Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

End of the war on the Eastern Front?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#1 Richard

Richard

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,847 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 11:49 AM

What if Stalin told Hitler this was his one chance to end the war on the Eastern Front in 1944 after Russia had been liberated. And Hitler agreed! What would have been the reaction on the Western Front?

#2 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:47 PM

Man Richard, this is a pretty big " what if " :D
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#3 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 01 December 2006 - 05:25 PM

That's a pretty good 'what if'.
Suspending disbelief again and presuming a miraculous Nazi/Soviet peace treaty in '44 I'd have thought whatever happened to the shape of the European war that the A bomb would (again?) be the ultimate arbiter of the future shape of Europe. I could easily imagine Berlin (or perhaps more likely a 'secondary' city) being shifted up the target list ahead of Japan if the resultant freeing up of German troops made the ground campaign drag on.
Cheers,
Adam
It's only the Internet...

#4 TA152

TA152

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,423 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 05:35 PM

If I were an allied commander, I would be worried that Stalin would make a push to take China and Japan.

The allies would continue to fight Germany but perhaps if the war did not progress fast enough there would be an armistice like in WWI. Part of the armistice conditions would be Hitler out of power and an allied puppet government installed.

An excellent what if. It would make an excellent world war two fiction book for global politics. graemlins/salute.gif
I need a bailout of only $500,000

#5 PzJgr

PzJgr

    Drill Instructor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,076 posts
  • LocationJefferson, OH

User's Awards

2   

Posted 01 December 2006 - 05:53 PM

That would mean some essential manpower for the western armies. It definitely would have prolonged the war. The A-bomb probably would have been dropped on Berlin instead of Hiroshima. I do not think the Western Allies would have sued for peace. The Americans were not scrapping the bottom of the barrel in manpower so they would still have pushed for victory. Relations between the Soviets and the Western Allies definitely would have taken a dive. Early start to cold war. But at least the Eastern Bloc would not have been formed.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#6 Ironcross

Ironcross

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 06:50 PM

Did Stalin offer peace??
News to me
-
Posted Image

#7 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 07:24 PM

No he did not this is a " what if " thread ;)
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#8 JTF-2

JTF-2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • LocationOttawa Valley

Posted 01 December 2006 - 07:46 PM

Wow...nice "what if"

That might doom the end of of D-Day.

Just imagine all those german troops from the Eastern front...moved to the West!!! Wow!
[sigpic][/sigpic]
Facta non verba. "Deeds, not words"

#9 Richard

Richard

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,847 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 08:58 PM

Some info:

Stalin feels the loses have been to high in liberating Russia and decides to inform Hitler he has two choices end the war with Russia or the end result will be the Red Army in Berlin.

Hitler knowing he has lost the war in Russia has a chance to keep hold of Eastern Europe and save his Reich. Hitler fears the Russians could be on German soil, which is too much for him, so he decides to agree with Stalin’s offer of bringing about an end to the war in the east. All this is done behind the backs of the Western Allies.
  • Shadow Master likes this

#10 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 09:20 PM

Man this just gets better and better!!! :D

Just out off curiousity, does Hitler really think that Stalin would not attack him just as he has in 41', after the red army is remobilized??

Just a thought I figure hey why not just go all out? :D
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#11 Richard

Richard

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,847 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Sloniksp:
Man this just gets better and better!!! :D

Just out off curiousity, does Hitler really think that Stalin would not attack him just as he has in 41', after the red army is remobilized??

Just a thought I figure hey why not just go all out? :D

Stalin feels no need to go on if Hitler agrees and Hitler feels he got a chance to do something on the Western Front. And save face with the German people.

#12 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 09:34 PM

Well then the Allies would be disapointed to say the least :D
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#13 Kerem

Kerem

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 09:59 PM

Then we could see a "fair" fight between the U.S. and the Reich. And what a fight would it be! More material for Hollywood for sure.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
A.H.

#14 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Sloniksp:
Well then the Allies would be disapointed to say the least :D

at Stalin
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#15 Ironcross

Ironcross

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Kerem:
Then we could see a "fair" fight between the U.S. and the Reich. And what a fight would it be! More material for Hollywood for sure.

A fight of output of weapon, and personnel.
-
Posted Image

#16 Shadow Master

Shadow Master

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Richard.:
What if Stalin told Hitler this was his one chance to end the war on the Eastern Front in 1944 after Russia had been liberated. And Hitler agreed! What would have been the reaction on the Western Front?

Good stuff.

Originally posted by Richard.:
Some info:

Stalin feels the loses have been to high in liberating Russia and decides to inform Hitler he has two choices end the war with Russia or the end result will be the Red Army in Berlin.

Hitler knowing he has lost the war in Russia has a chance to keep hold of Eastern Europe and save his Reich. Hitler fears the Russians could be on German soil, which is too much for him, so he decides to agree with Stalin’s offer of bringing about an end to the war in the east. All this is done behind the backs of the Western Allies.

Also good stuff. My two cents worth:
Stalin not only offers peace to Hitler, but a way to avoid being conquered by the allies! Once it's clear too Hitler that he cannot win in the west either, Stalin offers to let Germany 'conditionally surrender' to the Russians! Conditions would be:

Germany gets: no army of occupation (neither Russian nor western European/US) on German soil.
A banning of ALL German military.
Contingent upon a mutual protection pact between Germany and Russia, Germany pays for the cost of a 1 million man Russian army available to move into (and 'protecting') Germany in case of invasion by the western allies (in the case they don't like being kept out of Germany).
Stalin agrees to allow Hitler to remain in power (If the allies agree, or too offer Hitler asylum in Russia if they do not).

Russia gets: All German occupied territories at the time of this 'conditional surrender'. Thus gaining control of the Warsaw pact nations, but without having to loose a single Russian life in the process!

Stalin also gets a huge propaganda victory, being able to announce too the world the war in Europe is over at last and the killing has stopped! If the Allies don't like the terms, then they will have to fight Russia & Germany. Public opinion would not be good in such a case for FDR/WC.

Stalin then turns to the Japanese, and offers them the chance to 'conditionally surrender' to Russia (on similar terms). This gives Russia a foothold in China/Mongolia, as well as SE Asia. All without firing a shot!

How's THAT grab ya?
Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another. http://maskirovka.blogspot.com/

The great mass of people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. - Adolf Hitler

#17 Kerem

Kerem

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 08:52 PM

I think Hitler would not agree on any kind of Surrender. Especially asylum in Russia doesn't sound like something Hitler would do. But if Hitler was assasinated or overthrown meanwhile, maybe Germany might have surrendered.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
A.H.

#18 Lord of War

Lord of War

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Kerem:
I think Hitler would not agree on any kind of Surrender. Especially asylum in Russia doesn't sound like something Hitler would do. But if Hitler was assasinated or overthrown meanwhile, maybe Germany might have surrendered.

I agree, Hitler would NEVER have surrendered to his ideological nemesis and arch-fiend Stalin, whatever the terms. He'd rather died, as was eventually the case.
"There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people"
-Heinz Guderian

#19 Ironcross

Ironcross

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 03 December 2006 - 11:39 PM

The smart thing to do is to surrender and commit suicide. Then a WW3 would be inevitable, Hitler would die a hero, horrors of the Holocaust would remain secret. Most important of them all, the old German sprit of blood and iron would remain.
Today's Germany had lost its old culture-which is what makes Germany German. Now it’s only a "Standard" European country.
-
Posted Image

#20 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 04 December 2006 - 05:28 PM

So would we be better off if Germany still had a Kaiser, and Sturm Abteilung marching on the streets and smashing shops owned by the minority of the day?

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#21 Ironcross

Ironcross

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 07:12 PM

It would be better for the Germans, but not for everyone else. The lion’s share belongs to the lion along, because the world is not enough for everyone to live happily ever after.
-
Posted Image

#22 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 04 December 2006 - 09:00 PM

On the other hand I have no quarrel with a Germany of before. I have no quarrel with the Germany of Herman Hesse, Erich Maria Remarque, of Goethe, Schiller, Brecht, Musil, Thomas Mann, Karl May and his Western stories I loved in my youth, the Grimm brothers, Erich Kästner which I also read when young, musicians like Bach, either Johann Sebastian, Karl Phillip Emmanuel, Friedemann, and Frau Bach, Magdalena who also composed, Händel, Beethoven, Brahms, Gluck, Otto Klemperer who had to flee, Emil Quantz who taught music to Friedrich the Great, Richard Wagner who had no fault others saw crazy things in his music, Telemann, Mozart who as an Austrian but we will throw him in too, Mendelssohn, Pachelbel, Schumann though I don't like him ver much, Carl Maria von Weber, painters like Dürer, Holbein, Chodowiecki, Adolf von Menzel (the second 'von'on this list!, Lucas Cranach, both Elder and Younger, Burgkmair, Klee, Carl Spitzweg who painted the good life!

No, Germany has not lost its great culture, on the contrary it was able to let this brief Dark Age pass and let Germany be German: a great beacon of Civilization.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#23 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 04 December 2006 - 09:06 PM

And if I may quote a Spaniard, I will quote Miguel de Unamuno, rector of the university of Salamanca.

"...But now I have heard this insensible and necrophilous oath, "¡Viva la Muerte!", and I, having spent my life writing paradoxes that have provoked the ire of those who do not understand what I have written, and being an expert in this matter, find this ridiculous paradox repellent. General Millán-Astray is an invalid. There is no need for us to say this with whispered tones. He is an invalid of war. So was Cervantes. But unfortunately, Spain today has too many invalids. And, if God does not help us, soon it will have very many more. It torments me to think that General Millán-Astray could dictate the norms of the psychology of the masses. An invalid, who lacks the spiritual greatness of Cervantes, hopes to find relief by adding to the number of invalids around him."

"This is the temple of intelligence, and I am its high priest. You are profaning its sacred domain. You will succeed, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken."

"Vencereis, pero no convencereis"? No, they did not win.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#24 Ironcross

Ironcross

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 04 December 2006 - 11:42 PM

Before there was Holy Roman Empire, there was Charlemagne. Before there were medicines in Germany from the east, there was Frederick Barbarossa. Before a modern Prussia, there was Frederick the Great.
After Charlemagne, there was the Peace of Westphalia. After Frederick Barbarossa, there were the Khans. After Frederick the Great, there was Napoleon.
I saw that you have described the enjoyments the Germans brought forth. Before there were schools, there must be teachers. Before there were teachers, there must be bread. Before there was bread, there must be war and death.
Look back into history, nations begun to decline after they reach their ultimate point of both glory and wealth. But look at the Spartans, no pleasure was enjoyed by them, no nation dared to fight them. The enjoyments can only weaken the bones of people, wars make them strong. Nations can only endure time not with its ability to enjoy pleasure, but with its ability to bear sword. How can you say a nation is great when it is constantly in danger of being conquered?
And if I may quote a German, I will quote Bismarck. “Not by speeches and votes of the majority, are the great questions of the time decided-that was the error of 1848 and 1849-but by iron and blood” (Speech to the Prussian Diet).
-
Posted Image

#25 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 December 2006 - 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Ironcross:
I saw that you have described the enjoyments the Germans brought forth. Before there were schools, there must be teachers. Before there were teachers, there must be bread. Before there was bread, there must be war and death.

Nowadays there are schools, there are teachers, there is bread, and there is war and death too. You prove nothing.

Originally posted by Ironcross:
Look back into history, nations begun to decline after they reach their ultimate point of both glory and wealth.

Curiously nearly all the names I quoted were from a time before the "glory and "wealth". Your argument proves nothing.

Originally posted by Ironcross:
But look at the Spartans, no pleasure was enjoyed by them, no nation dared to fight them. The enjoyments can only weaken the bones of people, wars make them strong.

The "wars that make them strong" came afterwards, and in the end destroyed the power of the German state. Again you prove nothing. And the Spartans were not an invincible fighting machine, left no mark on history - where are their temples, their statues to remember them, their Acropolis? there aren't any - and after a prolonged period of decline they were quashed by the Macedonians. You know nothing of Ancient history or you would raise the Spartans example. This helps you prove nothing.

Originally posted by Ironcross:
Nations can only endure time not with its ability to enjoy pleasure, but with its ability to bear sword. How can you say a nation is great when it is constantly in danger of being conquered?

200, 500, 1000, 2000 years later noone cares how "great" - better yet, militarily powerful, if that's what you mean by great - a nation was, but how deep a mark it left on civilization. What mark did the Reich leave? Hugo Boss uniforms.

Originally posted by Ironcross:
And if I may quote a German, I will quote Bismarck. “Not by speeches and votes of the majority, are the great questions of the time decided-that was the error of 1848 and 1849-but by iron and blood” (Speech to the Prussian Diet).

"Iron and Blood" was what brought down the III Reich to rubble. They were stupid enough to bring against them nations that could mete out Iron and Blood in much larger amounts.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users