace deal which they have previously rejected (well, other than the part about a restoration of a genuinely independent Poland), hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet state is certainly not genuinely independent).
So for the sake of argument Stalin is now on the 1914 German/Russian
border (which you will note includes Warsaw on the Russian side) - do
you SERIOUSLY think Stalin would stay on his side of the line one
micro-second longer than it took to get his logistics in order? Any
more than Samsanov and Rennenkampf did? The catch of course is that
Stalin's generals would be considerably more cooperative with each
other than their 1914 counterparts.
Post by WolfBear
Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure an additional massive number of (British and French) military deaths and casualties in order to get Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II borders in the east?
In this scenario I would think you get the Red Army on the Vistula or
points west in near-record time. How this is good for the German cause
is beyond me.
Post by WolfBear
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
Seems to me Stalin would have been overcome by ecstasy in this
scenario. How this is good for western interests I do not know.
By that rationale, though, shouldn't Stalin have attacked Germany in, say, mid-May 1940, while Germany was busy in the Low Countries and in France?
Also, it is worth noting that Germany still has a decent amount of fight left in 1942-1943 in this scenario.
Anyway, I am willing to re-design this scenario, but basically I want a scenario where the new, non-Nazi German government tries blackmailing Britain and France into allowing Germany to keep its 1914 borders in the east with the threat that it will allow the Bolsheviks to conquer additional territory if Britain and France refuse to accept this German peace offer.
Also, I would like to point out that forcing Germany to surrender in World War II might require an enormous amount of bleeding (on the battlefield) for British and French soldiers in this scenario (just like it required an enormous amount of bleeding for Red Army soldiers in real life); would Britain and France have been willing to endure that amount of bleeding, especially considering that Hitler and the Nazis are no longer in power in Germany in this scenario? After all, during this time, Britain and France still have fresh memories of the enormous bleeding which both of them endured during World War I.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-23 03:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
By that rationale, though, shouldn't Stalin have attacked Germany in, say, mid-May 1940, while Germany was busy in the Low Countries and in France?
Also, it is worth noting that Germany still has a decent amount of fight left in 1942-1943 in this scenario.
Anyway, I am willing to re-design this scenario, but basically I want a scenario where the new, non-Nazi German government tries blackmailing Britain and France into allowing Germany to keep its 1914 borders in the east with the threat that it will allow the Bolsheviks to conquer additional territory if Britain and France refuse to accept this German peace offer.
Personally I think the point is moot since while you're right -
Germany DOES have a lot of fight left in this scenario - it's
basically Germany facing the Soviets with poorer armor (note that the
Pz V was based on lesson learned in Russia - and that the 1941 German
tanks were not nearly as well suited for off road conditions as on
road).

In case it isn't sufficiently plain I think your post-Nazi German
government has a LOT more to worry about from the Russians than from
the British and French.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-23 16:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
Seems to me Stalin would have been overcome by ecstasy in this
scenario. How this is good for western interests I do not know.
By that rationale, though, shouldn't Stalin have attacked Germany in, say, mid-May 1940, while Germany was busy in the Low Countries and in France?
Also, it is worth noting that Germany still has a decent amount of fight left in 1942-1943 in this scenario.
Anyway, I am willing to re-design this scenario, but basically I want a scenario where the new, non-Nazi German government tries blackmailing Britain and France into allowing Germany to keep its 1914 borders in the east with the threat that it will allow the Bolsheviks to conquer additional territory if Britain and France refuse to accept this German peace offer.
My spin on this is suppose for the sake of argument that after
conquering France Hitler did nothing at all in the east. Is there
anyone here who disbelieves that Stalin would have attacked
eventually? Perhaps not 1942 but 1943 or 1944?

This scenario is CONSIDERABLY more favorable for Russia than that -
both the UK and France as more or less intact in the German's rear (as
seen from Russia) AND depending on which version of the scenario we're
discussing starts with either Russia on her 1939 or 1914 boundaries
(which of course is a lot more favorable since it includes most of
Poland and with a boundary far to the west of the 1939 boundaries).

Even with the 1939 boundaries I think Stalin would consider this a
highly favorable scenario for Russia. My comment about 'ecstasy'
referred to the 1914 boundaries version of the scenario. Or are the
1914 boundaries only for Germany?
WolfBear
2015-03-23 17:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at least) at any point in time in this scenario.
Seems to me Stalin would have been overcome by ecstasy in this
scenario. How this is good for western interests I do not know.
By that rationale, though, shouldn't Stalin have attacked Germany in, say, mid-May 1940, while Germany was busy in the Low Countries and in France?
Also, it is worth noting that Germany still has a decent amount of fight left in 1942-1943 in this scenario.
Anyway, I am willing to re-design this scenario, but basically I want a scenario where the new, non-Nazi German government tries blackmailing Britain and France into allowing Germany to keep its 1914 borders in the east with the threat that it will allow the Bolsheviks to conquer additional territory if Britain and France refuse to accept this German peace offer.
My spin on this is suppose for the sake of argument that after
conquering France Hitler did nothing at all in the east. Is there
anyone here who disbelieves that Stalin would have attacked
eventually? Perhaps not 1942 but 1943 or 1944?
Of course Stalin would have eventually attacked; after all, Stalin was an opportunist and if he would have seen an opportunity to destroy the Nazi German regime and to spread Communism and the Soviet sphere of influence, then he certainly would have taken it.
Post by The Horny Goat
This scenario is CONSIDERABLY more favorable for Russia than that -
both the UK and France as more or less intact in the German's rear (as
seen from Russia) AND depending on which version of the scenario we're
discussing starts with either Russia on her 1939 or 1914 boundaries
(which of course is a lot more favorable since it includes most of
Poland and with a boundary far to the west of the 1939 boundaries).
Even with the 1939 boundaries I think Stalin would consider this a
highly favorable scenario for Russia. My comment about 'ecstasy'
referred to the 1914 boundaries version of the scenario. Or are the
1914 boundaries only for Germany?
The 1914 borders are both for Germany and for the Soviet Union in this scenario. Also, Yes, I agree with what you wrote here; that said, though, I want a scenario where a new, non-Nazi German government tries playing hardball with Britain and France in order to allow Germany to keep its 1914 borders. Considering that Germany's military chiefs previously sent Lenin to Russia (back in 1917) in order to try advancing Germany's interests, I wouldn't be surprised to see the new German government in this scenario be willing to de facto give most of Poland (and if necessary, Slovakia and/or Czechia as well) to the Bolsheviks to the Bolsheviks if they think that this will increase the odds of Germany keeping its 1914 borders in the east.

Also, this raises the question--was one of Britain's and France's war aims in 1939-1940 to ensure that Germany was no longer a great military power? Or were their only war aims in 1939-1940 to get Germany to withdraw from Poland and Danzig and to have Hitler and the Nazis overthrown? Also, while FDR probably liked Stalin and the Bolsheviks more than he liked German Junkers, can the same be said for Britain and France back in 1939-1940? Would Britain and France have placed more value on destroying Germany's military power (even if Hitler and the Nazis were no longer in power in Germany) or on preventing the spread of Bolshevism/Communism and Soviet influence? Thoughts on this?
Bradipus
2015-03-24 17:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Also, this raises the question--was one of Britain's and
France's war aims in 1939-1940 to ensure that Germany was no
longer a great military power? Or were their only war aims in
1939-1940 to get Germany to withdraw from Poland and Danzig
and to have Hitler and the Nazis overthrown? Also, while FDR
probably liked Stalin and the Bolsheviks more than he liked
German Junkers, can the same be said for Britain and France
back in 1939-1940? Would Britain and France have placed more
value on destroying Germany's military power (even if Hitler
and the Nazis were no longer in power in Germany) or on
preventing the spread of Bolshevism/Communism and Soviet
influence? Thoughts on this?
Most UK and France political leaders were not pro-soviet.

French military was quite anti-communist.

Then that quack Hitler arrived and created lots of problems
_outside_ Germany.
--
Bradipus
WolfBear
2015-03-22 05:14:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Also, this raises the question--did Britain and France go to war with Germany in late 1939 in order to restore Polish independence and to get Hitler and the Nazis overthrown? Or did Britain and France to go war with Germany in order to ensure that Germany will no longer be a significant military power?

If the former is correct, then Britain and France might be unable to do much in this scenario considering that a genuinely independent Poland would no longer be possible to achieve without a war with the Soviet Union, which Britain and France certainly do not want. Plus, Hitler and the Nazis are already overthrown in this scenario, and thus, that problem is already taken care of.

Also, this raises another question--which of these two things did Britain and France want more: Ensuring that Germany would no longer be a significant military power or halting the spread of Bolshevism/Communism even further into Europe?

Thoughts on this?
Don Phillipson
2015-03-23 19:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
. . .did Britain and France go to war with Germany in late 1939 in order
to
restore Polish independence and to get Hitler and the Nazis overthrown?
Or did Britain and France to go war with Germany in order to ensure that
Germany will no longer be a significant military power?
These are not binary alternatives. Britain and France declared war 3 Sep.
1939 because (1) Hitler declared in 1938 Germany's annexation of the
Czech Sudetenland was his "last territorial demand in Europe;" (2) Hitler
annexed Bohemia in March 1939 (in contravention of #1), (3) Chamberlain
declared Britain would go to war to prevent changes to eastern European
national boundaries unless democratically negotiated, (4) Germany
invaded Poland 1 Sept. 1939.

This sequence identifies the successive commitments of the German
and British governments. These commitments are different from
motives (e.g. Germany's demand for Lebensraum, Britain's wish
to prevent German domination of Europe.)

Any country's status as "a significant military power" was on 31 Aug.
1939 a matter of theory or speculation. The events of September 1939
proved Germany was "a significant military power."
If the former is correct, then Britain and France might be unable to do
much in this scenario considering that a genuinely independent Poland
would no longer be possible to achieve without a war with the Soviet
Union, which Britain and France certainly do not want.
This is irrelevant. Britain and France did not want a war with
Germany either, yet they declared war (and Britain debated
throughout Sept. and Oct. 1939 going to war against the USSR
as well. After all, the USSR occupied half Poland (and murdered
the Polish officer corps) and supplied the Luftwaffe with the fuel
required to take its bombers into British airspace.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
SolomonW
2015-03-22 05:44:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp

The turning point in the Nazis’ plan to “solve the Jewish problem” began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
WolfBear
2015-03-22 05:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp
The turning point in the Nazis' plan to "solve the Jewish problem" began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
WolfBear
2015-03-22 05:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by SolomonW
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp
The turning point in the Nazis' plan to "solve the Jewish problem" began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
Also, as far as I know, the Nazis only banned Jewish emigration in October 1941 in our TL; thus, any decision to exterminate all or almost all European Jews in our TL had to have occurred in or after October 1941 (which, interestingly enough, was when it was already clear that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't going as quickly as the Nazis previously thought it was going to be).
The Horny Goat
2015-03-23 03:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by WolfBear
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
Also, as far as I know, the Nazis only banned Jewish emigration in October 1941 in our TL; thus, any decision to exterminate all or almost all European Jews in our TL had to have occurred in or after October 1941 (which, interestingly enough, was when it was already clear that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't going as quickly as the Nazis previously thought it was going to be).
So Babi Yar (which was September 1941) was an aberration? Bear in mind
that any Jew who emigrated from Nazi Germany had paid a huge price to
do so.

Removing precious metals (either as jewelry, in pockets or as dental
work from corpses) was a part of the Final Solution from the beginning
and just because the escape door was open a crack up to 10/41 doesn't
mean the door was largely closed for most Jews.
WolfBear
2015-03-23 04:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by WolfBear
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
Also, as far as I know, the Nazis only banned Jewish emigration in October 1941 in our TL; thus, any decision to exterminate all or almost all European Jews in our TL had to have occurred in or after October 1941 (which, interestingly enough, was when it was already clear that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't going as quickly as the Nazis previously thought it was going to be).
So Babi Yar (which was September 1941) was an aberration? Bear in mind
that any Jew who emigrated from Nazi Germany had paid a huge price to
do so.
Honestly, I need to do a bit more research on this. Based on what I have heard, though, Nazi Germany might have had a special hatred for Soviet Jews (due to their perceived association with Bolshevism/Communism) and thus might have decided to begin killing them first while only later making the decision to kill the non-Soviet Jews who lived under Nazi rule.
Post by The Horny Goat
Removing precious metals (either as jewelry, in pockets or as dental
work from corpses) was a part of the Final Solution from the beginning
and just because the escape door was open a crack up to 10/41 doesn't
mean the door was largely closed for most Jews.
Yes, all of this appears to be accurate; also, I think that you mean "*wasn't* largely closed" rather than "*was* largely closed"--after all, (as you said) while Jews were still legally allowed to emigrate up to October 1941, it was (unfortunately) probably impossible or almost impossible for most Jews under Nazi rule to actually find a country which will accept them at that point in time (and indeed, the unwillingness of other countries to accept Jewish refugees was sometimes apparent much earlier, such in 1938-1939).
Don Phillipson
2015-03-23 19:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Based on what I have heard, though, Nazi Germany might have had
a special hatred for Soviet Jews (due to their perceived association with
Bolshevism/Communism) and thus might have decided to begin killing
them first while only later making the decision to kill the non-Soviet
Jews
who lived under Nazi rule.
You have been misinformed. Germans had no compunction about
massacring Polish Jews in 1939 (and encouraging antisemitic
Poles and Balts to do so as well) although the statistics and details
remained a state secret.
Post by WolfBear
it was (unfortunately) probably impossible or almost impossible for
most Jews under Nazi rule to actually find a country which will accept
them at that point in time (and indeed, the unwillingness of other
countries to accept Jewish refugees was sometimes apparent
much earlier, such in 1938-1939).
We need to remind ourselves how reluctant all civilised countries
were to accept penniless refugee foreigners late in the Great
Depression. The rulers of Western countries believed German
Jews were being cruelly and unjustly persecuted because
their newspapers told them so, but hardly any believed as
late as 1942 that a civilized great power like Germany would
dispose of unwanted people simply by massacring them on
an industrial basis.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Alex Milman
2015-03-23 14:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by WolfBear
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
Also, as far as I know, the Nazis only banned Jewish emigration in October 1941 in our TL; thus, any decision to exterminate all or almost all European Jews in our TL had to have occurred in or after October 1941 (which, interestingly enough, was when it was already clear that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't going as quickly as the Nazis previously thought it was going to be).
So Babi Yar (which was September 1941) was an aberration?
It was not and it was not even the earliest action of the kind. With the
active participation of the locals, mass murders of the Jews had been
happening in Lithuania, West Ukraine and Latvia before Nazis reached
Kiev.
One may argue that these were aberrations caused by the "local enthusiasm" but
I don't think that this argument is very convincing.
The Nazis also (AFAIK) had been looking for the Jews among the POWs practically from the moment they attacked the SU.
WolfBear
2015-03-23 17:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by WolfBear
That was because the Nazis quickly won in France, though; if the Nazi invasion of France would have failed, then they might have decided to begin the Holocaust sooner since they would have concluded that there is no other way to "solve" Europe's "Jewish problem".
Also, as far as I know, the Nazis only banned Jewish emigration in October 1941 in our TL; thus, any decision to exterminate all or almost all European Jews in our TL had to have occurred in or after October 1941 (which, interestingly enough, was when it was already clear that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't going as quickly as the Nazis previously thought it was going to be).
So Babi Yar (which was September 1941) was an aberration?
It was not and it was not even the earliest action of the kind. With the
active participation of the locals, mass murders of the Jews had been
happening in Lithuania, West Ukraine and Latvia before Nazis reached
Kiev.
One may argue that these were aberrations caused by the "local enthusiasm" but
I don't think that this argument is very convincing.
The Nazis also (AFAIK) had been looking for the Jews among the POWs practically from the moment they attacked the SU.
As I wrote above, the Nazis (and their collaborators) might have had an especially vehement dislike for Soviet Jews (due to their alleged/perceived associated with Bolshevism), which in turn explains why they began killing them before they began killing Jews in other parts of Europe which were under their control.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-23 03:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp
The turning point in the Nazis´ plan to “solve the Jewish problem” began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
I completely disagree - the Einsatzgruppen's role in the invasion of
Russia was set up BEFORE 6/22/1941 and they operated against both Jews
and commissars from the earliest days of the invasion.

The Einsatzgruppen didn't exactly hitchhike their way to the
German-Soviet border once they heard Hitler was moving east you know -
they were under orders and their orders played a key part in the
invasion.

I won't argue if you say that Barbarossa took 'the Jewish problem' to
another level but to say they originated with Barbarossa doesn't hold
water.
SolomonW
2015-03-23 07:19:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp
The turning point in the Nazis´ plan to “solve the Jewish problem” began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
I completely disagree - the Einsatzgruppen's role in the invasion of
Russia was set up BEFORE 6/22/1941 and they operated against both Jews
and commissars from the earliest days of the invasion.
The Einsatzgruppen didn't exactly hitchhike their way to the
German-Soviet border once they heard Hitler was moving east you know -
they were under orders and their orders played a key part in the
invasion.
I won't argue if you say that Barbarossa took 'the Jewish problem' to
another level but to say they originated with Barbarossa doesn't hold
water.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/

During the invasion of Poland in 1939, similar units, also known as
"Einsatzgruppen" accompanied the invading armies and performed similar
tasks such as the arrest or "liquidation" of priests and other Polish
intelligentsia. They were not, however, given a task of mass murder like
that carried out by the Einsatzgruppen during the invasion of the Soviet
Union. The Einsatzgruppen who took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union
were new units, formed and trained immediately before that invasion with no
organizational history connecting them to the Einsatzgruppen that existed
during the invasion of Poland.
WolfBear
2015-03-23 08:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by WolfBear
Germany is rapidly continuing its work on the Siegfried Line and also begins the Holocaust in the areas which are under its control in an effort to kill as many Jews as it can.
Unlikely
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp
The turning point in the Nazis´ plan to "solve the Jewish problem" began
with Operation Barbarossa, the massive military invasion of the Soviet
Union on June 22, 1941,
I completely disagree - the Einsatzgruppen's role in the invasion of
Russia was set up BEFORE 6/22/1941 and they operated against both Jews
and commissars from the earliest days of the invasion.
The Einsatzgruppen didn't exactly hitchhike their way to the
German-Soviet border once they heard Hitler was moving east you know -
they were under orders and their orders played a key part in the
invasion.
I won't argue if you say that Barbarossa took 'the Jewish problem' to
another level but to say they originated with Barbarossa doesn't hold
water.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/
During the invasion of Poland in 1939, similar units, also known as
"Einsatzgruppen" accompanied the invading armies and performed similar
tasks such as the arrest or "liquidation" of priests and other Polish
intelligentsia. They were not, however, given a task of mass murder like
that carried out by the Einsatzgruppen during the invasion of the Soviet
Union. The Einsatzgruppen who took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union
were new units, formed and trained immediately before that invasion with no
organizational history connecting them to the Einsatzgruppen that existed
during the invasion of Poland.
Nazi Germany wasn't losing World War II yet at that point in time, though.
Don Phillipson
2015-03-23 19:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/
During the invasion of Poland in 1939, similar units, also known as
"Einsatzgruppen" accompanied the invading armies and performed similar
tasks such as the arrest or "liquidation" of priests and other Polish
intelligentsia. They were not, however, given a task of mass murder like
that carried out by the Einsatzgruppen during the invasion of the Soviet
Union. The Einsatzgruppen who took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union
were new units, formed and trained immediately before that invasion with no
organizational history connecting them to the Einsatzgruppen that existed
during the invasion of Poland.
Nazi Germany wasn't losing World War II yet at that point in time, though.
That is the point. The massacre of Jews (and other unwanted people)
was not an improvised German response to defeats: it was a (secret)
part of the original German apparatus for victory.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Alfred Montestruc
2015-03-22 14:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in living memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged down to a trench war stalemate.

Someone on either the Allied or German side will make a mistake and the situation becomes fluid again. Probably the allies as they had more old WWI generals in high command positions who OTL did not see the risks and opportunities of mobil war.

So I see a delay, but not a stabilization of the front lines.
Bradipus
2015-03-22 17:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alfred Montestruc
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air
forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in living
memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged down to a
trench war stalemate.
I agree.

Both sides make no trench war WW1 style, just the "drole de
guerre"/"Sitzkrieg"/"Phoney War" as OTL 9/1939-5/40, building
up forces in the back.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
Someone on either the Allied or German side will make a
mistake and the situation becomes fluid again. Probably the
allies as they had more old WWI generals in high command
positions who OTL did not see the risks and opportunities of
mobil war.
One attempt every six months.
Post by Alfred Montestruc
So I see a delay, but not a stabilization of the front lines.
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
--
Bradipus
Insane Ranter
2015-03-22 19:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
WolfBear
2015-03-22 19:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Alex Milman
2015-03-23 14:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
He was (IIRC) supplying mostly the raw materials. Production of the planes and
tanks was hardly covering the anticipated Soviet needs: after all, in 1941 it
was much lower than in 1944 and it is an open question if, without German
attack, buildup of a military production would go at the same rate as in OTL.
BTW, could it without the American supplies?
WolfBear
2015-03-23 17:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
He was (IIRC) supplying mostly the raw materials. Production of the planes and
tanks was hardly covering the anticipated Soviet needs: after all, in 1941 it
was much lower than in 1944 and it is an open question if, without German
attack, buildup of a military production would go at the same rate as in OTL.
BTW, could it without the American supplies?
Thanks for this info; also, No, I don't think that it could without the American supplies.

Thus, it appears that Stalin will continue to supply large amounts of raw materials to Germany but be both unwilling and unable to supply planes and tanks to Germany in addition to these raw materials.
pyotr filipivich
2015-03-24 04:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
He was (IIRC) supplying mostly the raw materials. Production of the planes and
tanks was hardly covering the anticipated Soviet needs: after all, in 1941 it
was much lower than in 1944 and it is an open question if, without German
attack, buildup of a military production would go at the same rate as in OTL.
BTW, could it without the American supplies?
Thanks for this info; also, No, I don't think that it could without the American supplies.
Thus, it appears that Stalin will continue to supply large amounts of raw materials to Germany but be both unwilling and unable to supply planes and tanks to Germany in addition to these raw materials.
If memory serves, was not one of the bones of contention in 1941
was that the Third Empire was getting a little in arrears in payments
to The Soviet Union?
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Alex Milman
2015-03-24 14:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
He was (IIRC) supplying mostly the raw materials. Production of the planes and
tanks was hardly covering the anticipated Soviet needs: after all, in 1941 it
was much lower than in 1944 and it is an open question if, without German
attack, buildup of a military production would go at the same rate as in OTL.
BTW, could it without the American supplies?
Thanks for this info; also, No, I don't think that it could without the American supplies.
Thus, it appears that Stalin will continue to supply large amounts of raw materials to Germany but be both unwilling and unable to supply planes and tanks to Germany in addition to these raw materials.
If memory serves, was not one of the bones of contention in 1941
was that the Third Empire was getting a little in arrears in payments
to The Soviet Union?
IIRC, this was exactly the case so, how the whole schema would continue
for even few more years is anybody's guess.
Just out of curiosity (and being too lazy to search): was there a qui pro quo
arrangement in the terms of Stalin getting some German technology? Not sure
that Hitler would be willing to share too much of a know-how and even less
sure that he had a surplus of anything of value (optics, field radios, etc.).
Bradipus
2015-03-24 17:33:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
IIRC, this was exactly the case so, how the whole schema
would continue for even few more years is anybody's guess.
Just out of curiosity (and being too lazy to search): was
there a qui pro quo
quid pro quo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

In Italian "qui pro quo" means a misunderstanding.
Post by Alex Milman
arrangement in the terms of Stalin
getting some German technology? Not sure that Hitler would be
willing to share too much of a know-how and even less sure
that he had a surplus of anything of value (optics, field
radios, etc.).
Ribbentrop to Molotov: "Minister, we have many surplus
engineers and doctors and lawyers. Unfortunately they are Jew.
Would you take them?"
Molotov : "We'd take engineers and doctors. Lawyers, we don't
need them."
--
Bradipus
pyotr filipivich
2015-03-25 02:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
Would Stalin be willing to sell tanks and planes to Germany to help its war effort (in an effort to extend the war between the capitalist powers)? After all, he is already providing a lot of resources for Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
He was (IIRC) supplying mostly the raw materials. Production of the planes and
tanks was hardly covering the anticipated Soviet needs: after all, in 1941 it
was much lower than in 1944 and it is an open question if, without German
attack, buildup of a military production would go at the same rate as in OTL.
BTW, could it without the American supplies?
Thanks for this info; also, No, I don't think that it could without the American supplies.
Thus, it appears that Stalin will continue to supply large amounts of raw materials to Germany but be both unwilling and unable to supply planes and tanks to Germany in addition to these raw materials.
If memory serves, was not one of the bones of contention in 1941
was that the Third Empire was getting a little in arrears in payments
to The Soviet Union?
IIRC, this was exactly the case so, how the whole schema would continue
for even few more years is anybody's guess.
Just out of curiosity (and being too lazy to search): was there a qui pro quo
arrangement in the terms of Stalin getting some German technology? Not sure
that Hitler would be willing to share too much of a know-how and even less
sure that he had a surplus of anything of value (optics, field radios, etc.).
I know that Stalin got some training facilities out of the deal -
that the German Army had built training camps for Artillery & tanks,
and the Soviets got to use them too.


Per Wiki:
Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on
February 11, 1940 that was over four times larger than the one the two
countries had signed in August 1939.[118] The trade pact helped
Germany to surmount a British blockade of Germany.[118] In the first
year, Germany received one million tons of cereals, half a million
tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000
tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw
materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from
Manchuria. These and other supplies were being transported through
Soviet and occupied Polish territories, and this allowed Nazi Germany
to circumvent the British naval blockade.[118] The Soviets were to
receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy
naval guns, other naval gear and thirty of Germany's latest warplanes,
including the Me-109 fighter, Me-110 fighter and Ju-88 bomber.[118]
The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment,
locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine
tools and samples of Germany artillery, tanks, explosives,
chemical-warfare equipment and other items.[118] The Soviets also
helped Germany to avoid British naval blockades by providing a
submarine base, Basis Nord, in the northern Soviet Union near
Murmansk.[119] This also provided a refueling and maintenance
location, and a takeoff point for raids and attacks on shipping.[119]
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Bradipus
2015-03-24 17:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Thus, it appears that Stalin will continue to supply large
amounts of raw materials to Germany but be both unwilling and
unable to supply planes and tanks to Germany in addition to
these raw materials.
And how would Germany *pay* all those supplies?

Can Germany be a better payer for goods they buy than UK and
France?

Can Germany's bonds be valued on the financial market (what
market? Wall st.) more than UK's and France's bonds?
--
Bradipus
Yeechang Lee
2015-03-23 14:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK
if needed. Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
I agree that the Germans can't keep up with combined British-French
production, but the US wouldn't provide aid because of the Neutrality
Acts. FDR was only able to get congressional and popular support for
the Destroyers for Bases swap and Lend-Lease because of Britain's
desperate situation; in this scenario the urgency does not exist.
--
Yeechang Lee <***@columbia.edu> | San Francisco
Don Phillipson
2015-03-24 12:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Bradipus
Can Germans make and buy more airplanes and tanks than UK and
France combined?
Nah. I'd see the US pitching in with more help to France and the UK if
needed.
Doubt the German war machine could keep up.
This omits whatever events prompt the USA formally to
go to war. The only initiative ever taken by FDR's
administration was Lend-Lease (after Britain spent in
18 months the accrued savings of a century.) The
USA went to war only after (1) Pearl Harbor, viz.
Japanese initiative, (2) Germany's declaration of
war viz. Hitler's initiative.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-24 21:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
This omits whatever events prompt the USA formally to
go to war. The only initiative ever taken by FDR's
administration was Lend-Lease (after Britain spent in
18 months the accrued savings of a century.)
And the destroyers/bases deal, and other
transfers of "surplus" American munitions to Britain.
And the Atlantic Charter, the "neutrality patrol"
(with "shoot [U-boats]-on-sight" orders, the embargo
on Japan, the authorization of the AVG...
Post by Don Phillipson
The USA went to war only after (1) Pearl Harbor, viz.
Japanese initiative, (2) Germany's declaration of
war viz. Hitler's initiative.
The U.S. didn't want to go to war if it was not _necessary_.
The U.S. nonetheless took a wide range of actions in
support of the Allies that predictably provoked Axis
attack on the U.S.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-23 14:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alfred Montestruc
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air
forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in living
memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged down to a
trench war stalemate.
I agree.
Both sides make no trench war WW1 style, just the "drole de
guerre"/"Sitzkrieg"/"Phoney War" as OTL 9/1939-5/40, building
up forces in the back.
I did not get it: AFAIK, the whole idea behind the Magino Line was
to provide a scenario for "super-trench warfare", which would make
enemy's attack too costly.

Building forces in the back was, of course, there but it does not look
(AFAIK) that the French had been ready for a major offensive strategy
even after they build up their forces.
Bradipus
2015-03-24 17:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 1:36:27 PM UTC-4, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alfred Montestruc
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air
forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in
living memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged
down to a trench war stalemate.
I agree.
Both sides make no trench war WW1 style, just the "drole de
guerre"/"Sitzkrieg"/"Phoney War" as OTL 9/1939-5/40,
building up forces in the back.
I did not get it: AFAIK, the whole idea behind the Magino
Line was to provide a scenario for "super-trench warfare",
which would make enemy's attack too costly.
Yes, right, WW1 style (attacks, attacks and more attacks) was
out by _both_ sides of the front.

In OTL Germans (young officers and Nazi leaders) thought to a
new *type* of war, French (old staff) thought to a different
*attitude* inside the old type of war.
Building forces in the back was, of course, there but it does
not look (AFAIK) that the French had been ready for a major
offensive strategy even after they build up their forces.
I agree.
French attitude was pretty defensive.
--
Bradipus
Alex Milman
2015-03-24 19:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 1:36:27 PM UTC-4, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alfred Montestruc
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air
forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in
living memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged
down to a trench war stalemate.
I agree.
Both sides make no trench war WW1 style, just the "drole de
guerre"/"Sitzkrieg"/"Phoney War" as OTL 9/1939-5/40,
building up forces in the back.
I did not get it: AFAIK, the whole idea behind the Magino
Line was to provide a scenario for "super-trench warfare",
which would make enemy's attack too costly.
Yes, right, WW1 style (attacks, attacks and more attacks) was
out by _both_ sides of the front.
So do something to make style of the previous war even less
effective than it was without giving a second thought to an
idea that your opponent could do something totally different,
which is going to make your schema an expensive joke.
Post by Bradipus
In OTL Germans (young officers and Nazi leaders) thought to a
new *type* of war, French (old staff) thought to a different
*attitude* inside the old type of war.
Exactly.
Post by Bradipus
Building forces in the back was, of course, there but it does
not look (AFAIK) that the French had been ready for a major
offensive strategy even after they build up their forces.
I agree.
French attitude was pretty defensive.
I wonder what was their idea about winning the war? Just sit in the
Maginot Line until all German soldiers will die from an old age?
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 10:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
French attitude was pretty defensive.
I wonder what was their idea about winning the war? Just sit in the
Maginot Line until all German soldiers will die from an old age?
The Allied plan for victory was to stay on the operational
defensive while the strategic blockade strangled Germany.
Germany would of course not await this passively, but
would attack fiercely trying to "break the siege". The
Allies with the Maginot Line and other defenses would
repel the German attacks with heavy losses. After a
while Germany would be exhausted from futile attacks
and starved by the blockade - _then_ the Allies would
attack.t
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-25 12:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
French attitude was pretty defensive.
I wonder what was their idea about winning the war? Just sit in the
Maginot Line until all German soldiers will die from an old age?
The Allied plan for victory was to stay on the operational
defensive while the strategic blockade strangled Germany.
Germany would of course not await this passively, but
would attack fiercely trying to "break the siege". The
Allies with the Maginot Line and other defenses would
repel the German attacks with heavy losses. After a
while Germany would be exhausted from futile attacks
and starved by the blockade - _then_ the Allies would
attack.t
Couple questions:

(a) How did the Allies imagine a comprehensive blockade? During WWI
Germany and her allies had been reasonably well isolated but with the
Allies rejecting inclusion of the SU into the mutual defense treaties,
Germany had a huge "back door" - it would be extremely naïve to expect
that even without a M-R Pact the neutral SU is going to stop trade
relations with Germany just because it happens to be at war with the
Brits and French to whom Stalin did not have any obligations (and even
reasons to be unnecessary friendly).

Of course, it can be assumed that Germany is going to run out of money
or something of the kind but this can be a very long term issue (especially
with a barter trade). An assumption that the Germans will be just trying to
break a brick wall with their heads seems to be too simplistic to me.



(b) How did the Allies imagined a big strategic offensive, except for the
case when their opponent it completely exhausted? It does not look like
they did have a proper organization for the major in-depth advance (or am I wrong? I did not study issue seriously): French tank forces were distributed
piecemeal among the infantry, coordination of the branches was pathetic, as
had been demonstrated in OTL. Or did they plan to figure out something
suitable while sitting inside Maginot Line?
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
: French tank forces were distributed
piecemeal among the infantry,
Not all of them, the French had three armoured divisions as well as the
infantry support armour and two British Armoured divisions would have
been available. More importantly this would have been a properly planned
operation instead of the OTL improvised ones. The Maginot Line was
completed by 1937. It worked in that the Germans made no plans to assault
it but it was (for both political and economic reasons)not possible to
extend it along the French,Belgian border.
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 20:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
(a) How did the Allies imagine a comprehensive blockade? During WWI
Germany and her allies had been reasonably well isolated but with the
Allies rejecting inclusion of the SU into the mutual defense treaties,
Germany had a huge "back door" - it would be extremely naïve to expect
that even without a M-R Pact the neutral SU is going to stop trade
relations with Germany just because it happens to be at war with the
Brits and French to whom Stalin did not have any obligations (and even
reasons to be unnecessary friendly).
The USSR was presumed to be extremely hostile to Germany;
the Hitler-Stalin Pact came as a stunning surprise and
potentially upset Allied strategic calculations. But it
happened in late August 1939, far too late for the Allies
to react to it.

Then they figured that the alliance was unnatural and
couldn't possibly last very long.

As for other channels - the Allies effectively control
them as well, or think they do.
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, it can be assumed that Germany is going to run out of money
or something of the kind but this can be a very long term issue (especially
with a barter trade). An assumption that the Germans will be just trying to
break a brick wall with their heads seems to be too simplistic to me.
The Allies also assumed that they could coerce the neutrals
Europe into adhering to the blockade. In fact the Allies
(Britain especially) had a greatly inflated idea of what
could be accomplished by "economic warfare". This mirage
was especially attractive as an alternative to a gruesome
repeat of WW I.
Post by Alex Milman
(b) How did the Allies imagined a big strategic offensive, except for the
case when their opponent it completely exhausted? It does not look like
they did have a proper organization for the major in-depth advance...
My _guess_ is that they thought that once the Germans
were exhausted, they could push forward steadily, not
in great leaps, but steadily, and the Germans would be
both exhausted and demoralized. Once the Germans had
been pushed back to say the Rhine, they would probably
capitulate.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-26 16:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
(a) How did the Allies imagine a comprehensive blockade? During WWI
Germany and her allies had been reasonably well isolated but with the
Allies rejecting inclusion of the SU into the mutual defense treaties,
Germany had a huge "back door" - it would be extremely naïve to expect
that even without a M-R Pact the neutral SU is going to stop trade
relations with Germany just because it happens to be at war with the
Brits and French to whom Stalin did not have any obligations (and even
reasons to be unnecessary friendly).
The USSR was presumed to be extremely hostile to Germany;
the Hitler-Stalin Pact came as a stunning surprise and
potentially upset Allied strategic calculations. But it
happened in late August 1939, far too late for the Allies
to react to it.
Well, IMHO, this stunning surprise was reasonably easy to predict, taking
into an account the French and British rejection of all Soviet attempts
to make arrangements for a future defense. However, as I said, earlier,
let's assume that the M-R Pact did not happen and the SU remained neutral.
What would be the reason to assume that this neutrality is going to be
hostile toward Germany? In other words, why would Stalin join the blockade
of Germany thus clearly declaring his hostility toward Hitler (making the SU
a potential target of his attack) while not having any mutual defense
arrangement with the Brits and French? Don't you think that the logic involved
is seriously flawed? Especially, taking into an account Stalin's well-known
requests about the 'security arrangements' (moving Soviet borders westward at
the expense of the 'buffer states'). IIRC, one of the post-factum arguments
in a favor of the M-R Pact was a notion that the SU got all territorial
concessions it was asking for without a fight.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Then they figured that the alliance was unnatural and
couldn't possibly last very long.
Too late for France.

As for the 'unnatural' nature of this alliance, with all my admiration to
WC's foresight (and in general :-)), I'm not 100% that conflict was unavoidable within a relatively short period of time. After all, Hitler COULD concentrate
on the British colonies interests in the North Africa and Middle East thus
seriously reducing British fighting capacities or even a will to continue
fighting. This would require much less resources and materials than OTL scenario allowing to put more resources into the navy (subs, raiders, whatever)
and aviation.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for other channels - the Allies effectively control
them as well, or think they do.
"Think they do" is probably closer to the truth. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, it can be assumed that Germany is going to run out of money
or something of the kind but this can be a very long term issue (especially
with a barter trade). An assumption that the Germans will be just trying to
break a brick wall with their heads seems to be too simplistic to me.
The Allies also assumed that they could coerce the neutrals
Europe into adhering to the blockade. In fact the Allies
(Britain especially) had a greatly inflated idea of what
could be accomplished by "economic warfare". This mirage
was especially attractive as an alternative to a gruesome
repeat of WW I.
Again "mirage" is an appropriate term: they had a very limited leverage on
the neutrals, of which the SU could be without the M-R Pact, Switzerland in
OTL had been bending backward to make Hitler happy (obviously, the Brits could
do nothing to help them in the case of need) and this left pretty much
Sweden (in OTL one of the main German suppliers) and Norway (as far as the
economic blockade was involved, not a major player). On the Southern flank
there were Greece and Yugoslavia but, even without being conquered by the
Germans, their impact on blockade would be minimal (goat s--t, AFAIK, was not
a strategic material).

In WWI they did have Russia as a major part of the blockade effort but with
the Soviet border being an open gate all kinds of things could be transferred
to Germany from quiet a few neutral countries (South America, for example).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
(b) How did the Allies imagined a big strategic offensive, except for the
case when their opponent it completely exhausted? It does not look like
they did have a proper organization for the major in-depth advance...
My _guess_ is that they thought that once the Germans
were exhausted, they could push forward steadily, not
in great leaps, but steadily, and the Germans would be
both exhausted and demoralized. Once the Germans had
been pushed back to say the Rhine, they would probably
capitulate.
Makes sense within WWI framework of mentality, which involved a notion
that the Germans are going to be compliant and spend couple years trying
to break concrete of the Maginot Line with their heads and, when it fails,
behave like the good sports by acknowledging a defeat. :-)
WolfBear
2015-03-22 19:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alfred Montestruc
With both sides having moterized forces and effective air forces, and the awful experiance of WWI trench war in living memory, I doubt they will let things get bogged down to a trench war stalemate.
Someone on either the Allied or German side will make a mistake and the situation becomes fluid again. Probably the allies as they had more old WWI generals in high command positions who OTL did not see the risks and opportunities of mobil war.
So I see a delay, but not a stabilization of the front lines.
Technically speaking, I don't think that I said that the front lines would become completely bogged down; rather, what I said was that the British and France would advance extremely slowly in 1941-1942 due to the fact that Germany will have most of its forces stationed in the West (and frankly, it appears that German generals were often great with tactics).
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-23 03:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
<3c02ebc6-8075-46eb-92d0-***@googlegroups.com>
,
Post by WolfBear
I was inspired to create this scenario and thread by one of Rich Rostrom's comments on another thread on a similar topic to this one.
Due to France keeping its strategic reserve at
Rheims (as per the original plan) instead of sending
it to the Low Countries, the German attack through
the Ardennes fails in 1940. Thus, the Manstein Plan
fails and the Germans become bogged down in Belgium
and in northern France. In 1941-1942, the French and
British very slowly begin to advance in Belgium and
in northern France ...
This is a very simple description and as such inadequate.
Post by WolfBear
In 1942 or 1943, opponents of Hitler and
the Nazis in the German military and elsewhere
successfully stage a coup against Hitler and the
Nazis (they waited until 1942 or 1943 to do this in
order to reduce the risk that they will get accused
of "stabbing Germany in the back"; likewise, they
wanted to make sure that Hitler genuinely ran out of
luck by now).
The failure of Fall GELB would be enough. At that point
all rational Germans would want to get out of the war ASAP.
Waiting two additional years would be extreme and
unnecessary caution.

P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
Post by WolfBear
Afterwards, these successful coup plotters
immediately stop the Holocaust and secretly offer
Britain and France a peace deal: There would be a
status quo ante bellum in the West, a restoration of
Germany's 1914 borders in the East, and a German
retention of both Austria and the Sudetenland (as
well as a German retention of both its Czech and its
Slovak puppet states); also, Germany would allow the
restoration of an independent Polish state on the
parts of Poland which are beyond Germany's 1914
borders and which are currently occupied by Germany.
Both Britain and France reject this German peace
deal and instead decide to continue fighting.
In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German
government decides to "play hardball" with Britain
and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's
1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes
Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany
withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish
puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German
government once again offers Britain and France the
very same peace deal which they have previously
rejected (well, other than the part about a
restoration of a genuinely independent Poland),
hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this
offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is
impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet
state is certainly not genuinely independent).
Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept
this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure
an additional massive number of (British and French)
military deaths and casualties in order to get
Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II
borders in the east?
Remember--Britain and France will probably
eventually defeat Germany in this scenario, but it
will require an even greater number of military
deaths and casualties on their part and any areas
which Germany will withdraw from will simply be
occupied by the Soviet Union afterwards. Are Britain
and France genuinely willing to endure several
hundred thousand or more additional military deaths
on their side just so that Stalin's puppet Polish
state, rather than Germany, will be the one who is
controlling Danzig, the Polish Corridor, Posen, and
eastern Upper Silesia? Or are Britain and France
likely to simply say "Screw it!" in this scenario
and accept this German peace deal (possibly with a
clause which will open the door to a re-negotiation
of Germany's border with Poland if/after Poland ever
breaks free from Soviet control/rule (in order for
Britain and France to "save face" in front of both
their public and the Polish public who is now living
under Soviet control/rule))?
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really
do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard
place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet
Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at
least) at any point in time in this scenario.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-23 04:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
In article
,
Post by WolfBear
I was inspired to create this scenario and thread by one of Rich Rostrom's comments on another thread on a similar topic to this one.
Due to France keeping its strategic reserve at
Rheims (as per the original plan) instead of sending
it to the Low Countries, the German attack through
the Ardennes fails in 1940. Thus, the Manstein Plan
fails and the Germans become bogged down in Belgium
and in northern France. In 1941-1942, the French and
British very slowly begin to advance in Belgium and
in northern France ...
This is a very simple description and as such inadequate.
Well, what exactly in this scenario do you want me to elaborate on? After Fall Gelb fails, Britain and France might decide to either go on the offensive immediately or wait several months before they begin to go on the offensive. If a coup does not occur yet, the Britain and France will begin to advance in Belgium and in northern France, but stiff German resistance along with great German tactics will ensure that Britain's and France's advance will be very slow and costly (in terms of casualties). Also, Britain and France would be unable to encircle a large number of German forces (at least by the time that this coup occurs).

What other details do you want me to give you?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
In 1942 or 1943, opponents of Hitler and
the Nazis in the German military and elsewhere
successfully stage a coup against Hitler and the
Nazis (they waited until 1942 or 1943 to do this in
order to reduce the risk that they will get accused
of "stabbing Germany in the back"; likewise, they
wanted to make sure that Hitler genuinely ran out of
luck by now).
The failure of Fall GELB would be enough. At that point
all rational Germans would want to get out of the war ASAP.
Waiting two additional years would be extreme and
unnecessary caution.
As far as I know, some opponents of Hitler (Halder, Tresckow, et cetera) were indeed genuinely concerned about creating a Stab-in-the-Back Myth 2.0. I am willing to move the timing of this coup to 1941 (it's up to you to decide when exactly in 1941 you want this coup to occur), but I would think that, at the very least, Hitler's opponents would wait for an additional several months just to make sure that the failure of Fall Gelb is indeed the changing point in Germany's fortunes (as opposed to a mere temporary setback for Germany). Thus, if you want, let's have this coup occur sometime in 1941.
Post by Rich Rostrom
P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
I would think that Stalin would be continuing to give Germany a lot of resources (as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) while he himself would be biding his time and hoping that Britain, France, and Germany will bleed each other dry so that the Soviet Union can conquer and puppetize them (with the exception of Britain, due to logistics) after all of them become sufficiently exhausted from fighting in World War II. Do you have any better suggestions for this?

Also, at the time of the successful anti-Nazi coup in this scenario, I could see Stalin either continuing to sit on the sidelines or conclude that World War II might soon be over and thus decide to enter World War II on Britain's and France's side while he still can (since that might make it harder for Britain and France to refuse to recognize the Soviet Union's 1939-1940 conquests and to refuse to give the Soviet Union some additional war spoils). Which of these two scenarios do you personally think is the most likely one, Rich?

Also, my scenario here raises an interesting question: Was Britain's and France's primarily goals when they declared war on Germany in 1939 to get Hitler and the Nazis overthrown and to get Germany to withdraw from Poland and Danzig? Or was ensuring that Germany will no longer be a great military power an equally important goal of Britain's and France's in 1939-1940? If the latter goal here wasn't anywhere near as important for Britain and France as the former goals here, then Britain and France might not have any reason to continue the fight with Germany in my scenario after Germany allows the Bolsheviks to conquer all of Poland up to Germany's 1914 eastern borders.

Thoughts on this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Afterwards, these successful coup plotters
immediately stop the Holocaust and secretly offer
Britain and France a peace deal: There would be a
status quo ante bellum in the West, a restoration of
Germany's 1914 borders in the East, and a German
retention of both Austria and the Sudetenland (as
well as a German retention of both its Czech and its
Slovak puppet states); also, Germany would allow the
restoration of an independent Polish state on the
parts of Poland which are beyond Germany's 1914
borders and which are currently occupied by Germany.
Both Britain and France reject this German peace
deal and instead decide to continue fighting.
In response to this, the new, non-Nazi German
government decides to "play hardball" with Britain
and France by unilaterally withdrawing to Germany's
1914 borders in the east; in turn, this causes
Stalin to occupy the parts of Poland which Germany
withdrew from and to create a pro-Soviet Polish
puppet state there. Afterwards, the new German
government once again offers Britain and France the
very same peace deal which they have previously
rejected (well, other than the part about a
restoration of a genuinely independent Poland),
hoping that Britain and France would reconsider this
offer now that a genuinely independent Poland is
impossible to restore (Stalin's new Polish puppet
state is certainly not genuinely independent).
Now--do Britain and France reconsider and accept
this German peace deal, or do they decide to endure
an additional massive number of (British and French)
military deaths and casualties in order to get
Germany to withdraw back to its pre-World War II
borders in the east?
Remember--Britain and France will probably
eventually defeat Germany in this scenario, but it
will require an even greater number of military
deaths and casualties on their part and any areas
which Germany will withdraw from will simply be
occupied by the Soviet Union afterwards. Are Britain
and France genuinely willing to endure several
hundred thousand or more additional military deaths
on their side just so that Stalin's puppet Polish
state, rather than Germany, will be the one who is
controlling Danzig, the Polish Corridor, Posen, and
eastern Upper Silesia? Or are Britain and France
likely to simply say "Screw it!" in this scenario
and accept this German peace deal (possibly with a
clause which will open the door to a re-negotiation
of Germany's border with Poland if/after Poland ever
breaks free from Soviet control/rule (in order for
Britain and France to "save face" in front of both
their public and the Polish public who is now living
under Soviet control/rule))?
Thoughts on this? And Yes, Britain and France really
do appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard
place in this scenario. :(
Also--to clarify--neither the U.S. nor the Soviet
Union have entered the war against Germany (yet, at
least) at any point in time in this scenario.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-23 22:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Well, what exactly in this scenario do you want me
to elaborate on? After Fall Gelb fails, Britain and
France might decide to either go on the offensive
immediately or wait several months before they begin
to go on the offensive.
Months, yes. But _years_? And there are issues about
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.

Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary? What does Japan do?
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The failure of Fall GELB would be enough. At that point
all rational Germans would want to get out of the war ASAP.
Waiting two additional years would be extreme and
unnecessary caution.
As far as I know, some opponents of Hitler (Halder,
Tresckow, et cetera) were indeed genuinely concerned
about creating a Stab-in-the-Back Myth 2.0. I am
willing to move the timing of this coup to 1941...
but I would think that, at
the very least, Hitler's opponents would wait for an
additional several months just to make sure that the
failure of Fall Gelb is indeed the changing point in
Germany's fortunes (as opposed to a mere temporary
setback for Germany). Thus, if you want, let's have
this coup occur sometime in 1941.
At the start of Fall GELB, most Germans expected it
to fail, leading to another stalemate like 1914-1918.

If it does, they (almost everyone in Germany except
Hitler and his fanboys) will want to get out of the war.
The sooner they act, the better deal they can get.
The Allies will not expect or get unconditional surrender,
or anything remotely like 1918-1919.

So "Stab in the back" won't come into it.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
I would think that Stalin would be continuing to
give Germany a lot of resources (as per the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) while he himself would be
biding his time and hoping that Britain, France, and
Germany will bleed each other dry so that the Soviet
Union can conquer and puppetize them...
Right. And by 1943, the Soviet arms buildup would be
huge. What is Stalin still waiting for?

IMHO by late 1942, Stalin would move.
Post by WolfBear
Also, my scenario here raises an interesting
question: Was Britain's and France's primarily goals
when they declared war on Germany in 1939...
Regime change, and defense of Poland.

They wanted Germany defeated, with the Nazis removed,
and Poland as an independent state with its status
quo ante borders. I don't think they planned to
insist on German disarmament.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-23 23:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Well, what exactly in this scenario do you want me
to elaborate on? After Fall Gelb fails, Britain and
France might decide to either go on the offensive
immediately or wait several months before they begin
to go on the offensive.
Months, yes. But _years_?
Then let's go with several months here.

And there are issues about
Post by Rich Rostrom
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.
Well, any suggestions in regards to this on your part would certainly be very welcomed. :)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary?
The Soviet Union successfully bullies Romania to give up Moldova in mid-1940. In regards to Hungary, I would assume that Hungary would comfortably sit on its butt, no? After all, what exactly is Hungary supposed to do? Go to war with Romania over Transylvania and risk getting its butt kicked by Romania just like it did in 1919?

What does Japan do?
I don't think that Japan would invade French Indochina in this scenario, but it might invade the Dutch East Indies during this time instead; after all, as far as I know, Japan's war with China was becoming a quagmire and a waste of money and resources for Japan, which in turn created a mood in Japan that Japan must expand elsewhere.

Do you have any better suggestions on what exactly Japan does during this time?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The failure of Fall GELB would be enough. At that point
all rational Germans would want to get out of the war ASAP.
Waiting two additional years would be extreme and
unnecessary caution.
As far as I know, some opponents of Hitler (Halder,
Tresckow, et cetera) were indeed genuinely concerned
about creating a Stab-in-the-Back Myth 2.0. I am
willing to move the timing of this coup to 1941...
but I would think that, at
the very least, Hitler's opponents would wait for an
additional several months just to make sure that the
failure of Fall Gelb is indeed the changing point in
Germany's fortunes (as opposed to a mere temporary
setback for Germany). Thus, if you want, let's have
this coup occur sometime in 1941.
At the start of Fall GELB, most Germans expected it
to fail, leading to another stalemate like 1914-1918.
Yes, very possibly.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If it does, they (almost everyone in Germany except
Hitler and his fanboys) will want to get out of the war.
The sooner they act, the better deal they can get.
The Allies will not expect or get unconditional surrender,
or anything remotely like 1918-1919.
Yes, but again, they might want to make sure that the situation on the Western Front is a genuine stalemate as opposed to a mere temporary setback for Germany; if the Western Front doesn't move much (or moves in favor of Britain and France) over several months, though, then there would certainly be a feeling that Germany is screwed and that Germany needs to make peace ASAP. In turn, this leads to a successful coup against Hitler and the Nazis in early 1941 in this TL.
Post by Rich Rostrom
So "Stab in the back" won't come into it.
That might depend on the timing of the coup and the timing of the peace, though; after all, I find it extremely interesting that many Germans apparently believed that they were "stabbed in the back" in late 1918 despite the fact that the situation for Germany and the other Central Powers was *strongly* deteriorating even *before* Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated. A rational observer in late 1918 would have concluded that the Weimar German government certainly made the right decision when it made peace in 1918, but unfortunately many Germans don't appear to have been rational thinkers back then.

Don't get me wrong, though--the coup plotters will certainly eventually act, possibly as early as early 1941; however, I think that a serious coup attempt against Hitler and the Nazis would not occur before, say, the winter of 1940-1941 at the very earliest.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
I would think that Stalin would be continuing to
give Germany a lot of resources (as per the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) while he himself would be
biding his time and hoping that Britain, France, and
Germany will bleed each other dry so that the Soviet
Union can conquer and puppetize them...
Right. And by 1943, the Soviet arms buildup would be
huge. What is Stalin still waiting for?
Based on your advice, though, I have moved the timing of this German coup in this TL to 1941 (you decide when it 1941 this coup occurs). As far as I know, the Soviet Union wouldn't have completed its military modernization by 1941; however, as I think I previously suggested, right after this coup occurs, Stalin might see an opportunity and enter World War II on Britain's and France's side before they are able to make peace with Germany.
Post by Rich Rostrom
IMHO by late 1942, Stalin would move.
Yes, but based on your advice, I moved the timing of this coup back to sometime in 1941. Thus, if Stalin decides to move, then he will probably have to do this right after the successful anti-Nazi coup in Germany occurs.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Also, my scenario here raises an interesting
question: Was Britain's and France's primarily goals
when they declared war on Germany in 1939...
Regime change, and defense of Poland.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
They wanted Germany defeated, with the Nazis removed,
and Poland as an independent state with its status
quo ante borders. I don't think they planned to
insist on German disarmament.
OK. Also, a couple more questions:

1. Did Britain and France intend to allow Danzig to remain a League of Nations-administered city (as opposed to simply letting Poland annex it)? If so, then this could create the possibility of Germany once again demanding to annex Danzig a couple of decades (or more) later.

2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria, the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the new German government might think that they are entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not completely sure that Britain and France will agree with them on this. What are your thoughts on this, Rich?

3. Are Britain and France going to demand any reparations and/or any territories (such as the Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or for Poland)? No--correct?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 01:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary?
The Soviet Union successfully bullies Romania to give up Moldova in mid-1940. In regards to Hungary, I would assume that Hungary would comfortably sit on its butt, no? After all, what exactly is Hungary supposed to do? Go to war with Romania over Transylvania and risk getting its butt kicked by Romania just like it did in 1919?
In OTL, Romania and Hungary do not join the Axis until after the fall
of Paris. I'm not sure the date Italy declared war but it was after
the Wehrmacht reached Abbeville cutting off most of the BEF and a huge
chunk of the French army north of the Somme.

Obviously there would be no North African campaign without Italy in
the war.

On that subject, don't forget that the Germans had seized several
crossings on the south side of the Somme and that these were critical
in the fighting after Dunkirk.
Post by WolfBear
What does Japan do?
I don't think that Japan would invade French Indochina in this scenario, but it might invade the Dutch East Indies during this time instead; after all, as far as I know, Japan's war with China was becoming a quagmire and a waste of money and resources for Japan, which in turn created a mood in Japan that Japan must expand elsewhere.
Agreed - there's no way Japan would pick a fight with a still
belligerant France. Picking a fight with a France that had just made
peace with Germany would be even more unlikely.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
I would think that Stalin would be continuing to
give Germany a lot of resources (as per the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) while he himself would be
biding his time and hoping that Britain, France, and
Germany will bleed each other dry so that the Soviet
Union can conquer and puppetize them...
Right. And by 1943, the Soviet arms buildup would be
huge. What is Stalin still waiting for?
Based on your advice, though, I have moved the timing of this German coup in this TL to 1941 (you decide when it 1941 this coup occurs). As far as I know, the Soviet Union wouldn't have completed its military modernization by 1941; however, as I think I previously suggested, right after this coup occurs, Stalin might see an opportunity and enter World War II on Britain's and France's side before they are able to make peace with Germany.
Post by Rich Rostrom
IMHO by late 1942, Stalin would move.
In this situation there would be no cession of territory to allow
Russia to gain her 1914 frontier.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
They wanted Germany defeated, with the Nazis removed,
and Poland as an independent state with its status
quo ante borders. I don't think they planned to
insist on German disarmament.
Sorry - but allowing Russia her 1914 bondaries precludes Poland as an
independent state. These are mutually incompatible goals.

Also, what happens to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in your scenario?
(One assumes the Germans retain Memel given they had it pre-1914 and
forced the Lithuanians to cede it in 1939) Given your POD I assume the
Winter War takes place on schedule.
Post by WolfBear
1. Did Britain and France intend to allow Danzig to remain a League of Nations-administered city (as opposed to simply letting Poland annex it)? If so, then this could create the possibility of Germany once again demanding to annex Danzig a couple of decades (or more) later.
I'm not aware Poland ever attempted to annex Danzig and am skeptical
Britain and France would have supported them if they had tried.
Post by WolfBear
2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria, the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the new German government might think that they are entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not completely sure that Britain and France will agree with them on this. What are your thoughts on this, Rich?
Highly unlikely. They would probably insist on the 1 Jan 1938
boundaries meaning no Anschluss but allowing Germany to keep troops in
the Rhineland. (Basically enforcing the Versailles settlement in the
west at least territorially if not financially)
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any reparations and/or any territories (such as the Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or for Poland)? No--correct?
Also highly unlikely.

The real question is whether in this scenario there would have been an
attempt to revive the League of Nations which was pretty much
emasculated after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. I think there is
actually quite a good chance of this given that this non-Nazi Germany
would not be allied to Italy or Japan.

For what it's worth there was a last meeting of the League of Nations
in 1946 (Geneva if memory serves) but that was only for the remaining
members to sign the paperwork legally transferring the remaining
assets of the League of Nations assets to the United Nations. It was
NOT a long meeting!
WolfBear
2015-03-24 02:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary?
The Soviet Union successfully bullies Romania to give up Moldova in mid-1940. In regards to Hungary, I would assume that Hungary would comfortably sit on its butt, no? After all, what exactly is Hungary supposed to do? Go to war with Romania over Transylvania and risk getting its butt kicked by Romania just like it did in 1919?
In OTL, Romania and Hungary do not join the Axis until after the fall
of Paris. I'm not sure the date Italy declared war but it was after
the Wehrmacht reached Abbeville cutting off most of the BEF and a huge
chunk of the French army north of the Somme.
All of this appears to be correct, which is precisely why Romania, Hungary, and Italy will all remain neutral in this TL's World War II.
Post by The Horny Goat
Obviously there would be no North African campaign without Italy in
the war.
Correct!
Post by The Horny Goat
On that subject, don't forget that the Germans had seized several
crossings on the south side of the Somme and that these were critical
in the fighting after Dunkirk.
OK.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
What does Japan do?
I don't think that Japan would invade French Indochina in this scenario, but it might invade the Dutch East Indies during this time instead; after all, as far as I know, Japan's war with China was becoming a quagmire and a waste of money and resources for Japan, which in turn created a mood in Japan that Japan must expand elsewhere.
Agreed - there's no way Japan would pick a fight with a still
belligerant France. Picking a fight with a France that had just made
peace with Germany would be even more unlikely.
It's good to see us agree on this. :)
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
P.S. What is the USSR doing all this time?
I would think that Stalin would be continuing to
give Germany a lot of resources (as per the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) while he himself would be
biding his time and hoping that Britain, France, and
Germany will bleed each other dry so that the Soviet
Union can conquer and puppetize them...
Right. And by 1943, the Soviet arms buildup would be
huge. What is Stalin still waiting for?
Based on your advice, though, I have moved the timing of this German coup in this TL to 1941 (you decide when it 1941 this coup occurs). As far as I know, the Soviet Union wouldn't have completed its military modernization by 1941; however, as I think I previously suggested, right after this coup occurs, Stalin might see an opportunity and enter World War II on Britain's and France's side before they are able to make peace with Germany.
Post by Rich Rostrom
IMHO by late 1942, Stalin would move.
In this situation there would be no cession of territory to allow
Russia to gain her 1914 frontier.
The new, non-Nazi German government wouldn't care too much about whether Russia/the Soviet Union gets its 1914 frontier restored; rather, Germany would primarily want to restore its own 1914 eastern frontier--whether there will be a genuinely independent Poland or a Soviet puppet Poland beyond Germany's 1914 eastern frontiers isn't going to concern Germany too much.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
They wanted Germany defeated, with the Nazis removed,
and Poland as an independent state with its status
quo ante borders. I don't think they planned to
insist on German disarmament.
Sorry - but allowing Russia her 1914 bondaries precludes Poland as an
independent state. These are mutually incompatible goals.
Again--in this TL, the new, non-Nazi German government will want to restore *Germany's* 1914 eastern borders; it wouldn't care too much about whether Russia's/the Soviet Union's border is the Curzon Line or the 1914 borders. If the Soviet Union's border will remain the Curzon Line while Germany is allowed to keep its 1914 eastern borders, though, then a relatively small independent Poland can exist in the areas/territories which are located between the Curzon Line and Germany's 1914 eastern borders.
Post by The Horny Goat
Also, what happens to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in your scenario?
I would presume that Stalin would be allowed to keep them, no?
Post by The Horny Goat
(One assumes the Germans retain Memel given they had it pre-1914 and
forced the Lithuanians to cede it in 1939)
Yes, the new, non-Nazi German government in this scenario will certainly try extremely hard to have Germany keep Memel as well. However, it would probably place a *much* higher priority on ensuring that Germany's 1914 eastern borders are restored.

Given your POD I assume the
Post by The Horny Goat
Winter War takes place on schedule.
Yes, it does.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
1. Did Britain and France intend to allow Danzig to remain a League of Nations-administered city (as opposed to simply letting Poland annex it)? If so, then this could create the possibility of Germany once again demanding to annex Danzig a couple of decades (or more) later.
I'm not aware Poland ever attempted to annex Danzig and am skeptical
Britain and France would have supported them if they had tried.
Sure, but before 1939, Germany never actually invaded and occupied Poland; thus, Poland might want some compensation from Germany for invading it and for causing a lot of property and infrastructure damage there. Of course, I expect Germany to vehemently refuse to offer compensation to Poland unless Germany is allowed to keep its 1914 eastern borders (in which case paying compensation to Poland can be used as a bargaining chip by Germany).
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria, the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the new German government might think that they are entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not completely sure that Britain and France will agree with them on this. What are your thoughts on this, Rich?
Highly unlikely. They would probably insist on the 1 Jan 1938
boundaries meaning no Anschluss but allowing Germany to keep troops in
the Rhineland. (Basically enforcing the Versailles settlement in the
west at least territorially if not financially)
OK, but this raises a couple of interesting questions:

1. What exactly are Britain and France going to do a couple of decades (or more) afterwards if/when Austria will insist on rejoining the German Reich?

After all, without our TL's massive damage which Austria endured as a result of Nazism and without the extermination of almost all of the Jews who remained in Austria, there might be *much* more support within Austria in favor of remaining united with Germany (and this is assuming that Britain and France manage to convince Germany to withdraw from Austria in the first place, something which Germany is virtually guaranteed to extremely strongly resist).

2. Is Britain's and France's position on this going to be inflexible, or would they have been willing to compromise on these demands of theirs?
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any reparations and/or any territories (such as the Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or for Poland)? No--correct?
Also highly unlikely.
OK.
Post by The Horny Goat
The real question is whether in this scenario there would have been an
attempt to revive the League of Nations which was pretty much
emasculated after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. I think there is
actually quite a good chance of this given that this non-Nazi Germany
would not be allied to Italy or Japan.
Let's figure out what happens with the post-World War II peace negotiations in the West and with World War II in the east in this TL first. ;) Then we can discuss all of this afterwards. :)
Post by The Horny Goat
For what it's worth there was a last meeting of the League of Nations
in 1946 (Geneva if memory serves) but that was only for the remaining
members to sign the paperwork legally transferring the remaining
assets of the League of Nations assets to the United Nations. It was
NOT a long meeting!
Yes, I think that I have previously read about that League of Nations meeting.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 05:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Again--in this TL, the new, non-Nazi German government will want to restore *Germany's* 1914 eastern borders; it wouldn't care too much about whether Russia's/the Soviet Union's border is the Curzon Line or the 1914 borders. If the Soviet Union's border will remain the Curzon Line while Germany is allowed to keep its 1914 eastern borders, though, then a relatively small independent Poland can exist in the areas/territories which are located between the Curzon Line and Germany's 1914 eastern borders.
Post by The Horny Goat
Also, what happens to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in your scenario?
I would presume that Stalin would be allowed to keep them, no?
My point is that Stalin took them during OTL's invasion of France.
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
(One assumes the Germans retain Memel given they had it pre-1914 and
forced the Lithuanians to cede it in 1939)
Yes, the new, non-Nazi German government in this scenario will certainly try extremely hard to have Germany keep Memel as well. However, it would probably place a *much* higher priority on ensuring that Germany's 1914 eastern borders are restored.
Please re-read what I said - Memel was German before 1914.
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm not aware Poland ever attempted to annex Danzig and am skeptical
Britain and France would have supported them if they had tried.
Sure, but before 1939, Germany never actually invaded and occupied Poland; thus, Poland might want some compensation from Germany for invading it and for causing a lot of property and infrastructure damage there. Of course, I expect Germany to vehemently refuse to offer compensation to Poland unless Germany is allowed to keep its 1914 eastern borders (in which case paying compensation to Poland can be used as a bargaining chip by Germany).
That makes no sense - Danzig was German before 1914 and if you're
talking about a rump Poland between the German 1914 frontier and the
Curzon line Danzig would be more than 100 miles from "Polish"
territory.
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria, the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the new German government might think that they are entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not completely sure that Britain and France will agree with them on this. What are your thoughts on this, Rich?
Highly unlikely. They would probably insist on the 1 Jan 1938
boundaries meaning no Anschluss but allowing Germany to keep troops in
the Rhineland. (Basically enforcing the Versailles settlement in the
west at least territorially if not financially)
1. What exactly are Britain and France going to do a couple of decades (or more) afterwards if/when Austria will insist on rejoining the German Reich?
In both the 1919 Versailles and St. Germain treaties (i.e. the
respective treaties with Germany and Austria) anschluss was
specifically prohibited. You can find the text of both treaties online
and if you need my help to find the appropriate sections ask away.
Post by WolfBear
After all, without our TL's massive damage which Austria endured as a result of Nazism and without the extermination of almost all of the Jews who remained in Austria, there might be *much* more support within Austria in favor of remaining united with Germany (and this is assuming that Britain and France manage to convince Germany to withdraw from Austria in the first place, something which Germany is virtually guaranteed to extremely strongly resist).
2. Is Britain's and France's position on this going to be inflexible, or would they have been willing to compromise on these demands of theirs?
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any reparations and/or any territories (such as the Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or for Poland)? No--correct?
Also highly unlikely.
OK.
Post by The Horny Goat
The real question is whether in this scenario there would have been an
attempt to revive the League of Nations which was pretty much
emasculated after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. I think there is
actually quite a good chance of this given that this non-Nazi Germany
would not be allied to Italy or Japan.
Let's figure out what happens with the post-World War II peace negotiations in the West and with World War II in the east in this TL first. ;) Then we can discuss all of this afterwards. :)
Post by The Horny Goat
For what it's worth there was a last meeting of the League of Nations
in 1946 (Geneva if memory serves) but that was only for the remaining
members to sign the paperwork legally transferring the remaining
assets of the League of Nations assets to the United Nations. It was
NOT a long meeting!
Yes, I think that I have previously read about that League of Nations meeting.
Bradipus
2015-03-24 17:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm not sure the date Italy declared war but it was after
the Wehrmacht reached Abbeville cutting off most of the BEF
and a huge chunk of the French army north of the Somme.
Obviously there would be no North African campaign without
Italy in the war.
June 10 1940.
--
Bradipus
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-24 08:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
And there are issues about
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.
Well, any suggestions in regards to this on your
part would certainly be very welcomed. :)
At some point strategic bombing is going to start.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary?
The Soviet Union successfully bullies Romania to
give up Moldova in mid-1940. In regards to Hungary,
I would assume that Hungary would comfortably sit on
its butt, no? After all, what exactly is Hungary
supposed to do? Go to war with Romania over
Transylvania and risk getting its butt kicked by
Romania just like it did in 1919?
Hungary was in disorder in 1918-1919; it's not now.
Romania is being shoved around by the USSR; Hungary
wants its piece of the pie.
Post by WolfBear
I don't think that Japan would invade French
Indochina in this scenario, but it might invade the
Dutch East Indies during this time instead...
Can't. The DEI is Allied territory, supporting the
war against Hitler.
Post by WolfBear
Do you have any better suggestions on what exactly
Japan does during this time?
The China war continues, the U.S. and the Allies
embargo oil, and Japan is up against it. With
Italy neutral and France still in the war, Japan
_probably_ does not dare attack SE Asia.

_If_ Japan flinches, and is compelled to withdraw
from China... But I don't know how that plays out
internally in Japan.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
At the start of Fall GELB, most Germans expected it
to fail, leading to another stalemate like 1914-1918.
Yes, very possibly.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If it does, they (almost everyone in Germany except
Hitler and his fanboys) will want to get out of the war.
The sooner they act, the better deal they can get.
The Allies will not expect or get unconditional surrender,
or anything remotely like 1918-1919.
Yes, but again, they might want to make sure that
the situation on the Western Front is a genuine
stalemate as opposed to a mere temporary setback for
Germany...
Once the front is stabilized, it's 1914 all over again
and they know how that turned out.
Post by WolfBear
Don't get me wrong, though--the coup plotters will
certainly eventually act, possibly as early as early
1941; however, I think that a serious coup attempt
against Hitler and the Nazis would not occur before,
say, the winter of 1940-1941 at the very earliest.
Perhaps. But a lot sooner than 1942 or 1943.
Post by WolfBear
1. Did Britain and France intend to allow Danzig to
remain a League of Nations-administered city (as
opposed to simply letting Poland annex it)? If so,
then this could create the possibility of Germany
once again demanding to annex Danzig a couple of
decades (or more) later.
2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria,
the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in
Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the
new German government might think that they are
entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not
completely sure that Britain and France will agree
with them on this. What are your thoughts on this,
Rich?
The Schwarze Kapelle thought Germany should keep
Austria and the Sudetenland and maybe Bohemia.
The Allies would want the restoration of Austria
and Czechoslovakia.

This could be negotiated. The Germans don't have
Slovakia; it's a nominally independent satellite,
and part of its territory has been seized by
Hungary.
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any
reparations and/or any territories (such as the
Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or
for Poland)? No--correct?
Territory, no; reparations, yes. This will be at
least a negotiating point.

However - one reason for neo-Germany to agree to
fully restored Poland is that it makes the USSR
an aggressor state - the only one in Europe,
really.

It also allows them to portray Hitler as a
reckless fool, who invited the Red Army to
Mitteleuropa and joined the USSR in destroying
the powerful state that was Germany's eastern
buffer.

WIth some cunning maneuvers, Germany could
reposition as an ally of Britain and France against
the USSR on behalf of Poland.

In which all the embargos and blockades go away.
Big win for Germany.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 02:44:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
And there are issues about
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.
Well, any suggestions in regards to this on your
part would certainly be very welcomed. :)
At some point strategic bombing is going to start.
Yes, but will it be anywhere near as successful as it was in our TL without the U.S. being involved and with most of the Luftwaffe probably still being stationed on the Western Front (as opposed to the Eastern Front, which I am presuming was the case in our TL)? Also, it is worth noting that, as far as I know, even in our TL, in spite of the strategic bombing campaign, Germany was able to *increase* its armaments production all the way up to some point in 1944!
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, what happens in the Balkans with Romania
and Hungary?
The Soviet Union successfully bullies Romania to
give up Moldova in mid-1940. In regards to Hungary,
I would assume that Hungary would comfortably sit on
its butt, no? After all, what exactly is Hungary
supposed to do? Go to war with Romania over
Transylvania and risk getting its butt kicked by
Romania just like it did in 1919?
Hungary was in disorder in 1918-1919; it's not now.
Romania is being shoved around by the USSR; Hungary
wants its piece of the pie.
But unless the Soviet Union agrees to intervene on Hungary's behalf, I don't think that Hungary would be able to defeat Romania in a one-on-one war; after all, as far as I know, Romania was about two times more populous than Hungary was back then, and I don't think that Hungary was more industrialized (or at least much more industrialized) than Romania was back then. If Horthy (Hungary's leader) is able to get Stalin on board, though, then the two of them might invade Romania in 1940 or in 1941, with Horthy conquering either Northern Transylvania or all of Transylvania while Stalin turns the rest of Romania into a Soviet puppet state.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
I don't think that Japan would invade French
Indochina in this scenario, but it might invade the
Dutch East Indies during this time instead...
Can't. The DEI is Allied territory, supporting the
war against Hitler.
Oh yeah! The Netherlands are already occupied by Nazi Germany and thus the Dutch government-in-exile would by default be on the Allied (Britain and France) side. If so, then this doesn't exactly leave much options for Japan, now does it? I suppose that Japan could try conquering Thailand (do you have any better suggestions for this?), but logistics might be a large problem for Japan if it ever actually attempts to do this. Thoughts on this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Do you have any better suggestions on what exactly
Japan does during this time?
The China war continues,
OK.

the U.S. and the Allies
Post by Rich Rostrom
embargo oil, and Japan is up against it. With
Italy neutral and France still in the war, Japan
_probably_ does not dare attack SE Asia.
Would the U.S. and Allies have the nerve to actually impose on oil embargo on Japan over China, though?
Post by Rich Rostrom
_If_ Japan flinches, and is compelled to withdraw
from China... But I don't know how that plays out
internally in Japan.
This raises the question, though--if Japan begins withdrawing from China, would it still be allowed to keep its Manchurian puppet state? This is just a guess on my part, but maybe this could be the "deal-breaker" for Japan in this scenario.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
At the start of Fall GELB, most Germans expected it
to fail, leading to another stalemate like 1914-1918.
Yes, very possibly.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If it does, they (almost everyone in Germany except
Hitler and his fanboys) will want to get out of the war.
The sooner they act, the better deal they can get.
The Allies will not expect or get unconditional surrender,
or anything remotely like 1918-1919.
Yes, but again, they might want to make sure that
the situation on the Western Front is a genuine
stalemate as opposed to a mere temporary setback for
Germany...
Once the front is stabilized, it's 1914 all over again
and they know how that turned out.
Yes, though to be fair, though, unlike in 1914-1917, Germany doesn't have to simultaneously fight on two fronts in this scenario (yet, at least).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Don't get me wrong, though--the coup plotters will
certainly eventually act, possibly as early as early
1941; however, I think that a serious coup attempt
against Hitler and the Nazis would not occur before,
say, the winter of 1940-1941 at the very earliest.
Perhaps. But a lot sooner than 1942 or 1943.
I am now tempted to *agree* with you on this (unless for some reason their first serious coup attempt fails, but I don't want their first serious coup attempt in this TL to fail).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
1. Did Britain and France intend to allow Danzig to
remain a League of Nations-administered city (as
opposed to simply letting Poland annex it)? If so,
then this could create the possibility of Germany
once again demanding to annex Danzig a couple of
decades (or more) later.
2. Are Britain and France going to bring up Austria,
the Sudetenland, and/or the German puppet states in
Czechia and Slovakia in these peace talks? While the
new German government might think that they are
entitled to keep all of these territories, I am not
completely sure that Britain and France will agree
with them on this. What are your thoughts on this,
Rich?
The Schwarze Kapelle thought Germany should keep
Austria and the Sudetenland and maybe Bohemia.
The Allies would want the restoration of Austria
and Czechoslovakia.
By restoration of Czechoslovakia, do you mean to its 1937 borders?
Post by Rich Rostrom
This could be negotiated.
What exactly would both sides be willing to agree on? I don't think that the Allies would allow Germany to keep Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia) due to its *overwhelmingly* non-ethnically German population, but would the Allies be willing to agree to a plebiscite for the Sudetenland and to a new, completely free and fair plebiscite for Austria? Germany might be willing to agree to these two plebiscites if it thinks that it has good chances of winning both of them.

The Germans don't have
Post by Rich Rostrom
Slovakia; it's a nominally independent satellite,
and part of its territory has been seized by
Hungary.
Were any German troops actually stationed in Slovakia during this time, though?

Also, in regards to Hungary, I am unsure if the Allies would be willing to do anything meaningful in regards to reversing its territorial acquisitions (in Slovakia and maybe in Romania as well).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any
reparations and/or any territories (such as the
Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or
for Poland)? No--correct?
Territory, no; reparations, yes. This will be at
least a negotiating point.
OK; in regards to reparations, though, are Britain and France "only" going to insist that Germany resume paying its World War I reparations? Or are they going to demand more reparations than that?
Post by Rich Rostrom
However - one reason for neo-Germany to agree to
fully restored Poland is that it makes the USSR
an aggressor state - the only one in Europe,
really.
Sure, but this is compensated by the fact that the "intolerable" pre-1939 German-Polish border will be restored (which I think has been described as a border which "no German can accept").
Post by Rich Rostrom
It also allows them to portray Hitler as a
reckless fool, who invited the Red Army to
Mitteleuropa and joined the USSR in destroying
the powerful state that was Germany's eastern
buffer.
This might only work if they are permanently able to hide the fact that at least some of them also supported the 1939 German invasion of Poland, though. If this information ever leaks out, then it could make them look like opportunistic militarists who had no problem with German aggression in itself and who only overthrew Hitler and the Nazis when Germany actually began losing in an effort to allow Germany to keep as much of its territorial conquests and gains as possible. In fact, if this is the impression which some/many British and/or French policymakers would have already had of the German coup plotters at the time of his coup's success, then an effort on their part to blame everything on Hitler might be very unconvincing to Britain and France.
Post by Rich Rostrom
With some cunning maneuvers, Germany could
reposition as an ally of Britain and France against
the USSR on behalf of Poland.
Germany can certainly try doing this, but I am unsure that it will actually (fully) succeed in doing this (and this would be especially true if the fact that at least some of the Junkers actually *supported* Hitler's 1939 invasion to Poland ever becomes publicized).
Post by Rich Rostrom
In which all the embargos and blockades go away.
Big win for Germany.
How long would Britain and France be willing and able to sustain embargoes on Germany for, though? After all, as far as I know, even the sanctions regime on Saddam Hussein began collapsing before 9/11 (about a decade after the end of the Gulf War) in our TL.

Also, two additional questions:

1. In your honest opinion, would Britain and France demand that democracy be restored in Germany after the end of this TL's World War II? After all, if the Nazis and maybe the Communists will be banned from participating in German elections, then a democratic German government might not be any worse for the Allies than Junker-dominated German military dictatorship is. Indeed, it might even be perceived as being better for the Allies if the Allies already viewed the Junkers and "Prussian militarism" to be almost as much of a problem for Germany as Nazism is.

2. Are Britain and France going to insist that Hitler and the other top Nazis (if the German coup plotters did not already kill them themselves) be handed over to them so that they can be put on trial (with large publicity, as was the case in the Nuremberg Trials in our TL)? Also, are the Allies going to demand a more thorough war crimes investigation if the Nazis unfortunately already begin killing Jews en masse (very possibly in Babi Yar-style mass shootings) before they are overthrown at some point in 1941? Thoughts on this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 09:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
And there are issues about
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.
Well, any suggestions in regards to this on your
part would certainly be very welcomed. :)
At some point strategic bombing is going to start.
Yes, but will it be anywhere near as successful as
it was in our TL...
When I said it would start, I didn't say by _whom_.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Hungary was in disorder in 1918-1919; it's not now.
Romania is being shoved around by the USSR; Hungary
wants its piece of the pie.
But unless the Soviet Union agrees to intervene on
Hungary's behalf...
?????
Post by WolfBear
I don't think that Hungary would be able to defeat
Romania in a one-on-one war...
Hungary thought so; the two countries were close to
war in OTL 1940-1941.
Post by WolfBear
Would the U.S. and Allies have the nerve to actually
impose on oil embargo on Japan over China, though?
They did OTL.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
_If_ Japan flinches, and is compelled to withdraw
from China... But I don't know how that plays out
internally in Japan.
This raises the question, though--if Japan begins
withdrawing from China, would it still be allowed to
keep its Manchurian puppet state? This is just a
guess on my part, but maybe this could be the
"deal-breaker" for Japan in this scenario.
There is some room for negotiation there, perhaps.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Once the front is stabilized, it's 1914 all over again
and they know how that turned out.
Yes, though to be fair, though, unlike in 1914-1917,
Germany doesn't have to simultaneously fight on two
fronts in this scenario (yet, at least).
In 1914-1918, Germany _defeated_ Russia, and lots of
Allied troops were tied up in the Middle East and
Balkans. Germany still lost.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Schwarze Kapelle thought Germany should keep
Austria and the Sudetenland and maybe Bohemia.
The Allies would want the restoration of Austria
and Czechoslovakia.
By restoration of Czechoslovakia, do you mean to its 1937 borders?
Something like that. That however implicates Hungary,
had annexed Ruthenia and southern Slovaki.
Post by WolfBear
What exactly would both sides be willing to agree on? I don't think that the Allies would allow Germany to keep Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia) due to its *overwhelmingly* non-ethnically German population, but would the Allies be willing to agree to a plebiscite for the Sudetenland and to a new, completely free and fair plebiscite for Austria? Germany might be willing to agree to these two plebiscites if it thinks that it has good chances of winning both of them.
The Germans don't have
Post by Rich Rostrom
Slovakia; it's a nominally independent satellite,
and part of its territory has been seized by
Hungary.
Were any German troops actually stationed in Slovakia during this time, though?
Also, in regards to Hungary, I am unsure if the Allies would be willing to do anything meaningful in regards to reversing its territorial acquisitions (in Slovakia and maybe in Romania as well).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any
reparations and/or any territories (such as the
Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or
for Poland)? No--correct?
Territory, no; reparations, yes. This will be at
least a negotiating point.
OK; in regards to reparations, though, are Britain
and France "only" going to insist that Germany
resume paying its World War I reparations?
The reparations had been cancelled years before.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
However - one reason for neo-Germany to agree to
fully restored Poland is that it makes the USSR
an aggressor state - the only one in Europe,
really.
Sure, but this is compensated by the fact that the
"intolerable" pre-1939 German-Polish border will be
restored (which I think has been described as a
border which "no German can accept").
They accepted it for 20 years. I think you greatly
overestimate the concern of the average German about
this issue.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
It also allows them to portray Hitler as a
reckless fool, who invited the Red Army to
Mitteleuropa and joined the USSR in destroying
the powerful state that was Germany's eastern
buffer.
This might only work if they are permanently able to
hide the fact that at least some of them also
supported the 1939 German invasion of Poland,
though.
Irrelevant. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat
is an orphan. German policy in 1939 was decreed by
Hitler. No one was allowed to disagree.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
With some cunning maneuvers, Germany could
reposition as an ally of Britain and France against
the USSR on behalf of Poland.
Germany can certainly try doing this, but I am
unsure that it will actually (fully) succeed in
doing this (and this would be especially true if the
fact that at least some of the Junkers actually
*supported* Hitler's 1939 invasion to Poland ever
becomes publicized).
??????

Who ever _doubted_ that many German militarists
were on board with Hitler's aggression???

But German policy was dictated by Hitler. If he is
removed and policy changes, who really cares about
the previous (passive) position of some supporters
of the new regime?
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
In which all the embargos and blockades go away.
Big win for Germany.
How long would Britain and France be willing and
able to sustain embargoes on Germany for, though?
As long as they want.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 20:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
And there are issues about
submarine warfare and air warfare to be considered.
Well, any suggestions in regards to this on your
part would certainly be very welcomed. :)
At some point strategic bombing is going to start.
Yes, but will it be anywhere near as successful as
it was in our TL...
When I said it would start, I didn't say by _whom_.
Are you suggesting that Germany will try bombing French and/or British cities in this TL?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Hungary was in disorder in 1918-1919; it's not now.
Romania is being shoved around by the USSR; Hungary
wants its piece of the pie.
But unless the Soviet Union agrees to intervene on
Hungary's behalf...
?????
Considering that Stalin was previously willing to split Poland with Hitler, it is probably very possible that Stalin will likewise be willing to split Romania with Horthy. If Hungary and the Soviet Union gang up on Romania together, then Romania is guaranteed to be screwed.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
I don't think that Hungary would be able to defeat
Romania in a one-on-one war...
Hungary thought so; the two countries were close to
war in OTL 1940-1941.
Did Hungary have this view before or after the Fall of France (or both before and after the Fall of France) in our TL, though?

Also, why exactly did Hungary have this view? What advantages over Romania did Hungary think it had back then?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Would the U.S. and Allies have the nerve to actually
impose on oil embargo on Japan over China, though?
They did OTL.
I was under the impression that the Western blockade against Japan in our TL was over French Indochina, rather than China; am I wrong in regards to this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
_If_ Japan flinches, and is compelled to withdraw
from China... But I don't know how that plays out
internally in Japan.
This raises the question, though--if Japan begins
withdrawing from China, would it still be allowed to
keep its Manchurian puppet state? This is just a
guess on my part, but maybe this could be the
"deal-breaker" for Japan in this scenario.
There is some room for negotiation there, perhaps.
If Japan is allowed to keep Manchuria, then maybe, just maybe, it will agree to withdraw from the rest of China.

Also, though, if Japan decides to invade Thailand, what do you think Japan's odds of success would be? On one hand, logistics might be a huge problem for Japan in successfully doing this, but on the other hand, Japan was the most modern and industrialized country in Asia during this time.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Once the front is stabilized, it's 1914 all over again
and they know how that turned out.
Yes, though to be fair, though, unlike in 1914-1917,
Germany doesn't have to simultaneously fight on two
fronts in this scenario (yet, at least).
In 1914-1918, Germany _defeated_ Russia, and lots of
Allied troops were tied up in the Middle East and
Balkans. Germany still lost.
Yes, this is correct, though one might make a decent case that Germany only lost World War I due to the U.S. entry into this war and that without the U.S. entry into World War I, Germany would have either outright won World War I or, perhaps more likely, won World War I in the east while maintaining a stalemate in the West (which eventually results in a status quo ante bellum peace in the West while Germany keeps most or all of its Eastern conquests and puppet states).

In this TL, the U.S. is not involved in World War II yet and has no plans to enter World War II, at least for a very long time.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Schwarze Kapelle thought Germany should keep
Austria and the Sudetenland and maybe Bohemia.
The Allies would want the restoration of Austria
and Czechoslovakia.
By restoration of Czechoslovakia, do you mean to its 1937 borders?
Something like that. That however implicates Hungary,
had annexed Ruthenia and southern Slovakia.
That also implicates Poland considering that, as far as I know, Poland also snatched a tiny part of Czechoslovakia for itself.

Also, your point here raises an interesting question--what exactly would Britain and France be willing to do in regards to the Hungarian annexations of parts of former Czechoslovakia? Hungary might be willing to withdraw from Subcarpathian Ruthenia, but it might strongly demand that it should be allowed to permanently keep southern Slovakia due to the overwhelming ethnic Hungarian majority there. What would Britain's and France's respond to such a Hungarian offer be?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
What exactly would both sides be willing to agree on? I don't think that the Allies would allow Germany to keep Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia) due to its *overwhelmingly* non-ethnically German population, but would the Allies be willing to agree to a plebiscite for the Sudetenland and to a new, completely free and fair plebiscite for Austria? Germany might be willing to agree to these two plebiscites if it thinks that it has good chances of winning both of them.
The Germans don't have
Post by Rich Rostrom
Slovakia; it's a nominally independent satellite,
and part of its territory has been seized by
Hungary.
Were any German troops actually stationed in Slovakia during this time, though?
Also, in regards to Hungary, I am unsure if the Allies would be willing to do anything meaningful in regards to reversing its territorial acquisitions (in Slovakia and maybe in Romania as well).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
3. Are Britain and France going to demand any
reparations and/or any territories (such as the
Saar(land)) from Germany (either for themselves or
for Poland)? No--correct?
Territory, no; reparations, yes. This will be at
least a negotiating point.
OK; in regards to reparations, though, are Britain
and France "only" going to insist that Germany
resume paying its World War I reparations?
The reparations had been cancelled years before.
Yes, but Britain and France might demand a cancellation of this cancellation as a punishment for Germany's bad behavior in invading Poland in 1939.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
However - one reason for neo-Germany to agree to
fully restored Poland is that it makes the USSR
an aggressor state - the only one in Europe,
really.
Sure, but this is compensated by the fact that the
"intolerable" pre-1939 German-Polish border will be
restored (which I think has been described as a
border which "no German can accept").
They accepted it for 20 years. I think you greatly
overestimate the concern of the average German about
this issue.
I am not completely sure about the average German, but it is worth noting that, as far as I know, *every* government in Weimar Germany had a long-term goal of revising the "intolerable" German-Polish border; in turn, this is why Weimar Germany *refused* to give up the option of a long-term revision of its eastern borders in the 1920s Locarno Treaties. After all, there is a very large difference between acknowledging current reality (that the German-Polish border looks like this today) and permanently giving up the option of demanding a revision of this border.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
It also allows them to portray Hitler as a
reckless fool, who invited the Red Army to
Mitteleuropa and joined the USSR in destroying
the powerful state that was Germany's eastern
buffer.
This might only work if they are permanently able to
hide the fact that at least some of them also
supported the 1939 German invasion of Poland,
though.
Irrelevant. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat
is an orphan. German policy in 1939 was decreed by
Hitler. No one was allowed to disagree.
Fair enough, I suppose (unless they wanted to get fired, et cetera).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
With some cunning maneuvers, Germany could
reposition as an ally of Britain and France against
the USSR on behalf of Poland.
Germany can certainly try doing this, but I am
unsure that it will actually (fully) succeed in
doing this (and this would be especially true if the
fact that at least some of the Junkers actually
*supported* Hitler's 1939 invasion to Poland ever
becomes publicized).
??????
Who ever _doubted_ that many German militarists
were on board with Hitler's aggression???
But German policy was dictated by Hitler. If he is
removed and policy changes, who really cares about
the previous (passive) position of some supporters
of the new regime?
Well, this could be a concern to the Allies if they genuinely believe that Germany's new leadership only turned on Hitler due to the fact that he was losing; after all, if the Allies believe this, then they could also believe that Germany's new leadership can also engage in aggression against its neighbors in the future if it will think that it has a good chance of getting away with it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
In which all the embargos and blockades go away.
Big win for Germany.
How long would Britain and France be willing and
able to sustain embargoes on Germany for, though?
As long as they want.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-26 17:07:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Schwarze Kapelle thought Germany should keep
Austria and the Sudetenland and maybe Bohemia.
The Allies would want the restoration of Austria
and Czechoslovakia.
By restoration of Czechoslovakia, do you mean to its 1937 borders?
Something like that. That however implicates Hungary,
had annexed Ruthenia and southern Slovakia.
That also implicates Poland considering that, as far as I know, Poland also snatched a tiny part of Czechoslovakia for itself.
Don't be confused with the size. IIRC, after being snatched, this area amounted
to more than 40% of the Polish metallurgy.
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-27 02:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Don't be confused with the size. IIRC, after being
snatched, this area amounted to more than 40% of the
Polish metallurgy.
Cite? Not that it's impossible, but there was considerable
industry in upper Silesia, of which a large share lay in
Poland after 1919. And there was _some_ industry in other
areas of Poland, and Teschen was a really small area...
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-27 12:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Don't be confused with the size. IIRC, after being
snatched, this area amounted to more than 40% of the
Polish metallurgy.
Cite?
http://ww2.debello.ca/last/riddle/hyena.html

"In result, on 1 October, Czechoslovakia had to surrender to Poland a territory inhabited by 80 thousand Poles and 120 thousand Czechs. But the most valuable acquisition was the industrial potential of the annexed territory. For example, iron works, concentrated there, alone by the end of 1938 produced 41% of the entire Poland's output of cast iron, and 47% of steel."
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not that it's impossible, but there was considerable
industry in upper Silesia, of which a large share lay in
Poland after 1919. And there was _some_ industry in other
areas of Poland, and Teschen was a really small area...
I was somewhat surprised myself and, as you understand, I can neither
deny nor confirm the numbers [1] but, IIRC, in 1930's Poland had serious
problems with the economy so adding a highly industrialized area of
one of the most economically advanced countries in Europe may had an
impact disproportionally big comparing to the size of a territory.

--------------------
[1] Based on the portrait placed left of the site's header, I have some
sneaky suspicions about the political inclinations of the author(s)
and especially about their origin but this does not necessarily
mean that the numbers and facts are seriously distorted.
Bradipus
2015-03-27 18:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Not that it's impossible, but there was considerable
industry in upper Silesia, of which a large share lay in
Poland after 1919. And there was some industry in other
areas of Poland, and Teschen was a really small area...
I was somewhat surprised myself and, as you understand, I can
neither deny nor confirm the numbers [1] but, IIRC, in 1930's
Poland had serious problems with the economy so adding a
highly industrialized area of one of the most economically
advanced countries in Europe may had an impact
disproportionally big comparing to the size of a territory.
Imagine Canada annexes Detroit...
--
Bradipus
Bradipus
2015-03-25 22:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
I don't think that Hungary would be able to defeat
Romania in a one-on-one war...
Hungary thought so; the two countries were close to
war in OTL 1940-1941.
It's interesting that on the Russian front on the Don river
there was the Italian Army between Hungarian Army and Romanian
Armies.
--
Bradipus
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 01:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:03:48 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
As far as I know, some opponents of Hitler (Halder,
Tresckow, et cetera) were indeed genuinely concerned
about creating a Stab-in-the-Back Myth 2.0. I am
willing to move the timing of this coup to 1941...
Which is why as early as their meeting at Argentia Bay (note: BEFORE
Pearl Harbor) FDR and Churchill determined that there could be be no
peace with Germany until Allied troops were on German soil - they had
seen how THAT worked out in 1918 where as early as December 1918 Ebert
told the troops passing in review in Berlin that they had not been
defeated.

The point is Chancellor Friedrich Ebert was about the last German
politician one would ever call a nationalist fanatic so if HE was
saying that in 1918 what do you think the hard core nationalists like
the DNVP were saying?

With respect to the Argentia Bay meeting, the doctrine of
unconditional surrender came rather later.
WolfBear
2015-03-24 02:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:03:48 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
As far as I know, some opponents of Hitler (Halder,
Tresckow, et cetera) were indeed genuinely concerned
about creating a Stab-in-the-Back Myth 2.0. I am
willing to move the timing of this coup to 1941...
Which is why as early as their meeting at Argentia Bay (note: BEFORE
Pearl Harbor) FDR and Churchill determined that there could be be no
peace with Germany until Allied troops were on German soil - they had
seen how THAT worked out in 1918 where as early as December 1918 Ebert
told the troops passing in review in Berlin that they had not been
defeated.
The point is Chancellor Friedrich Ebert was about the last German
politician one would ever call a nationalist fanatic so if HE was
saying that in 1918 what do you think the hard core nationalists like
the DNVP were saying?
With respect to the Argentia Bay meeting, the doctrine of
unconditional surrender came rather later.
Two points:

1. That meeting occurred after the Fall of France; thus, even if you are correct about what was said at that meeting, it is worth noting that back then it was already widely believed that the U.S. would eventually have to enter World War II. Thus, it is possible that the Allied troops on German soil requirement was an idea of FDR's and that Churchill would not have embraced it if it wasn't for the Fall of France. In this TL, France never falls, and thus, the role of the U.S. would be less.

2. In regards to Ebert, Yes, I have heard that quote of his before; when your leader tells you that your troops have been "undefeated in the field" but your country is still treated as a defeated country, then I can see why some gullible people would have come to the conclusion that they were stabbed in the back. Of course, to be fair to Ebert, I suppose that he could respond to this by saying that while the German Army was "undefeated in the field", Germany was starved into submission by the British blockade and that this is why Germany was forced to agree to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles.
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 04:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by The Horny Goat
With respect to the Argentia Bay meeting, the doctrine of
unconditional surrender came rather later.
1. That meeting occurred after the Fall of France; thus, even if you are correct about what was said at that meeting, it is worth noting that back then it was already widely believed that the U.S. would eventually have to enter World War II. Thus, it is possible that the Allied troops on German soil requirement was an idea of FDR's and that Churchill would not have embraced it if it wasn't for the Fall of France. In this TL, France never falls, and thus, the role of the U.S. would be less.
My whole point was that FDR and Churchill understood all too well that
there could not be another 'stab in the back' belief if long-term
peace with Germany was to be maintained and that the fact that German
stopped fighting while still on enemy soil
Post by WolfBear
2. In regards to Ebert, Yes, I have heard that quote of his before; when your leader tells you that your troops have been "undefeated in the field" but your country is still treated as a defeated country, then I can see why some gullible people would have come to the conclusion that they were stabbed in the back. Of course, to be fair to Ebert, I suppose that he could respond to this by saying that while the German Army was "undefeated in the field", Germany was starved into submission by the British blockade and that this is why Germany was forced to agree to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles.
The point about Ebert was that that was the kind of thing an
arch-nationalist might have said but Ebert was a socialist and a
pacifist. The true arch-nationalists would have ALREADY been talking
about the stab in the back by then! (And again - we are talking about
December 1918 when the shooting had barely stopped no more than 6
weeks previously)
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-23 22:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Another point which I forgot: ITTL, while Germany is
fighting in the west, the USSR is camped on Germany's
eastern border with enormous forces.

The USSR is Germany's "friend", but no one trusts
Stalin. Thus it will be urgent for Germany to end
the war in the west ASAP, and prepare for war in
the east.

The longer the war in the west continues, the
greater the danger of a Soviet onslaught against
weakly defended eastern Germany.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-23 23:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Another point which I forgot: ITTL, while Germany is
fighting in the west, the USSR is camped on Germany's
eastern border with enormous forces.
Yes, this appears to be correct.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR is Germany's "friend", but no one trusts
Stalin. Thus it will be urgent for Germany to end
the war in the west ASAP, and prepare for war in
the east.
Agreed.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The longer the war in the west continues, the
greater the danger of a Soviet onslaught against
weakly defended eastern Germany.
Agreed.

However, here is an important question: What exactly is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West, fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland (if the Polish government-in-exile is unwilling to recognize Germany's claim to its 1914 eastern borders, then Germany can simply let the Bolsheviks have/keep all of the parts of Poland which are located beyond Germany's 1914 borders). Thoughts on this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-23 23:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
*What exactly is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West, fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland (...)?

(I previously forgot to place a question mark at the end of this question.)
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 01:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
*What exactly is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West, fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland (...)?
(I previously forgot to place a question mark at the end of this question.)
If both Germany and the Soviets have the 1914 boundaries as you
suggest there is not exactly much space for Poland!
WolfBear
2015-03-24 02:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by WolfBear
*What exactly is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West, fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland (...)?
(I previously forgot to place a question mark at the end of this question.)
If both Germany and the Soviets have the 1914 boundaries as you
suggest there is not exactly much space for Poland!
I want to clarify this part--Germany will want to keep its 1914 borders in the east. In order to achieve this, Germany can offer the Polish government-in-exile to withdraw from all Polish territory between Germany's 1914 borders and the Curzon Line; this would allow a Polish state to be re-created, but this Polish state would be significant smaller than it was before 1939. If the Polish government-in-exile rejects this German offer, then Germany can simply let the Soviet Union keep most of Poland on the condition that the Soviet Union will recognize German sovereignty over all of the eastern territory which previously belonged to Germany in 1914 (this territory includes the Polish Corridor, Danzig, the Posen area, and eastern Upper Silesia). In such a scenario (where Britain and France have already made peace with Germany by that point in time, as per Rich Rostrom's suggestion), Britain and France might not be willing and/or able to do anything meaningful to stop this; after all, are they going to go to war with Germany again so soon after they made peace with Germany?
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-24 08:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
I want to clarify this part--Germany will want to
keep its 1914 borders in the east. In order to
achieve this, Germany can offer the Polish
government-in-exile to withdraw from all Polish
territory between Germany's 1914 borders and the
Curzon Line; this would allow a Polish state to be
re-created, but this Polish state would be
significant smaller than it was before 1939.
This is not going to fly. Whatever case Germany had
for territorial adjustments in the east went poof
when Germany attacked Poland.

The Allies would demand German withdrawal from all
of Poland. They _might_ agree to a plebescite for
Danzig (which everyone knows means annexation by
Germany).
Post by WolfBear
If the Polish government-in-exile rejects this
German offer, then Germany can simply let the Soviet
Union keep most of Poland on the condition that the
Soviet Union will recognize German sovereignty over
all of the eastern territory which previously
belonged to Germany in 1914 (this territory includes
the Polish Corridor, Danzig, the Posen area, and
eastern Upper Silesia).
This just makes Germany complicit in Soviet aggression
against Poland, and again, the Allies cannot accept this.
Post by WolfBear
In such a scenario (where Britain and France have
already made peace with Germany by that point in
time, as per Rich Rostrom's suggestion), Britain and
France might not be willing and/or able to do
anything meaningful to stop this; after all, are
they going to go to war with Germany again so soon
after they made peace with Germany?
There will be no peace with the western Allies until
Germany agrees to withdraw completely from Poland.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 01:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
I want to clarify this part--Germany will want to
keep its 1914 borders in the east. In order to
achieve this, Germany can offer the Polish
government-in-exile to withdraw from all Polish
territory between Germany's 1914 borders and the
Curzon Line; this would allow a Polish state to be
re-created, but this Polish state would be
significant smaller than it was before 1939.
This is not going to fly. Whatever case Germany had
for territorial adjustments in the east went poof
when Germany attacked Poland.
In the mind of Britain and France, sure; of course, Germany might beg to differ on this. Are Britain and France willing to endure the amount of bleeding which it might take to force Germany to accept their view on this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Allies would demand German withdrawal from all
of Poland. They _might_ agree to a plebescite for
Danzig (which everyone knows means annexation by
Germany).
If they will end up being willing to agree to a plebiscite in Danzig, though, then Germany use the Wilsonian principle of national self-determination and thus might demand plebiscites in all other "disputed" areas under its control as well (such as the Polish Corridor, Posen, Eupen-Malmedy, and if Britain and France insist, Austria (a new plebiscite), the Sudetenland, and/or the Memelland as well; Upper Silesia and Schleswig-Holstein already held plebiscites shortly after World War I and thus probably wouldn't work for this). Would Britain and France be willing to agree to all of this? Would their people be willing to continue dying if Germany offers to settle all of its territorial disputes via plebiscite?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
If the Polish government-in-exile rejects this
German offer, then Germany can simply let the Soviet
Union keep most of Poland on the condition that the
Soviet Union will recognize German sovereignty over
all of the eastern territory which previously
belonged to Germany in 1914 (this territory includes
the Polish Corridor, Danzig, the Posen area, and
eastern Upper Silesia).
This just makes Germany complicit in Soviet aggression
against Poland, and again, the Allies cannot accept this.
To be fair, though, Germany could ask the Allies what exactly they intend to do about the Soviet conquest of Eastern Poland after they make peace with Germany; if the Allies will respond along the lines of "Nothing", then Germany can try denouncing the Allies as hypocrites.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
In such a scenario (where Britain and France have
already made peace with Germany by that point in
time, as per Rich Rostrom's suggestion), Britain and
France might not be willing and/or able to do
anything meaningful to stop this; after all, are
they going to go to war with Germany again so soon
after they made peace with Germany?
There will be no peace with the western Allies until
Germany agrees to withdraw completely from Poland.
And how much British and French lives are the British and French governments willing to pay to ensure that such a peace is actually implemented? As many British and French lives as it takes to do this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-24 08:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
However, here is an important question: What exactly
is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West,
fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a
restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally
recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland
(if the Polish government-in-exile is unwilling to
recognize Germany's claim to its 1914 eastern
borders, then Germany can simply let the Bolsheviks
have/keep all of the parts of Poland which are
located beyond Germany's 1914 borders). Thoughts on
this?
The western Allies will not make peace unless Germany
agrees to withdraw from all of Poland. That was the
whole point of the war.

As for giving more Polish territory to the USSR, that's
right out too. If nothing else, it brings the Red Horde
much closer to the Fatherland. It also renews the
German alliance with the USSR, reiterating Germany's
outlaw status.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 02:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
However, here is an important question: What exactly
is to prevent Germany from making peace in the West,
fighting the Soviet Union, and then getting a
restoration of its 1914 eastern borders formally
recognized either by the Soviet Union or by Poland
(if the Polish government-in-exile is unwilling to
recognize Germany's claim to its 1914 eastern
borders, then Germany can simply let the Bolsheviks
have/keep all of the parts of Poland which are
located beyond Germany's 1914 borders). Thoughts on
this?
The western Allies will not make peace unless Germany
agrees to withdraw from all of Poland. That was the
whole point of the war.
OK, but are the British and French willing to bleed themselves dry if necessary in order to accomplish this goal?
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for giving more Polish territory to the USSR, that's
right out too. If nothing else, it brings the Red Horde
much closer to the Fatherland.
That in itself might be preferable to re-establishing the "intolerable" pre-1939 German-Polish border, though; after all, if the "Red Horde" doesn't actually enter the German Fatherland, then de facto having the Soviet Union as Germany's next door neighbor might not be that much worse than having Poland as Germany's next door neighbor. Also, please keep in mind that, even in the pre-Hitler era, Germany *was* sometimes willing to cooperate with the Bolsheviks to its advantage, such as with the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo and the 1926 Treaty of Berlin, as well as with the decision to send some of the leading Bolsheviks to Russia in the first place back in 1917! While Hitler might have had a rabid hatred of Bolshevism, the new, non-Nazi German government might be more pragmatic in this regard, similar to what the German Weimar government previously did.

It also renews the
Post by Rich Rostrom
German alliance with the USSR, reiterating Germany's
outlaw status.
And what exactly would Britain and France be willing to do about this? Go to war with the Soviet Union? After all, as far as I know, Turkey was able to successfully partition Georgia with the Soviet Union in 1921 and was either mostly or completely able to avoid large negative repercussions afterwards as a result of this move. Likewise, Britain and France were willing to gradually forgive (or at least overlook) the Soviet Union's 1918 decision to sign a separate peace with Germany during World War I. Similarly, while Britain and France might be very pissed with Germany if it decides to let the Bolsheviks conquer most of Poland, Germany is too large and populous of a country for Britain and France to permanently ignore or shun; thus, even if Germany decides to throw Poland to the Bolshevik wolves, then unless Britain and France will go to war with the Soviet Union on Poland's behalf, Britain and France might eventually need to forgive or at least overlook Germany's actions in regards to this. After all, I can't imagine that Britain and France would *never* want to have large-scale economic and political cooperation with Germany afterwards.
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 09:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The western Allies will not make peace unless Germany
agrees to withdraw from all of Poland. That was the
whole point of the war.
OK, but are the British and French willing to bleed
themselves dry if necessary in order to accomplish
this goal?
They are willing to fight. There was no point in even
starting the war if the victory condition is to be
given up as soon as it gets serious.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for giving more Polish territory to the USSR, that's
right out too. If nothing else, it brings the Red Horde
much closer to the Fatherland.
That in itself might be preferable to
re-establishing the "intolerable" pre-1939
German-Polish border, though; after all, if the "Red
Horde" doesn't actually enter the German Fatherland,
then de facto having the Soviet Union as Germany's
next door neighbor might not be that much worse than
having Poland as Germany's next door neighbor.
Poland wasn't dangerous. The USSR is. Soviet armed
forces are larger and better equipped than Germany's.
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
Post by WolfBear
And what exactly would Britain and France be willing
to do about this? Go to war with the Soviet Union?
What Britain and France intended to do eventually
about the Soviet invasion of Poland is not clear.
But just accepting it would be right out.
Post by WolfBear
After all, as far as I know, Turkey was able to
successfully partition Georgia with the Soviet Union
Irrelevant. Georgia was not a sovereign state with
a signed security guarantee with Britain and France.
Post by WolfBear
Likewise, Britain and France
were willing to gradually forgive (or at least
overlook) the Soviet Union's 1918 decision to sign a
separate peace with Germany during World War I.
Even more irrelevant. Brest-Litovsk was a passive
act of submission, not an act of aggression.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2015-03-25 15:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:35:04 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Poland wasn't dangerous. The USSR is. Soviet armed
forces are larger and better equipped than Germany's.
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
Well an obvious way to get something going between Communists and
Nazis might be in response to something horrible in Spain - but there
was no large Communist party in Germany in the late 30s unless you
count the "cell" in Dachau.
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 19:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:35:04 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
Well an obvious way to get something going between Communists and
Nazis might be in response to something horrible in Spain...
Nazi-Communist street battles were commonplace
in the 1920s and early 1930s. And there were
Communist rebellions against the Weimar Republic.
Post by The Horny Goat
- but there was no large Communist party in Germany
in the late 30s unless you count the "cell" in Dachau.
In the four elections from 1930 to 1933, the KPD drew
4.5M to 6M votes. The Nazis broke up the central party
apparatus, but they didn't eliminate those voters or
change their inner loyalties (to be sure of them).

Thus the USSR posed a much more serious threat to
Germany than Poland ever could.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 19:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
- but there was no large Communist party in Germany
in the late 30s unless you count the "cell" in Dachau.
In the four elections from 1930 to 1933, the KPD drew
4.5M to 6M votes. The Nazis broke up the central party
apparatus, but they didn't eliminate those voters or
change their inner loyalties (to be sure of them).
Thus the USSR posed a much more serious threat to
Germany than Poland ever could.
--
How threatening would all of these German Communist voters have been without any effective leadership, though?
Post by Rich Rostrom
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-26 17:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:35:04 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
Well an obvious way to get something going between Communists and
Nazis might be in response to something horrible in Spain...
Nazi-Communist street battles were commonplace
in the 1920s and early 1930s. And there were
Communist rebellions against the Weimar Republic.
Yes, but IIRC, there were at least rumors about the storm troopers and
their communist equivalents getting together to beat the crap out of
the Social Democrats whom Stalin at this point declared to be the greater
enemies than the Nazis.

A notion of the world-wide revolution was also mostly gone from the Soviet
ideology by the early 1930's (which did not mean that the local commies
were not used as the spies, terrorists, etc.).
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
- but there was no large Communist party in Germany
in the late 30s unless you count the "cell" in Dachau.
In the four elections from 1930 to 1933, the KPD drew
4.5M to 6M votes. The Nazis broke up the central party
apparatus, but they didn't eliminate those voters or
change their inner loyalties (to be sure of them).
Thus the USSR posed a much more serious threat to
Germany than Poland ever could.
_Potentially_. But did they have serious mutually-contradictive
interests? Ideology was quite flexible on both sides so the serious
issue would be a conflict over the disputed territories. In OTL Stalin grabbed
more than was agreed upon in the M-R Pact and Adolph also was
too ...er... "impulsive" but by the time the Pact was concluded
Stalin claimed that ALL his territorial requirements are covered.
From a practical perspective, the considerations would be the same
as at the time of the Alliance of 3 Emperors: geographically, economically
and probably militarily as well, as long as it holds Germany is invulnerable
and Russia/the SU is invulnerable in Europe.
WolfBear
2015-03-25 19:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:35:04 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Poland wasn't dangerous. The USSR is. Soviet armed
forces are larger and better equipped than Germany's.
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
Well an obvious way to get something going between Communists and
Nazis might be in response to something horrible in Spain - but there
was no large Communist party in Germany in the late 30s unless you
count the "cell" in Dachau.
Yes--this is correct! Hitler and the Nazis have already conveniently and rather brutally gotten rid of Germany's Communist problem by 1941; plus, it is not like the new German government is going to release all of the Communists which are in German prisons and concentration camps or to allow the German Communist exiles from the Soviet Union to return to Germany.
WolfBear
2015-03-25 20:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
The western Allies will not make peace unless Germany
agrees to withdraw from all of Poland. That was the
whole point of the war.
OK, but are the British and French willing to bleed
themselves dry if necessary in order to accomplish
this goal?
They are willing to fight. There was no point in even
starting the war if the victory condition is to be
given up as soon as it gets serious.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for giving more Polish territory to the USSR, that's
right out too. If nothing else, it brings the Red Horde
much closer to the Fatherland.
That in itself might be preferable to
re-establishing the "intolerable" pre-1939
German-Polish border, though; after all, if the "Red
Horde" doesn't actually enter the German Fatherland,
then de facto having the Soviet Union as Germany's
next door neighbor might not be that much worse than
having Poland as Germany's next door neighbor.
Poland wasn't dangerous. The USSR is. Soviet armed
forces are larger and better equipped than Germany's.
The USSR is the advocate of revolution change in
every country in the world; there was a large German
Communist Party following directions from Moscow.
There was no Polish "fifth column" in Germany.
This raises an important question, though--how dangerous would several million German Communist voters have been without any effective leadership?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
And what exactly would Britain and France be willing
to do about this? Go to war with the Soviet Union?
What Britain and France intended to do eventually
about the Soviet invasion of Poland is not clear.
But just accepting it would be right out.
So exactly what other options would they have? An embrago? What else? Also, it is worth noting that Stalin's 1939 conquests in Poland or more-or-less corresponded with *Britain's* previously proposed Curzon Line; thus, it might be rather hard for Britain to complain a lot about this without looking hypocritical considering that it itself previously offered to let the Soviet Union keep most/almost all of these territories.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
After all, as far as I know, Turkey was able to
successfully partition Georgia with the Soviet Union
Irrelevant. Georgia was not a sovereign state with
a signed security guarantee with Britain and France.
Georgia *was* certainly a sovereign state, but Yes, as far as I know, it didn't have a signed security guarantee with Britain and France.

Of course, in regards to security guarantees, this raises an interesting question--if Czechoslovakia would have hypothetically rejected the 1938 Munich Agreement and insisted on going to war with Nazi Germany in order to keep the Sudetenland, would Britain and/or France have gone to war with Nazi Germany in 1938? After all, while I don't know about Britain, I think that France already had an alliance with Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Likewise, Britain and France
were willing to gradually forgive (or at least
overlook) the Soviet Union's 1918 decision to sign a
separate peace with Germany during World War I.
Even more irrelevant. Brest-Litovsk was a passive
act of submission, not an act of aggression.
No, but it did give the Germans the best opportunity to win World War I on the Western Front which they had since 1914.
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-27 09:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
This raises an important question, though--how
dangerous would several million German Communist
voters have been without any effective leadership?
There are millions of people in Germany who adhere
to the Communist program of revolution. Not all of
them are ready for violence, but a substantial
number are, and it would be very naive to assume
that all potential leaders among them have been
eliminated. It's certain that there are veteran
conspirators among them.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
After all, as far as I know, Turkey was able to
successfully partition Georgia with the Soviet Union
Irrelevant. Georgia was not a sovereign state with
a signed security guarantee with Britain and France.
Georgia *was* certainly a sovereign state...
When? Not before 1918. For a brief period in 1918-1920,
Georgia was independent, but not formally recognized by
much of anybody.

Poland in 1939 had been a fully recognized sovereign
state for almost 20 years.
Post by WolfBear
Of course, in regards to security guarantees, this
raises an interesting question--if Czechoslovakia
would have hypothetically rejected the 1938 Munich
Agreement and insisted on going to war with Nazi
Germany in order to keep the Sudetenland, would
Britain and/or France have gone to war with Nazi
Germany in 1938? After all, while I don't know about
Britain, I think that France already had an alliance
with Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Britain had no alliance with Czechoslovakia; France
had an alliance, but it didn't include a guarantee.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-23 04:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Also, in regards to Stalin, I suppose that he could try forcing some of his neighbors to give up some additional territory to the Soviet Union while World War II is still going on in this scenario. Thus, in addition to conquering parts of Finland, the Baltic states, Eastern Poland, and Moldova, Stalin might try acquiring the Kars area (from Turkey), Subcarpathian Ruthenia (from Hungary, though it used to belong to Czechoslovakia up to 1939), the Azeri-majority parts of Iran, Xinjiang (from China), and/or some additional areas. Any suggestions on this?
Anthony Buckland
2015-03-23 05:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
I was inspired to create this scenario and thread by one of Rich Rostrom's comments on another thread on a similar topic to this one.
Due to France keeping its strategic reserve at Rheims (as per the original plan)
instead of sending it to the Low Countries, the German attack through the Ardennes
fails in 1940. Thus, the Manstein Plan fails and the Germans become bogged down
in Belgium and in northern France. In 1941-1942, the French and British very slowly
begin to advance in Belgium and in northern France (they obviously don't reach the
Siegfried Line yet, though), but with an enormous number of French and British
military deaths and casualties; ...
I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the enormous number of deaths
without some elaboration. Yes, the Germans had some brilliant
tacticians, but they had presumably been bloodied in the
Ardennes. The RAF would be disadvantaged, in comparison to the
Battle of Britain, by not flying from near its factories and home
supply industry, but the Germans, again presumably, did their
best in the Ardennes and lost many aircraft in losing, so that
massive losses ala WWI should be somewhat offset by using air
power. Any tendency toward slowing to a stop with massive
trench systems would result in using air power to damage the
trenches and their defenses. And aren't the Germans losing men
at a rate more or less as unendurable as the rate for the British
and French?

Maybe WolfBear has thought this through, but it would be
interesting to see some details.
WolfBear
2015-03-23 05:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Buckland
Post by WolfBear
I was inspired to create this scenario and thread by one of Rich Rostrom's comments on another thread on a similar topic to this one.
Due to France keeping its strategic reserve at Rheims (as per the original plan)
instead of sending it to the Low Countries, the German attack through the Ardennes
fails in 1940. Thus, the Manstein Plan fails and the Germans become bogged down
in Belgium and in northern France. In 1941-1942, the French and British very slowly
begin to advance in Belgium and in northern France (they obviously don't reach the
Siegfried Line yet, though), but with an enormous number of French and British
military deaths and casualties; ...
I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the enormous number of deaths
without some elaboration. Yes, the Germans had some brilliant
tacticians, but they had presumably been bloodied in the
Ardennes.
I was thinking of the Germans getting bloodied in the Ardennes, but not bloodied *that* much; to elaborate on this, I was thinking of a German defeat along the lines of what occurred at the Marne in 1914--the Germans lost and got somewhat bloodied, but they still retained an enormous ability to keep fighting on for years afterwards.

The RAF would be disadvantaged, in comparison to the
Post by Anthony Buckland
Battle of Britain, by not flying from near its factories and home
supply industry, but the Germans, again presumably, did their
best in the Ardennes and lost many aircraft in losing, so that
massive losses ala WWI should be somewhat offset by using air
power.
I've got a question--who exactly had air superiority in the Ardennes in 1940 in our TL? If it's the Germans who had air superiority in the Ardennes sector in 1940 in our TL, then a German defeat there (or, probably more accurately, in the Sedan area) probably *wouldn't* result in massive aircraft losses for the Germans.

Any tendency toward slowing to a stop with massive
Post by Anthony Buckland
trench systems would result in using air power to damage the
trenches and their defenses.
This would be assuming that Britain and France would have air superiority everywhere, no?

And aren't the Germans losing men
Post by Anthony Buckland
at a rate more or less as unendurable as the rate for the British
and French?
Yes, I would think so (unless, of course, you have any suggestions for this). Of course, Germany might be willing to bleed an awful lot in order to allow it to keep its 1914 borders in the east; after all, if I remember correctly, many(/most?) Germans after World War I considered their new border with Poland to be intolerable and absolutely unacceptable.
Post by Anthony Buckland
Maybe WolfBear has thought this through, but it would be
interesting to see some details.
By all means--if someone more knowledgeable of military matters than I am would like to modify my scenario, then please, offer some suggestions. :) Unfortunately, I am certainly not an expert on military matters myself, and thus, any suggestions in this regard would be welcomed. :)
The Horny Goat
2015-03-24 01:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Anthony Buckland
I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the enormous number of deaths
without some elaboration. Yes, the Germans had some brilliant
tacticians, but they had presumably been bloodied in the
Ardennes.
No question one of the big mistakes commonly made in counter-factuals
is assuming the losing side (OTL) won their victory with zero
casualties. This seems most often to be the case in scenarios
involving the Imperial Japanese Navy 1941-45.
Post by WolfBear
I was thinking of the Germans getting bloodied in the Ardennes, but not bloodied *that* much; to elaborate on this, I was thinking of a German defeat along the lines of what occurred at the Marne in 1914--the Germans lost and got somewhat bloodied, but they still retained an enormous ability to keep fighting on for years afterwards.
Your scenario is actually not that big a leap if you replace the
French forces at Sedan where the Germans crossed the Meuse with
experienced troops rather than second-line formations even if you
don't add to their numbers (obviously more is better for the French!)

Stop the German panzers on the Meuse and the rest of the campaign ends
up quite differently. Certainly if they don't cross the Meuse they
don't get to Abbeville much less Dunkirk.
Post by WolfBear
I've got a question--who exactly had air superiority in the Ardennes in 1940 in our TL? If it's the Germans who had air superiority in the Ardennes sector in 1940 in our TL, then a German defeat there (or, probably more accurately, in the Sedan area) probably *wouldn't* result in massive aircraft losses for the Germans.
It was pretty one-sided for the Germans. If you're working towards a
scenario where the Germans DON'T break the Sedan line, it's far easier
to just switch the quality of troops there than fiddle with air
strength. Again - it was a botched infantry battle from the French
side of things.

I would in fact argue that given the symbolic nature of Sedan from
1870 if there was one portion of the French line you would expect to
have top quality troops it would be Sedan but in May 1940 it turned
out to be anything but! (Bear in mind that the victory in 1870 was
achieved without violating Belgium)
Post by WolfBear
This would be assuming that Britain and France would have air superiority everywhere, no?
That was never true any time in 1940 including during the Battle of
Britain.
Post by WolfBear
By all means--if someone more knowledgeable of military matters than I am would like to modify my scenario, then please, offer some suggestions. :) Unfortunately, I am certainly not an expert on military matters myself, and thus, any suggestions in this regard would be welcomed. :)
Even if the Luftwaffe was used for nothing more than reconaissance vs
Poland (ha!) they had a huge edge. As things stood, the Polish
deployment was set up to defend everything and wasn't well set up for
an infantry battle a la 1918 much less against armor.

Always bear in mind that the German armor of 1939-40 was NOT that
impressive particularly compared to the better French tanks but that
it was far better led. Similarly in Russia in 1941 Russian tanks
tended not to have radio communications below the batallion level and
commonly worked by signal flags. One on one Russian tanks of the 1941
vintage could fight German tanks on more than equal terms - but 1941
was a battle of maneuver not firepower and for more of 1941 the
Luftwaffe had free reign in Russia.
WolfBear
2015-03-23 23:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Also, one more point: I would like to point out that, as far as I know, the front lines on the Eastern Front didn't change very much between the end of 1915 and the end of 1917; it was only in early 1918 that Germany advanced an enormous amount and decisively defeated Russia (probably at least in part thanks to the Bolshevik Revolution destabilizing Russia even further). Thus, having a stalemate on the front doesn't necessarily mean that a country will lose this war in the end, which in turn explains why I would think that the German coup plotters in this scenario would wait at least several months after the Failure of Fall Gelb before they actually proceed with their coup to overthrow Hitler and the Nazis.
WolfBear
2015-03-24 00:04:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In addition, here is one more question--Are Britain and France going to insist that democracy be restored in Germany as one of their war aims and peace terms? Or are Britain and France going to be fine with the idea of Germany remaining a non-Nazi, possibly Junker-dominated, military dictatorship indefinitely?
Yeechang Lee
2015-03-24 02:24:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In addition, here is one more question--Are Britain and France going
to insist that democracy be restored in Germany as one of their war
aims and peace terms? Or are Britain and France going to be fine
with the idea of Germany remaining a non-Nazi, possibly
Junker-dominated, military dictatorship indefinitely?
My sense is the latter. The German monarchy at the end of WWI did not
fall because of Allied demands (and the Fourteen Points made no
mention of changes to the German government), but because the Kiel
Mutiny led to nationwide disorder.

The mental association we all have between "European dictatorship" and
"genocide"/"war" is a product of WWII; before 1939 much of Europe was
under various dictators and autocrats, many fascist, but only Hitler
instilled widespread fear of a general war. If neither Britain nor
France faced an extistential threat in this war, and if "people we can
deal with"—Junkers and other well-bred people Western diplomats know
well and are often personal friends with—replace the madman Hitler and
his thugs, that's probably good enough for Whitehall and Quai d'Orsay.
--
Yeechang Lee <***@columbia.edu> | San Francisco
WolfBear
2015-03-24 02:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yeechang Lee
Post by WolfBear
In addition, here is one more question--Are Britain and France going
to insist that democracy be restored in Germany as one of their war
aims and peace terms? Or are Britain and France going to be fine
with the idea of Germany remaining a non-Nazi, possibly
Junker-dominated, military dictatorship indefinitely?
My sense is the latter. The German monarchy at the end of WWI did not
fall because of Allied demands (and the Fourteen Points made no
mention of changes to the German government), but because the Kiel
Mutiny led to nationwide disorder.
I am unsure if Wilson insisted on the abdication of the German Kaiser, but it appears that he *did* insist on implementing democracy in Germany:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-telegraphs-president-wilson-seeking-armistice

"Wilson's response, in notes of October 14 and 23, made it clear that the Allies would only deal with a democratic Germany, not an imperial state with an effective military dictatorship presided over by the Supreme Command."

I also know that the West turned West Germany into a democracy after the end of World War II; however, I am unsure as to how whether only the U.S. demanded this or whether Britain and newly liberated France also demanded this. I am also unsure as to whether or not Britain and France would have insisted that democracy be restored to Germany after World War II in this TL without the U.S. actually being involved in this TL's World War II.
Post by Yeechang Lee
The mental association we all have between "European dictatorship" and
"genocide"/"war" is a product of WWII; before 1939 much of Europe was
under various dictators and autocrats, many fascist, but only Hitler
instilled widespread fear of a general war. If neither Britain nor
France faced an extistential threat in this war, and if "people we can
deal with"--Junkers and other well-bred people Western diplomats know
well and are often personal friends with--replace the madman Hitler and
his thugs, that's probably good enough for Whitehall and Quai d'Orsay.
You might very well be correct that this is what Britain and France would prefer or at least be willing to tolerate. Indeed, even in our TL, before his recent moves in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin was warmly welcomed in various European capitals, and all of this occurred during the 21st, rather than the 20th, century!
Post by Yeechang Lee
--
WolfBear
2015-03-24 02:45:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Also, as a side note, it is worth noting that, as far as I know, FDR appears to have had a strong dislike of German Junkers (considering them to be not much better than the Nazis and whatnot). However, I am unsure as to whether Britain and France would have shared this view in this TL, where the U.S. is *not* involved in World War II.
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-24 08:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Also, as a side note, it is worth noting that, as
far as I know, FDR appears to have had a strong
dislike of German Junkers (considering them to be
not much better than the Nazis and whatnot).
However, I am unsure as to whether Britain and
France would have shared this view in this TL, where
the U.S. is *not* involved in World War II.
Dunno about France, but anti-Germanism was very
strong in Britain. Vansittart, for instance.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 01:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Also, as a side note, it is worth noting that, as
far as I know, FDR appears to have had a strong
dislike of German Junkers (considering them to be
not much better than the Nazis and whatnot).
However, I am unsure as to whether Britain and
France would have shared this view in this TL, where
the U.S. is *not* involved in World War II.
Dunno about France, but anti-Germanism was very
strong in Britain. Vansittart, for instance.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Was Vansittart "an exception to the rule" or "the rule" (for Britain) in regards to anti-Germanism, though?

If you are correct that, back in 1939-1940, Britain and France did not want to disarm Germany or to force it to surrender, though, then I am getting the feeling that their leadership during this time wasn't *that* anti-German.
WolfBear
2015-03-25 02:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Also:

@Rich Rostrom: I've got another question--if a successful anti-Nazi coup occurs in Germany sometime in 1941 and Stalin decides to immediately enter World War II on the Allied side due to his concern that peace might be near, would Britain and France be willing to include the Soviet Union in the post-World War II peace negotiations, or would they be willing to make a separate peace with Germany? Also, as a side note, the entry of the Soviet Union into World War II, even sometime in 1941, along with the halting of all Soviet resource and supply deliveries to Germany, might be an *enormous* boost to the Allied war effort and might be enough to convince Germany to surrender if the Allies are more concerned about decisively defeating Germany rather than about preventing the spread of Bolshevism. Plus, it is worth noting that without Hitler and the Nazis in charge, Germany might be less able to prevent massive anti-war riots and whatnot (as was previously the case in late 1918); after all, I am unsure if the new, non-Nazi German government in this scenario would be willing or even realistically able to use the same amount of brutality which Hitler used in order to suppress almost all domestic anti-war sentiments (for reference, in Hitler's case, this might have been in large part due to his *extremely* strong desire to prevent Germany from ever getting "stabbed-in-the-back" again).

Also, do you think that Stalin would be willing to enter World War II on the Allied side right after a successful anti-Nazi coup takes place in Germany sometime in 1941, Rich? Or do you think that Stalin would still consider it too risky for the Soviet Union to enter World War II at that point in time? Thoughts on this?
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-25 10:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
@Rich Rostrom: I've got another question--if a
successful anti-Nazi coup occurs in Germany sometime
in 1941 and Stalin decides to immediately enter
World War II on the Allied side due to his concern
that peace might be near, would Britain and France
be willing to include the Soviet Union in the
post-World War II peace negotiations, or would they
be willing to make a separate peace with Germany?
I don't think the Allies would feel obligated to
include the USSR. If anything, such a course would
brand Stalin as Hitler's ally and therefore even
more of a pariah.
Post by WolfBear
Also, do you think that Stalin would be willing to
enter World War II on the Allied side right after a
successful anti-Nazi coup takes place in Germany
sometime in 1941, Rich? Or do you think that Stalin
would still consider it too risky for the Soviet
Union to enter World War II at that point in time?
Thoughts on this?
I think Stalin would be very cautious and focus on
trying to make sure he keeps what he snagged in
1939-1940: Karelia, the Baltics, Moldova, western
Ukraine and Belarus.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2015-03-25 20:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
@Rich Rostrom: I've got another question--if a
successful anti-Nazi coup occurs in Germany sometime
in 1941 and Stalin decides to immediately enter
World War II on the Allied side due to his concern
that peace might be near, would Britain and France
be willing to include the Soviet Union in the
post-World War II peace negotiations, or would they
be willing to make a separate peace with Germany?
I don't think the Allies would feel obligated to
include the USSR. If anything, such a course would
brand Stalin as Hitler's ally and therefore even
more of a pariah.
Wouldn't the word "opportunist" be a better description of Stalin than "Hitler's ally" would be in such a scenario, though? After all, with both the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and with this action, Stalin would simply be trying to exploit a perceived opportunity in order to strengthen the position of the Soviet Union. Also, though, one can't deny that a Soviet entry into World War II on the Allied side will *significantly* strengthen the position of the Allies.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Also, do you think that Stalin would be willing to
enter World War II on the Allied side right after a
successful anti-Nazi coup takes place in Germany
sometime in 1941, Rich? Or do you think that Stalin
would still consider it too risky for the Soviet
Union to enter World War II at that point in time?
Thoughts on this?
I think Stalin would be very cautious and focus on
trying to make sure he keeps what he snagged in
1939-1940: Karelia, the Baltics, Moldova, western
Ukraine and Belarus.
How would Stalin do this, though? By massive building a lot of border defenses on the Soviet Union's new borders? Also, what other options, if any, would Stalin have in regards to this?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-27 03:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
I don't think the Allies would feel obligated to
include the USSR. If anything, such a course would
brand Stalin as Hitler's ally and therefore even
more of a pariah.
Wouldn't the word "opportunist" be a better
description of Stalin than "Hitler's ally" would be
in such a scenario, though?
Stalin allies with Hitler.
Germany overthrows Hitler.
Stalin attacks Germany.

You do the math.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
I think Stalin would be very cautious and focus on
trying to make sure he keeps what he snagged in
1939-1940: Karelia, the Baltics, Moldova, western
Ukraine and Belarus.
How would Stalin do this, though? By massive
building a lot of border defenses on the Soviet
Union's new borders?
Not picking any fights with anybody. Generating
political cover through rigged plebiscites and
puppet committees. Etc. Manipulating public
opinion in the Allied powers through agents of
influence. The Allies will be reluctant to
initiate force; if the USSR just stands in place,
while its friends in the West argue against any
sort of new war...

Karelia is already ceded by Finland. The Baltics
are wholly occupied and there's no government with
"standing" to dispute the Soviet takeover. Moldova...
Romania _could_ raise a fuss, but Romania is a
rather disreputable state; also, AIUI, the Powers
never recognized Romanian annexation of Moldova
in 1919.

Western Ukraine and Belarus, that is, eastern Poland,
is much trickier. Poland _will_ raise hell about this,
once they are re-established in Warsaw. (This is why
post-Hitler Germany wants to resurrect Poland.) The
USSR does have one semi- useful claim; back in
1919-1920, the Allies drew the "Curzon Line" as a
suggested border between Russia and Poland; the USSR
could revive its claim to lands east of the Curzon
Line.

The German-Soviet partition line was near the
Curzon Line in most areas, with a few significant
differences: the 1939 Soviet zone included
Bialystok and the area west of Lvov, which were
west of the Line, but not the area north of Lvov,
which was east of it.

What the Allies would do in this circumstance is
AFAICT unknowable. OT1H, they did guarantee Poland's
defense, and it would be an absurd weaseling to say
that only applied to German attack. OTOH, they don't
want another war. OYAH, they've beaten Germany, and
may be feeling cocky. OAHAT, they have no practical
way to carry war to the USSR in Poland without
German cooperation, which gets very odd.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2015-03-27 12:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Western Ukraine and Belarus, that is, eastern Poland,
is much trickier. Poland _will_ raise hell about this,
once they are re-established in Warsaw. (This is why
post-Hitler Germany wants to resurrect Poland.) The
USSR does have one semi- useful claim; back in
1919-1920, the Allies drew the "Curzon Line" as a
suggested border between Russia and Poland; the USSR
could revive its claim to lands east of the Curzon
Line.
IIRC, this was more or less what Stalin was claiming in
OTL with an additional twist: majority of the local population
were not Polish but either Ukrainian or Belorussian (except
for the major cities).
Post by Rich Rostrom
What the Allies would do in this circumstance is
AFAICT unknowable. OT1H, they did guarantee Poland's
defense, and it would be an absurd weaseling to say
that only applied to German attack. OTOH, they don't
want another war. OYAH, they've beaten Germany, and
may be feeling cocky. OAHAT, they have no practical
way to carry war to the USSR in Poland without
German cooperation, which gets very odd.
So they could do more or less the same thing that
happened in OTL: "compensate" Poland at the German
expense and ignore all further noises: anyway, under almost
any scenario the Poles will be unhappy. As of now, they
keep moaning about the Soviets annexing (in 1939) Western
Ukraine and Belorussia (but nothing about Vilnus) but I did
not hear about them being ready to return Eastern Prussia,
etc. to Germany (selective memory?). :-)
WolfBear
2015-03-25 21:20:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
@Rich Rostrom: Also, in regards to your statement about Communist world revolution, wasn't that Lenin's policy, rather than Stalin's? After all, as far as I know, Stalin's policy was "Communism in one country".

If I am correct on this, then the fact that several million Communist voters would still be around in Germany might not be that much of a threat to Germany's new leadership, especially if all or almost all of the German Communist leaders are either in exile, in jail, or in concentration camps.
Rich Rostrom
2015-03-27 10:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
@Rich Rostrom: Also, in regards to your statement
about Communist world revolution, wasn't that
Lenin's policy, rather than Stalin's? After all, as
far as I know, Stalin's policy was "Communism in one
country".
Communism was an international revolutionary
movement. That _never_ _changed_. Various
Communist leaders at times spoke of "peaceful
coexistence", and disclaimed any intent of
_immediate_ revolutionary activity, but the
long-term goal was always world revolution.

Remember that the Soviet Union was host to the
Communist International, and that Soviet agents
and money were active in Communist parties around
the world. This true right through the 1930s.
Post by WolfBear
If I am correct on this, then the fact that several
million Communist voters would still be around in
Germany might not be that much of a threat to
Germany's new leadership, especially if all or
almost all of the German Communist leaders are
either in exile, in jail, or in concentration camps.
Let's put it in a different context. A country
contains several million Moslems with strong
jihadist sentiments. The rulers of the country
swoop down and arrest several hundred militant
clerics and paramilitary organizers. Will that
completely neutralize the Moslem threat?

Leaders can be replaced, fairly easily. Huge
blocks of supporters can't be.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Loading...