If Hitler had an IQ: Post-War Third Reich Global Politics

Re-posing a promising thread started by Gothvain - slightly edited to stay within our Moderators control limitations.
I have oft thought along this line - about posting this "what if" scenario. My focus on keeping this forum alive with topical WW2 topics has stopped me from meandering off topic with items such as this.
________________

Let's assume that Moscow was taken in 1941 and the the Soviets surrendered, followed closely by "peace" between the other Allies and the Axis Powers.

France's government is replaced with a National Socialist puppet government.
Norway is given the same treatment as France.
Sweden finally breaks its streak of neutrality by forming a military alliance with Germany (not formally joining the Axis).

Germany annexes Western Poland and what the Soviets had taken of Poland, the areas of Lithuania Germany had claims on, the areas lost to France as a result of WWI (the border region of France and Germany).

The Germans also annex Denmark and thereby obtain it's overseas colonies (Iceland and Greenland), and these are later reformed as puppet nations.
Germany pulls out of any occupied nations that are not annexed as a result of the peace, including France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia are reformed as sovereign nations who's people idolize Adolf Hitler as their savior.
Italy annexes Greece.

Japan replaces China's government with a puppet government and annexes Communist China into this new China.

I am wondering how global politics would change as a result of these events, and what kinds of weapons would have been made after this peace
(I doubt that the Tiger or Panther would look exactly the same, if they exist at all in this alternate universe).
________________

Apple Ologies Gothvain - I thought the Mods were being a bit rough on you, but they are reluctant to edit where an improved thread could be started in a better sub forum as done here.

 

I am going to let this fly for now as long as we stay on course.

Keep it classy folks.

 

My comments:

1. This would, of course, required Hitler to have had at least one molecule of brain cell in 1939.

2. Who in their right mind would want to occupy France? Yikers!
. . . - Anyone would get out of there as fast as their little feet could run, fly, train, bicycle or bus.
. . . - Think of the PR coup d'etat HItler blew up the kazoo by not setting up a puppet government supplying Germany with goods and services,
. . .. . apologizing to the French and setting up a fund for families of French Soldiers lost during that "Lesson Learned." Britain would likely have not entered the war.

3. The Soviets may have "surrendered" much of west of the Urals, but would still have won hands down.
.. ..All of Europe and probably well into North Africa would be part of the Soviet Block.
.. ..(American & Commonwealth lend lease to the Soviets would have gone through the roof.)
. .. - For real. End of discussion. Would you be happy with that?

4. Greece? The Axis would of course want to get their arse out of there as fast as possible
. . Britain would have gone in there full force... and I mean gung ho. Think 3 million troops, with 99% of the RAF and RN all stationed at Crete...

5. As for Japan, the US would have won, even easier. Everything living Japanese would have been a puff of red mist in the air.

6. The T-34 was well into design. German Tanks would therefore be identical if not improved.

 

I think Lou brings up a good point. As I read through the post I kept wondering about where the U.S. would fit into this landscape. Especially considering the scope of a SU capitulation, I can't see a lay down approach on behalf of the rest of the allies.

Now, if Hitler did, in this case as you put it, have an intelligent military bone in his body, perhaps a "peace" compromise could be feasible with isolationist allied ideas this early into the war. I think that's a major part of this scenario. In the first couple years when Germany was at the height of its power and the war preparedness and production of the allies was in its infancy, a swift means of ending hostilities may be ideal.

However, I can't see a march into Moscow, across that huge landmass feasible without huge loss of life and materiel. This would have taken a major toll however you draw it up.

Fred - nice of you to help the kid out

 

Well annexing Denmark isn't going to get the Germans Iceland and Greenland. Iceland will likely go independent. Greenland is more up in the air but I suspect the US would prefer to see it as part of Iceland than part of Germany.

I also don't see how the Japanese manage to take all of China. If they are at war with the US especially due to a PH attack the US isn't going to be easy to get to the peace table. If they don't go to war with the US they still need oil and the US is increasing support for the Chinese.

What brings the Commonwealth to the peace table? If the Germans pull out of the countries they took in Western Europe that might be enough but this what if doesn't throw the British that bone.

The USSR surrendering likely means the end of the USSR. It doesn't however mean that resistance to the Germans ceases in the areas of the former USSR.

Not sure how you can come up with any sort of reasonable conclusions regarding the post war situation when you have a what if that is not only very poorly defined but one where many of the predicators just don't add up.

 

I am not a game player. At all. What if scenarios just do not play in my brain. But taking the post Gothvain started, lets stick to the Geo Politics angle. K?
Britain was pathetically ill equipped to go to war. The USA was isolationist.
Both would have jumped at any chance to avoid the repetition of a WW1 apocalypse.

What would Churchill for one have done given the above scenario?
Would he have backed off somewhat (or all the way) on the commitment to Poland, given French abandonment of same?

Gothvain - write Churchill's hypothetical speech to parliament on the announcement of the treaties creating the above scenario.
Lets see how you do!

 

A good "what if" should be plausible. A good rule of thumb is a single and reasonable point of departure (POD). This one has a huge number of PODs some illdefined some not defined at all. Speculation as to as to Geo Politics in such a poorly defined case can have little or no reasonable basis. We don't even have a month for the fall of Moscow or the peace treaty (personally I think a coup that takes out Stalin and leads to a treaty is more easier to justify than the Germans taking Moscow and getting a peace in 41).

We need a much better defined scenario to make any reasonable attempt to answer the question.

 

I have asked the Mods to EDIT the topic starter.
lwd, I'd give you my password to do the same but while I can still edit, change it line by line. K?

I am NOT a game player. "What if" or anything. I have a crib board in my house that has not been touched in 50 years. Thassit.

This 'what if" has potential, IF WE CLEAN IT UP. Gang up and make this a team project. K?

 

Can't we just play at it and let it die by its own momentum. With all due respect, "what if" causes much dissention and I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that if you don't want to play, then don't. Complaining about it does nothing. In reality, the parameters of these scenarios enable young guys, like the one Gaines is supporting, to use facts to build a fictitious situation. Yes, some are better than others, but I like to give credit where credit is due.

Imagination is a good thing.

 

Taking Moscow doesn't mean the SU collapses. In the real event, the USSR did move its industrial capacity and much of its population back beyond the Volga and the Urals. They could just as easily have moved their government east, so nothing really changes there except that the Soviets might be delayed in their rebuilding, while the Germans have an even longer supply line to hinder their defense when the SU strikes back.

Iceland, Greenland? You're forgetting the Royal Navy.

The US still enters the war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, and the Germans still have an alliance with Japan and are forced to declare war on the US. That means the US and British Commonwealth are still allied in this scenario, and nothing prevents the same alliance with the Soviets.

As posited here (or on the other thread?), the entry of Sweden as an actual ally of Germany (instead of the proxy ally that it actually was) allows Brit/US/Soviet aircraft and subs to destroy the Swedish merchant fleet in the Baltic since they are no longer "neutral." That cuts off the steel and other strategic materials that kept Germany in the war. This alone might shorten the war by a year.

The allies win, the axis loses. No real change.

 

Just a few minor points.

And the US Navy & USMC.

Greenland basically became a US protectorate in May, 1940, and formally in April, 1940.

The UK occupied Iceland in on May 10, 1940, and this was handed off to the US on June 16, 1941.

So, even if the UK cries "uncle" Sometime late in 1941, whenever Moscow fall...The US still holds all the cards concerning Greenland & Iceland.

Germany is not "forced" to do anything. The Pact only applied if one of the signatories was attacked by a third party nation, and did not apply if one of the signatories was the aggressor nation doing the attacking. For instance, the Japanese did not denounce their neutrality pact and then declare war with the Soviet Union when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union in June, 1941.

Germany declared war on the US of her own free will.

 

It died before of it's momentum, or lack there of. Rewording of the original "What If" has not improved it's plausibility nor the little usefulness it may have had.

 

This scenario doesn't change that. The US Navy is already sinking German Uboats, Germany is in an even stronger position in Europe (temporarily), so they still declare war. This means the UK isn't going to cry "Uncle" and things go on as in real history.

I'll point out again that the Swedish alliance with Germany shortens the war by at least a year since it opens up their merchant fleet and industrial facilities to destruction by air and/or sea. Without Sweden playing their "neutral" game, Germany would have been in real trouble much earlier in the war. The Swedes trans-shipped most of the vital strategic materials that Germany needed to remain in the war and they were only able to do that because of their faux neutrality. Sweden also transported German troops and material by ship to the eastern Baltic and German troops by rail to Finland. The allies would still own the air by some point and be able to get subs into the Baltic while destroying any Swedish/German merchant or anti-sub vessels in those waters.

 

This "what if" is like asking what store do you go into if you cross the street and enter the closest store without specifying the street or the city or even the country. My understanding was that what if's were suppose to be well defined with one or just a few clear PODs. Then one can look up facts and history to make a case for what would likely happen. We don't have anything like that here so it's pretty much pure speculation especially as some of the assumptions seem to be either badly flawed or in need of a fair amount of background information to make them anywhere close to plausible.

For example without the timing we simply don't know whether the US even gets into the European war. Or even if Japan attacks PH or attacks at all. How can you make any sort of statements about post war politics if you don't even know if there was a war?

 

Except it might or arguably does. If Britain is at peace with Germany then the US won't be attacking German U-boats any more. So Germany has little reason to declare war. At least if the peace occurs before PH. Of course in that case the Japanese may seriously reconsider an attack on PH. Since both the US and Britain are no longer at war attacking the No1 and 2 naval powers when they aren't looking elsewhere is even more problematic than it was historically.

 

Yeah, the date, that is a missing component. Has Pearl Harbor occurred?

 

IMHO, the date is unimportant concerning a German DoW on the US. For, if we are to presume that Hitler has an IQ, he never would have declared war on the US.

 

As far as the date goes the key issue is probably whether or not the Japanese have attacked PH. If they have then the US is at war with them and so are the British. Even if peace is achieved with Germany the British and the US are allied and at war and the US economy is gearing up for war. This has significant long term implications as far as cooperation, support of resistance groups, and for that matter the reinitiating of the war in Europe. Even if Moscow falls in October I'm not sure that the British and Germans could sign a peace treaty in 41. A truce or a ceasefire perhaps but not a full up treaty.

Then there's the question of whether or not the Japanese go to war in spite of the end of the war or imminent end of it prior to Dec of 41.

 

Fred Wilson asked me to reopen or edit the original post as he thought the post war situation could be a interesting topic to debate. I declined for two reasons, one because I saw the OP as too poorly formed to offer any good basis for debate as it had too many loose ends that lacked definition enough to actually speculate about post war events. Secondly as a Moderator, I do not see it as my right or duty to clarify or edit up a flawed post, rather to ensure that we have good content to talk about and to prune away that which gets us nowhere or is offensive.

I do agree with Fred that the post war politics of a surviving/victorious Nazi Germany has some merit and suggested he form his own thread that met this criteria. I had hoped he would start from scratch as I was confident he could create a more plausible scenario as a foundation rather than try to salvage the OP. It seems clear from the posts to this point that we still have a poor foundation to build on and we need a different path to get there.

In that vein I offer a different scenario that I hope offers us a workable starting point.

WW II plays out as it did till the point where Hitler abandons Operation Seelowe and decides to turn on the Soviet Union primarily to convince Great Britain to come to the table. Here is our first fork in the road as Hitler heeding the mistakes of the Great War wants to minimize his risk and elects to not wage a Race war in the East but to promote and wage a war of Liberation and Anti-Communism. No Einsatsgruppen, no camps, no trains to nowhere in Russia and allowing the locals to form actual 'allied' governments who provide security and some actual combat forces equipped predominately with captured Soviet equipment.

This would be seen as only a temporary expedient to last only until the Soviet Union is defeated and Great Britain is willing to talk.

Operation Barbarossa plays out much as it historically did in the first year, as does the war in the West as we reach our second fork in the road. The more 'humane' German approach and seeking/allowing local help reduces, but not completely ends, partisan activity. Also Hitlers goes for the 'political' win by sending the 1942 offensive in the direction of Moscow rather than the Caucasus's. Fighting is hard as Soviet forces are better led, equipped and no longer have as much luxury to trade space for time as Stalin orders Moscow to be held at all costs.

Unlike at Stalingrad, Moscow is encircled and turned into a kessel (pocket) and reduced at no small cost. Stalin makes a fatal mistake and does not evacuate in time. Officially he dies at the barricades fighting the fascist invaders, but rumors persists that he either commits suicide, killed while fleeing or is murdered by someone settling a debt in the ruins of Moscow.

A provisional Soviet government is formed to the east, but confusion in leadership and German-Allied military actions lead to the loss of Leningrad and much of eastern Ukraine. The new Soviets vow to continue the war and set up a shaky line along the Volga as best they can. Much of their industry is safe, as well as her natural resources, but she has lost much of her possible manpower.

Successes in Russia for Germany is counter balanced by setbacks in Egypt and NW Africa as they did historically in late 1942. Here we reach a third fork. Hitler sees value in ending the fight in the East to now address the threat to his West. The new Soviet government sees value in at least a temporary secession of hostilities to both consolidate its control and rebuild its shattered armies. Both parties agree to a truce that is seen by both sides as short term they hope, but for different reasons.

This is a shock to the Anglo-American/'s, but they are committed to liberating Western Europe and push Axis forces out of North Africa, leading to landings in Sicily and the mainland. For Germany the bulk of her armies in the east must remain, but with her new 'allies', her old ones not suffering a 'Stalingrad' and free from the meat grinder battles in the east, more manpower and equipment find their way to troops in the west. German cities are still bombed but as historically, German production continues to rise. The fight for Italy is both slower and more costly for the Allies and Italy decides to hang in with Germany for the short term since 'liberation' by the Allies does not seem imminent

Eisenhower heeds his Navel and Air commanders and postpones D-Day beyond June 6th, but cannot resist pressure to go on the next possible go date since the weather turned before. It proves to be a disaster as the landing fails due to better/more defenders, a less distracted Hitler and unbelievably bad luck in the weather. The cost is heavy and nothing can be done till 1945 to invade NW Europe.

In the Pacific the war goes as it did historically and victory seems near and the European war seems stalled. Allied resources are directed to the Pacific to end that one as soon as possible so that all efforts can then be directed at Germany. This pushes ahead a possible landing date for japan and the Atomic Bombs are held back for use in Germany. The landings are a success, but at serious cost and one Bomb is used to convince Japan to give up.

With this warning Germany, which still controls France, promises to retaliate on Britain with her own WMD's (real and imagined) if the Allies tries to use these bombs on her. V-1, V2 and Arado jet bombers make this more than a idle threat. With this a uneasy truce sets in. Germany forms the 'Kiev Pact' with her central and eastern European allies aimed at keeping a restless rump Soviet Union dormant and hastily fashions 'dirty bomb's' till she can produce a actual Atomic bomb and delivery platform.

A three player Cold War begins.