A stronger Europe post-WWII

Well, I created this timeline assuming a stronger Europe emerges after an early ending of WWII. What would it be the effects over the decolonization process and more important, the political role of European countries in the international arena? I intend to bring the story up to 2000 (map on the 3907 post) and forward, and also elaborate a more detailed timeline as some events here are only mentioned. Feel free to make suggestions and ask for further details.



1943

- Military coup d’état in Germany. As the whole Europe is in their hands, the Nazi régime overruled, the Germans manage to get a relatively good peace terms;

- Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand open conversations to settle the future of the Empire on the post-war world. Out of it emerges a compromise aiming to create a federation encompassing the UK and the 4 Dominions.



1944

- The British Federation is installed. UK and the 4 Dominions retain wide powers over internal affairs. The Imperial Parliament, built nearby Westminster, has 300 members, distributed according to the population;

- Japan is defeated and the European empires on eastern Asia are restored;

- In China, the fight between nationalists and communists is resumed. The Russians massively supply the Red Chinese armies. British observers notice the balance is now tilting to the communist side and the first contacts are established (in secrecy) aiming to protect the huge British interests in China;

- By the end of the year, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all communist states, tied very close to the USSR. Yugoslavia remains politically independent, while Finland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary as result of the post-war agreements, remain strictly neutral, although German economic influence is big and growing;

- Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland create the Nordic Community, a economic, political and military organization;

- UN is founded.


1945

- Nationalists flee to Taiwan. In an unexpectedly move, the British, who had been the most strident anti-communism voice in the world, recognize the new communist government in China. In return, China recognise perpetual British rights over Hong Kong’s New Territories and the integrity of Shanghai International Settlement. France follows British steps in order to protect their own interests, namely its Shanghai concession and the Catholic missions in the hinterland. The Chinese, with a pragmatic approach, assume they can deal with these matters later. As result of the recognition, the United States-British Federation relations reaches a new low;

- Discussions over India’s future inside the British Empire starts;

- In Dutch East Indies, the fight escalates. The British military involvement keep growing, as result of an intense pressure of Australian Imperial MPs;

- US start to consider shifting their policies over eastern Asia, abandoning the strong anti-imperialism in favour of an active anti-communism, although the pressure over European powers to abandon their empires keeps strong;

- First atomic bomb explodes on the New Mexico desert.



1946

- France faces growing problems in Indochina. The situation is deteriorating quickly while Russian and Chinese armament flows to the rebels hands. In Saigon, those troubles are hardly noticed, and the colonial elite continues with its life as usual;

- No satisfactory arrangement comes to accommodate India in the new British Federation. The path to the Indian independence is settled and the focus of the dicussions is to keep the country united.



1947

- European (and world) economy is fully recovered from the war and starts to grow fast. It’s the beginning of the post-war economic Golden Age.



1948

- Independence of India. The new independent country will be part of the British Commonwealth, with a status to the former White Dominions. King George VI retains the title of Emperor of India and is represented in the country by the Viceroy. British Federation and India are linked by strong economic, political and military bonds, albeit in the future, India will increasingly look forward to a more independent international policy. After the settlement, the country keeps undivided. However, tensions between Hindu and Muslim are high and clashes are not uncommon, thereat about 50,000 British troops are permanently based in the country. Despite the relatively instability, the majority of the Europeans decides to stay in India and actually will grow in number for the next decades.

- North Korea invades South Korea triggering the Korean War. United States quickly deploy troops and plea European countries for aid. British Federation, France and Netherlands send troops, although not in big numbers as they are involved in their own problems in other parts of Asia and resent the lack of American support to their operations. Belgium, Greece, Turkey, India, Thailand, Philippines and Nationalist China also send troops to the theatre. On the communist side, China and USSR (in smaller scale) increasingly start to involve directly in the conflict.



1949

- Fight continues fiercely on the Korean Peninsula and despite the contention efforts, spreads over other areas. Communist China organizes a full scale navy operation to invade Taiwan, but is completely destroyed by an US fleet. In the Indochina, the communists and the French are involved in a full scale war which starts to disturbe the colonial economy. Small communist guerrilla units start to operate in Thailand, Malaya, Philippines, Burma and even in the already troubled Dutch East Indies;

- Unable to reach an agreement similar to the Indian for Palestine, the British decide to pull out. Israel defeats a coalition of Arab forces and consolidate its position.

- Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg sign a treaty creating the European Community.
 
Isn't it a little ASB? Even with a coup in Germany I don't think the allies would negotiate peace term. And if they do the soviet will certainly not.
 
I would have the military coup happen before 1943.

In January 1943, the Allies met at the Casablanca Conference and that is where they decided that they would only accept unconditional surrender from Germany. If you have the coup happen before that, it is plausible that the allies would accept some form of conditional surrender, although Stalin might not be so willing.
 
Do you think so? I mean, we're talking about a 1,500 miles retreat in German lines and the Soviet always seemed very pragmatic to me. They got almost the entire eastern Europe, pretty much what they got it in OTL.

About the western Allies, it's important to notice Churchill opposed the "unconditional surrender" formula as he states in his World War II book. Roosevelt was the one who brought the formula up, however, there was too much pressure even inside US military in favour of "Japan First". With a non-Nazi Germany asking for peace, it's quite doubtful that Roosevelt could reject the deal. The political pressure, I believe, would be huge.
 

Typo

Banned
A 1943 coup isn't gonna happen at all, and the idea that the Germans would be willing to say, give up Poland at this point is pretty ASBish
 
While non-Nazi Germany might be able to get a peace deal out of the WA post '43 - provided that it is indeed good enough - there's still the Soviets. They might be pragmatic, but Stalin was IIRC quite interested in dealing with the "western threat" (read; Germany) once and for all, and '43 was where the Soviet's fortune in the war finally turned around for good (correct me if I'm wrong).

Overall, though, '42 would be a better choice; the "Final Solution" hadn't started, yet, and the WA weren't commited to some "unconditional surrender" nonsense. In addition, in '42 the Soviets were still reeling from the German Blitzkrieg attack, so they might be more amendable to a peace treaty, as well, when they see the WA backing out of the war.
The problem, though, is that Hitler still enjoys a lot of popular support, which you'd have to find a way around.

- Kelenas
 
Well, we could settle the POD as early as January 1943 and the military coup by the end of the year. So the dinamics on eastern front could still favour the Soviet (but less than ATL) and the relation between Hitler and the Werhmacht could be worsened.

About giving up Poland, Germans could hope to retain parts of eastern Europe as their zone of influence, but during the peace discussions, they realized it would be impossible.

What about the rest of the timeline? What you guys think?
 

Typo

Banned
About giving up Poland, Germans could hope to retain parts of eastern Europe as their zone of influence, but during the peace discussions, they realized it would be impossible.
Except they could just keep on fighting, the German situation in Jan 1943 was not that bad
 
What about the rest of the timeline?

Other almost completely similar to it have been proposed previously and torn shreds in short order.

What you guys think?

There's so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin, so I might as well begin at the beginning.

What about Austria? Will this post-Nazi Germany give up Anschluss? Ditto the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia. How about Poland? What about the things the Germans have done in Poland and western Russia? Is the rest of the world going to allow Germany to call a mulligan, withdraw to borders that are still undefined, and remain armed in the face every horror she's committed in the last four years? Is it simply going to be a case of Ooopsie, sorry about the death camps but here's Poland back...""

There are very good reasons FDR let slip that unconditional surrender remark and why, apart from some grumbling, Churchill and Stalin went along with the idea. One of those reasons was how WW1 ended, another had to do with all the land grabs just before the war, and yet another had to do with all the horrors Germany had already committed during the war.

You time line addresses none of those reasons, your time line addresses nothing much at all. Germany pulls a rabbit out of it's hat in 1943, everything is Europe is magically reset to roughly 1936 with no hard feelings, and the rest of the world goes on pretty much as it would have.
 
Except they could just keep on fighting, the German situation in Jan 1943 was not that bad

But why? Let's assume during the peace discussions the German present their plan, retaining Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the Allies theirs, which could be pretty much similar to OTL. So, Germany retaining Austria, Danzig, Memel and its political, economic and military independence could be considered as middle-ground.

Ok, the Germans could expect more, but eventually they'd realized they were only 80 million people fighting the 190 million Soviet, 132 million American and 70 million British (UK and white Dominions).
 

Typo

Banned
But why? Let's assume during the peace discussions the German present their plan, retaining Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the Allies theirs, which could be pretty much similar to OTL. So, Germany retaining Austria, Danzig, Memel and its political, economic and military independence could be considered as middle-ground.
Because nobody trusted the Germans enough to make peace where they are still in such position of strength
Ok, the Germans could expect more, but eventually they'd realized they were only 80 million people fighting the 190 million Soviet, 132 million American and 70 million British (UK and white Dominions)
The Germans and the Japanese were not the most rational peoples in WWII
 

loughery111

Banned
But why? Let's assume during the peace discussions the German present their plan, retaining Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the Allies theirs, which could be pretty much similar to OTL. So, Germany retaining Austria, Danzig, Memel and its political, economic and military independence could be considered as middle-ground.

Ok, the Germans could expect more, but eventually they'd realized they were only 80 million people fighting the 190 million Soviet, 132 million American and 70 million British (UK and white Dominions).

There's no conceivable way that the Heer's officer corps is going to stage such a coup as early as mid-1943, and it's beyond ASB that they'll actually accept peace terms that give up upwards of 80% of what they just took by force of arms. At that point, the Western Allies were doing nothing and they believed they could at least hold the Soviets. After Barbarossa, Germany is unspeakably screwed unless it can win the whole ball game. There will be no middle ground for it. Even if it knocks the British out of the game and the Americans therefore never get involved, they're still going to give the Soviets support, and the Soviets will be more than able to destroy Germany.
 
What about Austria? Will this post-Nazi Germany give up Anschluss? Ditto the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia. How about Poland? What about the things the Germans have done in Poland and western Russia? Is the rest of the world going to allow Germany to call a mulligan, withdraw to borders that are still undefined, and remain armed in the face every horror she's committed in the last four years? Is it simply going to be a case of Ooopsie, sorry about the death camps but here's Poland back...""

But that's not a Nazi Germany we're talking about here. About the resentments, we should consider the Europe would be spared of 2 years of Nazi crimes, so probably the resentments would be smaller than OTL. Anyway, the Russians killed millions of people inside the USSR and outside, to defeat the Germans, and the resentments couldn't prevent them to control the Eastern Europe. East Germany proved to be a very faithful ally.


You time line addresses none of those reasons, your time line addresses nothing much at all. Germany pulls a rabbit out of it's hat in 1943, everything is Europe is magically reset to roughly 1936 with no hard feelings, and the rest of the world goes on pretty much as it would have.

We could have hundreds of provisions on the peace terms to make Germany pay for the damages caused during the war. However is a timeline and it's impossible to discussion every tiny detail. Actually, I inspired my timeline (in terms of content) in the Wikipedia's world history timeline.


Because nobody trusted the Germans enough to make peace where they are still in such position of strength

So, that's why the peace treaty strip from them almost the whole Europe.


The Germans and the Japanese were not the most rational peoples in WWII

I don't think so. Firstly, I think we cannot mix Nazi feelings with German feelings. And even Hitler, was able to appreciate the German position was not that confortable for the aforementioned reasons.


There's no conceivable way that the Heer's officer corps is going to stage such a coup as early as mid-1943, and it's beyond ASB that they'll actually accept peace terms that give up upwards of 80% of what they just took by force of arms. At that point, the Western Allies were doing nothing and they believed they could at least hold the Soviets. After Barbarossa, Germany is unspeakably screwed unless it can win the whole ball game. There will be no middle ground for it. Even if it knocks the British out of the game and the Americans therefore never get involved, they're still going to give the Soviets support, and the Soviets will be more than able to destroy Germany.

I was thinking the coup would be on late-1943, after the Allied landings in Sicilia and Italy's knockout. And we had almost a full year (Jan-1943/Out or Nov 1943) to worsen Hitler's position along the military apparatus. About the Soviet, I believe they were much more ready to abandon the fight if they could get good terms than the Western Allies. They seemed far more flexible.
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
So, that's why the peace treaty strip from them almost the whole Europe.
Germany with Austria, Bohemia and Poland is still the single strongest state in Europe, possibly even more than the Soviet Union, and as pointed out, this is the type of treaty the -Germans- wouldn't accept.
I don't think so. Firstly, I think we cannot mix Nazi feelings with German feelings. And even Hitler, was able to appreciate the German position was not that confortable for the aforementioned reasons.
Every level of German society was Nazified, yes after the war they distanced themselves as much as possible, but in 1943 it wasn't just Hitler and Himmler and Goebbels preaching Nazism. Nazi feelings were German feelings.
 

loughery111

Banned
I was thinking the coup would be on late-1943, after the Allied landings in Sicilia and Italy's knockout. And we had almost a full year (Jan-1943/Out or Nov 1943) to worsen Hitler's position along the military apparatus. About the Soviet, I believe they were much more ready to abandon the fight if they could get good terms than the Western Allies. They seemed far more flexible.

Sorry, but no. The fundamental truth about WWII's European Front is that the Germans have no reason to come to the negotiating table when the Allies would be willing to do so, as they think they can win or stalemate all fronts without negotiations. By the time they're convinced (aside from Hitler, of course) that they might lose and would be willing to negotiate, the Allies have the scent of blood in the water and are playing for all the marbles. No negotiations are really possible unless the course of the war changes drastically from OTL. WWII is one of those propositions where you might be able to show a convincing Axis victory, but you will not see a negotiated settlement after June of 1941.
 
But that's not a Nazi Germany we're talking about here.

You don't get to change hats and make everything better.

About the resentments, we should consider the Europe would be spared of 2 years of Nazi crimes, so probably the resentments would be smaller than OTL.
There are four years of Nazi crimes during a Nazi caused war already, plus several years of Nazi provocations before that. How will all that get waved away?

East Germany proved to be a very faithful ally.
Good god... Do you seriously think the German political elites would overthrow the Nazis and sue for a peace which includes a partition?

We could have hundreds of provisions on the peace terms to make Germany pay for the damages caused during the war.
Why would a Germany whose armies stand in France, Norway, North Africa, Greece, and the Ukraine agree to peace terms that would see it partitioned?

So Germany magically changes hats in 1943 without an SS/Heer/Gestapo civil war taking place, withdraws from all her conquests, and signs a peace treaty which not only pays reparations but also creates a Soviet-occupied East Germany? Is that what you're seriously suggesting here?
 
Last edited:
A stronger Europe can happend without changing the war. If the Western europeen countries create a closer economic, politic and military alliance that might work.
 
Every level of German society was Nazified, yes after the war they distanced themselves as much as possible, but in 1943 it wasn't just Hitler and Himmler and Goebbels preaching Nazism. Nazi feelings were German feelings.

I don't agree with this. There were huge sections of German society not-nazified at all. Catholics, lutherans, conservatives, liberals, social-democrats, socialists. They could form easily a passive majority.


Sorry, but no. The fundamental truth about WWII's European Front is that the Germans have no reason to come to the negotiating table when the Allies would be willing to do so, as they think they can win or stalemate all fronts without negotiations. By the time they're convinced (aside from Hitler, of course) that they might lose and would be willing to negotiate, the Allies have the scent of blood in the water and are playing for all the marbles. No negotiations are really possible unless the course of the war changes drastically from OTL. WWII is one of those propositions where you might be able to show a convincing Axis victory, but you will not see a negotiated settlement after June of 1941.

I'm not sure, but I remember to read on The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich about an attempt of negotiation between Germany and Soviet Union as late as 1944. I'm pretty sure, depending of the conditions, USSR could sign a separated peace agreement with Germany anytime up to mid-1944.


There are four years of Nazi crimes during a Nazi caused war already, plus several years of Nazi provocations before that. How will they all get waved away?

The worst crimes are pretty much post-1943. The rest are not that different from other actions during the war.


Good god... Do you seriously think the German political elites would overthrow the Nazis and sue for a peace which includes a partition?

Why would a Germany whose armies stand in France, Norway, North Africa, Greece, and the Ukraine agree to peace terms that would see it partitioned?

So Germany magically changes hats in 1943 without an SS/Heer/Gestapo civil war taking place, withdraws from all her conquests, and signs a peace treaty which not only pays reparations but also creates a Soviet-occupied East Germany? Is that what you're seriously suggesting here?

Don Lardo, I think you misunderstood my statement. I said in OTL, East Germany was the best Soviet ally, despite the destruction of the cities, the rapes, the industry dismantlement, etc. Germany didn't have so few allies in France, Belgium and even in Poland as many people may think, and not mentioning its Hungarian, Finnish, Romanian, Bulgarian allies.
 

Typo

Banned
I don't agree with this. There were huge sections of German society not-nazified at all. Catholics, lutherans, conservatives, liberals, social-democrats, socialists. They could form easily a passive majority.
The Anti-Nazi elements in those were nearly a nonfactors during the war years, I don't know why you assert that they could "easily form a passive majority" or even what a "passive majority" means exactly.
 
Don Lardo, I think we misunderstood my statement.


I'm glad that is cleared up.

Your time line still doesn't work however. No one in 1943 is going to give Germany a free pass and no one in Germany in 1943 either thinks they need one or can get one.
 
Top