What should the German generals have done? (RAR)

[LaCroix]

An add-on to the resistance tangent - I just came across something I didn't know before - when Israel was having it's fight for independence, they used large number of surplus Mauser 98 made at Skoda Waffen - turned out the rifle didn't shoot straight- the Czech were deliberately installing bent and misaligned sights to make them massively off target. So the Czech resistance also had a huge impact on the war.

[PeZook]

That was common. Polish resistance propaganda encouraged slow and sloppy work if you were laboring for Germans, and it's been said the V2 had such a terrible accident and misfire record because slave workers in rocket factories found hundreds of innovative ways to sabotage production without anybody finding out.

Incindetally, this is why Soviets did not use Gulag prisoners in factories and on important projects

[Dominarch's Hope]

That leads to the 'resign and leave' outcome, because there's really no way for the Germans to change the final line of surrender much without "do not invade Russia" or other major shifts to basic policy.

Yup. You basically need to get some massive wins for the British Fascist or other sympathizers to the Nazi Regime. That or...

1.The British go for peace in the immediate aftermath of France falling.

2.Someone other than Roosevelt is in office and they are perfectly fine with trading with the Nazis or whoever really. Which might result in Lend-Lease. But to BOTH powers.

2b.The British decide to supply and sell to the Nazis what they want. Be it oil, rare minerals, rubber, whatever.

2 could also be sold by claiming Malefic Realpolitik. As in, we are going to deal with one of them, lets deal with both of them and encourage them to bleed each other dry.

1 is ASB but could be wrangled. 2 and 2b is almost impossible.

3. America, for some reason during the Interwar Period, grabs the Manifest Destiny ball again, claiming that Canada and Aus and NZ should be joined along with permafying the Phillipines as a American territory. Hilarity Ensues. Terrible, Terrible Hilarity.

This is the most impossible. But also most devastating.

I fail to see how this addresses the question of if it was better that Nazi Germany be properly and decisively discredited so that by the turn of the millenium Germany is a wealthy pacifist country at the forefront of the European Union.

In fact, wouldn't it make sense to try to arrange things such that when the time does come, you are one of the ex-Wehrmacht officers recalled back to take charge of the post-war Bundeswehr, or if you choose to withdraw from the military, try to survive and become one of the people tapped by the Americans to lead West Germany into the 50's and beyond? *edit* Implied invalidation of the loyal to Hitler the man clause.

What?

No, best idea is that Germany gives back all of France to France after they defeat it in battle and take nothing more than Alsace-Lorraine back if anything. Status Quo Ante Bellum. And then laugh at Britain if Britain wishes to continue the war.

Pacifist Germany, especially one cut in half, isnt something that I like. Maybe you do. Not to mention the irreperable harm to the global economy that was done by the developmental stunting that occured to Germany thanks to Communism.

Inb4 "It wasnt actual Communism and therefore doesnt count"

[AniThyng]

No, best idea is that Germany gives back all of France to France after they defeat it in battle and take nothing more than Alsace-Lorraine back if anything. Status Quo Ante Bellum. And then laugh at Britain if Britain wishes to continue the war.

Pacifist Germany, especially one cut in half, isnt something that I like. Maybe you do. Not to mention the irreperable harm to the global economy that was done by the developmental stunting that occured to Germany thanks to Communism.

Inb4 "It wasnt actual Communism and therefore doesnt count"

Well, West Germany was already an economic, cultural and military powerhouse before reunification, so... you think it is preferable to work the butterflies to give us instead a strong militaristic and but still fascist Germany that has learned that it can crush its main continental rivals and get everything it wanted and more?

[Simon_Jester]

No, best idea is that Germany gives back all of France to France after they defeat it in battle and take nothing more than Alsace-Lorraine back if anything. Status Quo Ante Bellum. And then laugh at Britain if Britain wishes to continue the war.

Pacifist Germany, especially one cut in half, isnt something that I like.

Do you actually think war is better than peace?

[PeZook]

I very much like pacifist Germany, thankyouverymuch.

[K. A. Pital]

A broken and pacified Germany ensured zero major wars in Europe for over half a century. I am sorry, but most will second what has already been said.

[phongn]

No, best idea is that Germany gives back all of France to France after they defeat it in battle and take nothing more than Alsace-Lorraine back if anything. Status Quo Ante Bellum. And then laugh at Britain if Britain wishes to continue the war.

Why would they do something so absurd as that? The spoils of France are needed to balance Germany's economy and a miltarist, totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany is defined by its military successes. (Note, this isn't status quo ante bellum if you've taken Alsace-Lorraine back!)

Pacifist Germany, especially one cut in half, isnt something that I like. Maybe you do.

So this is sort of interesting. You mentioned that you don't like a pacifist Germany. Why? They have a fairly powerful military, they are an economic powerhouse, their standard of living is enviously high! Should they have Leopard tanks in military parades with the flag held high down Berlin on an annual basis? It's very curious why you dislike modern Germany and I genuinely would like to know why.

Not to mention the irreperable harm to the global economy that was done by the developmental stunting that occured to Germany thanks to Communism.

Uh, Wirtschaftswunder?

[Dominarch's Hope]

I very much like pacifist Germany, thankyouverymuch.

Gee I wonder why.

Wouldnt you have much preferred, say, a Russia that couldnt/wouldnt dare attack to the West and an indifferent Germany starting in say...1922? A victorious German Empire would have ensured effective peace for the last 90 years.

[Stark]

So this is sort of interesting. You mentioned that you don't like a pacifist Germany. Why? They have a fairly powerful military, they are an economic powerhouse, their standard of living is enviously high! Should they have Leopard tanks in military parades with the flag held high down Berlin on an annual basis? It's very curious why you dislike modern Germany and I genuinely would like to know why.

Because nobody wants a self-indulgent alt-history fic about everyone getting on, that's why.

[Simon_Jester]

I very much like pacifist Germany, thankyouverymuch.

Gee I wonder why.
Wouldnt you have much preferred, say, a Russia that couldnt/wouldnt dare attack to the West and an indifferent Germany starting in say...1922? A victorious German Empire would have ensured effective peace for the last 90 years.

Citation needed.

Besides which, I thought this was a WWII thread.

And besides which, you didn't answer my question. Do you think war is better than peace?

[PeZook]

Wouldnt you have much preferred, say, a Russia that couldnt/wouldnt dare attack to the West and an indifferent Germany starting in say...1922? A victorious German Empire would have ensured effective peace for the last 90 years.

Germany would not be indifferent to Poland if they won WWI, that's patently absurd: the occupation would continue, as would the opression, secret police and policy of kulturkampf, except now also in the Warsaw County. Yay!

Plus you can't seriously say there wouldn't be war in the following 90 years. It wouldn't have been the first time Germany won a war against France, and it never led to lasting peace.

[Thanas]

Wouldnt you have much preferred, say, a Russia that couldnt/wouldnt dare attack to the West and an indifferent Germany starting in say...1922? A victorious German Empire would have ensured effective peace for the last 90 years.

Germany would not be indifferent to Poland if they won WWI, that's patently absurd: the occupation would continue, as would the opression, secret police and policy of kulturkampf, except now also in the Warsaw County. Yay!

Assuming Germany would annex Warsaw, of course. I am not very convinced of that.

Also, Kulturkampf pretty much ended with the advent of WWI and Wilhelm's "I no longer know political parties and religions, I only know Germans." speech in 1914. It kinda is ironic that the first World War was also probably the first time German internal politics changed from divisive to integrative.

[PeZook]

Assuming Germany would annex Warsaw, of course. I am not very convinced of that.

This much is true, but the point was that one way or another it wouldn't exactly be an improvement. Europe was shocked into relative pacifism by WW2, and if that shock never came, I don't see why we wouldn't see another major war on the continent eventually, except with more modern weapons, and thus more death and misery and all around suckiness. Neither France nor Germany had managed to secure total dominance of Europe forever and ever despite each winning major wars against the other at some point ; So why should it automagically happen here?

Also, Kulturkampf pretty much ended with the advent of WWI and Wilhelm's "I no longer know political parties and religions, I only know Germans." speech in 1914. It kinda is ironic that the first World War was also probably the first time German internal politics changed from divisive to integrative.

In practice though the policies related to it in the occupied Polish area lingered on. Now to be honest I might've used the wrong term, I meant the totality of policies aimed at germanisation, not just the kulturkampf itself which I guess has a more narrow meaning.

[Thanas]

Assuming Germany would annex Warsaw, of course. I am not very convinced of that.

This much is true, but the point was that one way or another it wouldn't exactly be an improvement. Europe was shocked into relative pacifism by WW2, and if that shock never came, I don't see why we wouldn't see another major war on the continent eventually, except with more modern weapons, and thus more death and misery and all around suckiness. Neither France nor Germany had managed to secure total dominance of Europe forever and ever despite each winning major wars against the other at some point ; So why should it automagically happen here?

Well, just assuming the demographic situation continues as it did then France (after hypothetically losing) would not be in a position to challenge Germany aggressively anymore, not without Germany getting bogged down somewhere else first.

In practice though the policies related to it in the occupied Polish area lingered on. Now to be honest I might've used the wrong term, I meant the totality of policies aimed at germanisation, not just the kulturkampf itself which I guess has a more narrow meaning.

Yeah, Kulturkampf usually just means the Bismarckian policy of using the state against the power of the pope.

[Dominarch's Hope]

It was less being shocked into peace and more simply being incapable of doing again so soon. Oh and American Nukes. It was hanging over everybodies head at that point that America now possesed the ability to smash the nation the broke the peace into bits with even less risk to their own homeland. I mean say the USSR did the unthinkable and tried to keep rolling to the Channel. December, 1946. Major rail centers, Baku, possibly even Moscow and other cities have went up in nuclear flames. 1947. War is over. Central and Eastern Europe isnt burning. Its burnt.

And by the time Europe was conentionally capable again, both the US and the USSR had nukes. So it was less about being shocked out of war and more about the stakes simply getting way too damn high to be worth it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

December, 1946. Major rail centers, Baku, possibly even Moscow and other cities have went up in nuclear flames. 1947. War is over. Central and Eastern Europe isnt burning. Its burnt.

You do realise that even by December '46 the US only had around ten nuclear bombs available, all in the 20 or so kiloton range? The days of America being able to glass Eastern Europe were a loooong way off. Add to this the fact that all those bombs would have to be delievered by B-29's rather than missiles and that these can be shot down and this scenario is just like your's always are: bollocks.

[ryacko]

You do realise that even by December '46 the US only had around ten nuclear bombs available, all in the 20 or so kiloton range? The days of America being able to glass Eastern Europe were a loooong way off. Add to this the fact that all those bombs would have to be delievered by B-29's rather than missiles and that these can be shot down and this scenario is just like your's always are: bollocks.

I just looked up bomber mission losses, and apparently the worst major mission in WWII had losses of ~30%, against the Romanian oil fields, while the average was eight percent in 1943.
I'm not really certain this is a major issue.

20 kilotons is nothing to sneeze at.

[D.Turtle]

You do realise that even by December '46 the US only had around ten nuclear bombs available, all in the 20 or so kiloton range? The days of America being able to glass Eastern Europe were a loooong way off. Add to this the fact that all those bombs would have to be delivered by B-29's rather than missiles and that these can be shot down and this scenario is just like your's always are: bollocks.

The US pretty much stopped production of nuclear bombs after Japan surrendered (to be exact, they shut down the old production line while starting up a new, more efficient production line). If the political situation were different, the US could be producing more than 10 bombs a month in 1946.

It was less being shocked into peace and more simply being incapable of doing again so soon. Oh and American Nukes. It was hanging over everybody's head at that point that America now possessed the ability to smash the nation the broke the peace into bits with even less risk to their own homeland.

snip

And by the time Europe was conventionally capable again, both the US and the USSR had nukes. So it was less about being shocked out of war and more about the stakes simply getting way too damn high to be worth it.

And I'm sure you have something, somewhere showing that the only thing keeping European countries in line was the threat of American (and Soviet) nukes.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You do realise that even by December '46 the US only had around ten nuclear bombs available, all in the 20 or so kiloton range? The days of America being able to glass Eastern Europe were a loooong way off. Add to this the fact that all those bombs would have to be delivered by B-29's rather than missiles and that these can be shot down and this scenario is just like your's always are: bollocks.

The US pretty much stopped production of nuclear bombs after Japan surrendered (to be exact, they shut down the old production line while starting up a new, more efficient production line). If the political situation were different, the US could be producing more than 10 bombs a month in 1946.

That I did not know, so I shall concede the point.

I just looked up bomber mission losses, and apparently the worst major mission in WWII had losses of ~30%, against the Romanian oil fields, while the average was eight percent in 1943.
I'm not really certain this is a major issue.

20 kilotons is nothing to sneeze at.

I know 20 kilotons is nothing to sneeze at. My point about the bombers was that a bomber strike, unlike a missile attack, was actually preventable. Missiles, you can't do much about whilst bombers can be shot down. I suspect the Soviets would be quite happy to lose a wing/regiment/whatever they called them of fighters to stop a nuclear attack.

[phongn]

I know 20 kilotons is nothing to sneeze at. My point about the bombers was that a bomber strike, unlike a missile attack, was actually preventable. Missiles, you can't do much about whilst bombers can be shot down. I suspect the Soviets would be quite happy to lose a wing/regiment/whatever they called them of fighters to stop a nuclear attack.

In practice, a B-29 configured for nuclear attack would be rather difficult to shoot down in the mid-1940s. Soviet aircraft were not really optimized for the high-altitude interceptor role, IIRC (mostly being used for air support and support thereof).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Really? Ok, I didn't know that either. Conceded.

It will still be, I suspect, slightly more invovled than DH implies.

[Simon_Jester]

High-altitude interception of piston-engine bombers was a serious problem clear through the 1940s into the early '50s; it took fighters like the MiG-15 and F-86 to begin to be competitive against prop bombers at high altitude, and the next generation of transsonic fighters (think F-100 and MiG-19) to truly and totally surpass it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As I said, I did not know that and shall concede. As I also said, I still think it is not as easy as DH hopes. I know the Soviets would be unable to respond with nukes, but might they respond with other weapons? Did they have any serious chemical weapons capacity at the time?

[Sea Skimmer]

Good piston engine fighters could shoot down a B-29 just fine, the B-29 isn't a jet equipped B-36 and the B-36 took a long time to work right, and only then with a vast deal of constant effort. Most Soviet fighters were indeed low level beasts, but the Yak-9PD had a two speed supercharger and was intended to intercept German recon planes flying in the 40,000ft range. The La-9 also had such a power plant and good enough altitude performance for this job. Speed rather then height was the main problem countering the B-29. The La-7 should also be credible, I dunno on anything else but an awful lot of La-7s were built and they were very fast.

Any jet at all, except maybe some Italian motorjet, would completely decimate B-29 attacks, a MiG-9 for example could do over 500mph at 40,000ft with two 23mm and one 37mm gun and flew in 1946.

A fair number of nukes would get on target, but then the USSR is a vast place with a vast amount of dispersed industry and transportation links, and lots of depth for early warning of attacks. Meanwhile everyone would be screaming to drop the nukes on the Red Army. Also the US would have simply had very little idea on what it even should bomb aside from the top places, the only maps of the USSR we had were ones drawn up by the Germans (this is true until the U-2 era, U-2 missions were planned this way) and thus no real idea of the locations of the most important (newest) Soviet industry. That'd all have to be built up during a war with opposed recon flights. On the plus side Baku could and would be hit with conventional bombing within four to six months of the outbreak of war with B-29s and escorts based in the Gulf region. After that the USSR would be in deep trouble. Course the Soviets might overrun the whole Gulf first, since not even forces worthy of being called token exist to oppose them.