WI Germany achieves an armistice in wwii?

What do you think of such a present?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
It is the year 2006. The major powers on the planet are the US, Germany, and the SU, in this order. All those powers are a lot more militaristic than IOTL. There's also lots of eugenics, euthanasia, racism, and the likes, especially in Germany, but also in most other places. Standard of living is far lower than IOTL, due to all the military spending, even in the US, which has a comparatively low military budget at just 20% of GNP. Technology is slightly better developed, especially in terms of military.

###################################################

Germany, after accepting Stalins peace offer in 1943, was able to stabilize it's borders, to crush D-Day, and to annex Italy and France. It also had Poland, the Ukraine, the Balkans, the Benelux countries, Denmark, and Norway at the time.

The situation in northern Africa was also in favor of the Germans after they were able to send lots of troops from Russia there. After a crushing defeat of the US and British armies there in 1944, both were willing to accept an armistice for a few years, which gave Germany Libya, Britain Egypt and everything around and to the south, while much of the rest became neutral.

The armistice wasn't broken since then, especially after Germany became a nuclear power in 1947, 2 years after the US.

With the war basically won by Germany - though at staggering losses and not very glamorous - Hitler was a popular hero. Statues of him were erected all over Germany. His increasing mental problems due to the demands of his job were attributed to his genius and became part of the Hitler-cult. He died in 1949 of an overdose of some drug - no-one knows whether any of the potential successors of him, or just concerned nationalists, had anything to do with that.

There was a lot of cold war activity - spying, supporting rebellions, and so on - some even less cold than IOTL.

Britain was reduced to a country similar to IOTL Britain, with even less connections to the Commonwealth, but closer ties to the US - up to regular talks over a potential union in news magazines.

Inbetween were a few reforms in Germany - somewhat less racism, though not much, somewhat more democracy, though limited, and so on. The SU also had similar reforms, accelerating in the 1990s, but without Gorbatchov, who had a misterious car accident after he tried to negotiate an unfavourable arms control deal with the two other powers. There was a transition towards more and more free market, though, which was far more successful than IOTL.

Germany managed to overthrow the Swiss government in favor of a pro-unity movement, so that Switzerland became part of the empire in 1953.

Spain followed in the 60s, and Portugal in the 70s. Ireland stayed neutral only due to American pressure. Sweden stayed a neutral buffer zone between East and "Middle", becoming an important hub for the exchange of goods and information between Britain, Germany, and the SU.

Southern and eastern Asia developed pretty similar to OTL.

With only Libyan, Norwegian, and Rumanian oil, Germany was far less "mobile" than the two other countries. Lots of effort was put into producing fuel from plants, and the likes. Still, cars were mainly for the rich, for business, and for the military.

The SU was much less of a threat than IOTL - no access to Ukrainian ressources and western Russian people caused a lot of limitations, not to mention the much more restricted access to Africa and other places.

###################################################

Travel between the major powers is severly restricted - and ordinary citizens aren't expected to travel anywhere but allied countries. Only the US managed to achieve some more liberal rules for their citizens, helped by the dollar-cravings of the other countries.

China is trying to become the fourth power, aided by Germany which sees better chances for survival with China as a counter to US-allied Japan and independent from the SU.

Genetic engineering is becoming more and more popular in all the more advanced countries - preselection of babies, sperm and egg donations from important people, even first efforts to modify the human genome, and so on.

Especially in Germany, one still shouldn't belong to any minority. Once there were nearly no Jews, Roma, Africans, Communists, and so on there anymore, hatred was directed towards other people - it is pretty dangerous not to be part of the majority of popular opinion making, for instance. Or strange. Or a loner. And so on. There was also new racism laws after the old ones became obsolete due to lack of minorities - blond, red haired, and dark haired people have to find similar partners. Blue, Green, and Brown eyed people the same. And so on. For the few people with rare combinations of features a problem. Not to mention countless love affairs ending in pain or even jail.

Technologically, each of the three super powers feel like being the number one. Germany leads in rockets, alloys, some chemistry, some engineering, some trade, some space fare, some military technology, and so on. The US leads in electronics, automatization, genetic engineering, some chemistry, some space fare, some engineering, some trade, some military technology, and so on. The SU leads in education, some engineering, some space fare, some military technology, and so on.
 

Superdude

Banned
Why don't they ever have timelines where unconditional surrender isn't on the agenda?

Just a negotiated peace? Can't we have just one timeline where that happens?
 
Superdude said:
Why don't they ever have timelines where unconditional surrender isn't on the agenda?

Just a negotiated peace? Can't we have just one timeline where that happens?

Its possibly but unlikely. For one thing Roosevelt especially had committed himself to unconditional surrender and democracies, once they get moving have considerable inertia. For another some degree of negotiated peace requires a degree of agreement between the parties on co-existence. Unless you can get a successful coup that really clears out the Nazis they are too alien in their mindset to be trusted by the other blocs.

I could see a negotiated peace of the sort suggested, although with different boundaries. It would be difficult however and unstable. Furthermore, if the Germans kept to Nazi ideology I think they would struggle to compete with the other power blocs.

Steve
 
Relations between the three Allies were not optimal, and a negotiated peace was really possible in 1943. The Russians were having talks with the Germans in Stockholm, and the Americans the same in both Berne and Ankara.
It's quite likely that the most obdurate in refusing the idea of a negotiated peace was Churchill.
The main issue was about Russian expansion in eastern europe, in particular in Poland and the Baltic: the Germans had made available to the western Allies a report on the massacre of Polish offcials at Katryn, and this was a wedge in their relation with the Russians.
From the Soviet side, Stalin was very upset with the lack of commitment on the date of invasion in France (which was agreed for May 1944 in Tehran).
If the was in the Pacific is a bit more chancy, or if Stalin's paranoia becomes just a bit worse, a negotiated peace might truly happen. Maybe just an armistice on the eastern front, to start. But it would be enough.
 
LordKalvan said:
It's quite likely that the most obdurate in refusing the idea of a negotiated peace was Churchill.

OK, let him have a stroke in early 1943, or a German bomb hits his house. Still I can't imagine FDR and Stalin making peace... after Stalingrad and Sicily, anyone could tell that hitler had no way to win, except superweapons(tm).
 
It basically did in 1943, when it reinstalled Mussolini after Italy disposed of him and tried to switch sides.
 
jolo said:
It basically did in 1943, when it reinstalled Mussolini after Italy disposed of him and tried to switch sides.

Germany occupied Italy. Annexation is different.
 
LordKalvan said:
Relations between the three Allies were not optimal, and a negotiated peace was really possible in 1943. The Russians were having talks with the Germans in Stockholm, and the Americans the same in both Berne and Ankara.

I had not heard about the Americans negotiating. Although it is not surprising. Do you have more details?

You have to wonder about the seriousness of Stalin's offer - he cannot have trusted Hitler, and even the Soviet propaganda machine would be hard put to maintain the regime's credibility. I assumer that the negotiations, for all parties were an insurance/leverage on allies policy.

Still it is interesting to speculate on how the western powers vs Germany war would have gone.

I think time and logistics will prevent Hitler saving Africa.

After that there is not much either side can do. Assuming the Germans keep 60-70 divisions in the East they can have up to around 150 to deploy in the West. The Allies could take Norway back perhaps.

Circumstances are such that it actually might be worth their while landing in Spain, as they will simply get thrown into the sea anywhere else.
 
Last edited:

Hapsburg

Banned
As for the poll question:
Any possible alternate timeline where nazi germany still exists would be much, much worse thant OTL, simply because a state based on racism would exist.
 
Hapsburg said:
As for the poll question:
Any possible alternate timeline where nazi germany still exists would be much, much worse thant OTL, simply because a state based on racism would exist.

I don't consider the racism the worst part. The genocidal intolerance against some religions, cultures, opinions - and race - are much worse imo. I do consider this a distopia, too. Not a very pleasant place to live in. And this "model" would also influence most of the other countries - probably to the worse.
 
That's the big question: How would a victorious Third Reich influence US / Free British politics? It's not that Stalin's success made Socialist ideas in the US more popular, on the contrary...

And I can't see the nazis annex Italy. They wanted lebensraum in the East, not the South or the West.
 

Superdude

Banned
Ok, say that Hitler in 1942 manages to avoid the Stalingrad deathtrap and just puts up a force to prevent any Soviet movement from the city, using the rest of the offensive forces to strike deeper into the Caucausus.

Lets say they captue Baku, and the Soviets are forced to launch a desperate offensive. However, it fails due to low supplies.

Stalin sues for peace, which Hitler accepts. Byelorussia, the Baltics, and the Ukraine are given over to Germany.

What next?
 
I could imagine an armistice leading to a possible peace. If the USSR is pushed out of the war through treaty or defeat then the war is essentially over.

Not too sure about the details in the rest of the timeline though. Norway would almost certainly fall to the Western allies if they made it priority number one (since an assault on Europe is evidently doomed to failure) and North Africa is essentially out of Germanys reach unless they do something like invading Turkey and taking the very slow and no doubt costly land route.

Britain could go either way. On one hand you have the loss of substantial european markets (presuming Germany cuts them off or sticks on significant tarifs) on the other you have it being the only toehold for the USA in Europe. Alot of investment and aid that went to Europe (think West Germany) may end up there, infrastructure to support a greater American army presence and so forth. I can't really see why Britain would be cut off from the Commonwealth, if anything I imagine it might have greater unity under American support, as the USA clutches for any allies it can find.

That and this concept of a German empire. They don't want other Europeans. As far as I am aware, Hitler and co were after a pure German state, with a significant number of slaves who are not mentioned and essentially worked to death in the east. They are not after a unified Europe. Put friendly governments in charge, certainly. Annex them? It's too expensive, too much effort and ultimately just dilutes the Reich.

Why would Germany be "less" mobile than the other states? They may have fewer natural oil reserves, but presumerably they can just buy it in from the middle east and others like everyone else. If Germany does have all of North Africa, then presumerably all the rest of the middle east is relatively easy pickings and oil should be coming in as fast as they can consume it.

That Russia is less of a threat is a definite. I am almost tempted to say its not even a power in the same league anymore. It probably compares to the China of OTL. A definite third, but a third none the less.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
jolo said:
I don't consider the racism the worst part. The genocidal intolerance against some religions, cultures, opinions - and race - are much worse imo.
To me, nazi germany's genocidal tendencies and racist legislation are far too intertwined to be discussed as seperate topics.
 
Wozza said:
I had not heard about the Americans negotiating. Although it is not surprising. Do you have more details?

You have to wonder about the seriousness of Stalin's offer - he cannot have trusted Hitler, and even the Soviet propaganda machine would be hard put to maintain the regime's credibility. I assumer that the negotiations, for all parties were an insurance/leverage on allies policy.

Still it is interesting to speculate on how the western powers vs Germany war would have gone.

I think time and logistics will prevent Hitler saving Africa.

After that there is not much either side can do. Assuming the Germans keep 60-70 divisions in the East they can have up to around 150 to deploy in the West. The Allies could take Norway back perhaps.

Circumstances are such that it actually might be worth their while landing in Spain, as they will simply get thrown into the sea anywhere else.
There is not a lot in "official" history books: it looks like it is not considered a safe argument to discuss, at least until now. You might look up "Himmler's Secret War", by C. Martin Allen [although he takes the more conventional view that Himmler's talks in Stockholm were part of a covert operation sting]. There were a couple of articles at the end of the 1980s on specialised magazines, but no big uproar ensued.
The points to consider are IMO the following:
  • nazi Germany was not a monolithic state: it was rather made up of different power groups, like the army or the SS or Goebbel's Ministry of propaganda, which allied and fought among themselves. It is quite credible that Himmler might have tried to open up secret negotiations with the Russians, and that the army (through Canaris) tried the same with the Americans. Berne, Ankara, Stockholm and Lisbon are the obvious places for these negotiations.
  • Stalin was certainly naive enough to believe that a pact with Hitler's germany was a safe thing. However, he was also quite convinced that the western allies were using Russia to bleed the Germans, and was quite nervous about the lack of a second front in the west. Tehran conference was instrumental in removing (or at least reducing) these fears, through the joint commitment to a landing in France in may 1944. Add to this that the Katyn massacre was made public in early 1943, and resulted in a breach of relations between the Free Poles and URSS. My point is that if Stalin saw a tactical advantage in peace negotiations, he'd have done it without any moral problem.
  • FDR health was getting worse [which certainly had a negative impact on the Tehran - and later on Yalta - conferences, where Stalin got all that he asked, and more. Not all the Americans were ready to bury the fears of URSS and to consider them a true ally; there was also a substantial lobby in the States advocating more men and materials for the Pacific. Again, it is quite difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction (speaking of the latter, "Hitler's Peace" is a quite readable what-if on this subject, although in the end the author gets cold feet, and the negotiations do not bring any result]; it is not unthinkable that either the OSS or the State Department might have been talking to Canaris people.
  • there were certainly talks between Italians (inspired by Ciano] and British FO in Lisbon; gain, nothing came out of them.
Sorry for not being able to be more helpful.
 
Max Sinister said:
That's the big question: How would a victorious Third Reich influence US / Free British politics? It's not that Stalin's success made Socialist ideas in the US more popular, on the contrary...

And I can't see the nazis annex Italy. They wanted lebensraum in the East, not the South or the West.

There was already a lot of tendency towards more eugenics, more racism, and other elements of German policy in the US, both countries influencing each other. I don't know whether this ended about 1943 (when the Japanese were released) or only after the pictures of the Holocaust became wide spread. I also don't know exactly about the development in this regard in Britain - but that's not too important in this TL.

Also, they already had France and Italy - why give it up?
 
Top