Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Initial idea 1)
a) Britain makes peace in 1940 after the fall of France.
b) Hitler invades the USSR in 41 and gets a bit further leading to a death fight in Moscow with a much larger Stalingrad resulting.
c) The USSR - with probably some indirect aid from UK and/or US gradually grinds down the Germans with horrendous costs to both side and any poor people caught under foot.

Eventually some peace agreement is made, depending on the balance of power at the time, before Soviet forces reach German territory. German civilian losses are minimal but military losses are even larger than OTL.

No Western Front means the Germans win, this isn't even questioned in academic works that look at this, as I've cited to you before.

Western Aid for the Soviet Union During World War II: Part II by Denis Havlat:

During World War II the Soviet Union received large amounts of aid from the Western world in the form of supplies and military intervention, both of which were declared to have been irrelevant for the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany by Soviet historians. This article examines the claim made by Soviet historiography, and it comes to the conclusion that both Western supplies and military intervention were far more helpful than claimed by the Soviets. Without this aid the Red Army would not have been able to perform as well as it did historically, tilting the balance in Germany’s favor. Soviet claims about the irrelevance of Western aid can thus be dismissed as propaganda and inaccurate.​

Havlat also goes further, noting how the lack of the U.S. would have further effects:

Overall, the Western Allies were responsible only for a small fraction of the losses sustained by German infantry and armor between 1941 and 1943 (around 10 percent); however, their contribution in the destruction and occupation of the Luftwaffe was overwhelming. The same applies to their contribution in forcing the Germans to leave most heavy artillery in the Reich as anti-aircraft weapons, preventing them from being used as anti-tank weapons in the East. Without Allied military intervention, the Germans could have sent at least 2,000 additional tanks, some 5,000 additional 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, around 15,000 additional aircraft, tens of thousands of additional motor vehicles, and up to half a million additional soldiers to the Eastern Front in the years 1941–1943, which would have shifted the balance in their favor.​

Further on:

Without the need to fight in the Atlantic; to transport large amounts of troops, equipment, and supplies across the entire continent; and the necessity to defend against Allied bombing, Germany could have massively reduced its U-boat, locomotive, and anti-aircraft gun and ammunition production and converted at least part of these capacities into the production of more aircraft and equipment for land warfare. Additionally, without bombing, and the need to maintain a large enough army to fight on several fronts, there would have been less need to use forced labor in the factories, thus boosting production. Historically, Germany already outproduced the USSR in certain areas like locomotives, trucks, and even bombers, with 12,664 produced by Germany in the years 1941–1943 as compared to 11,359 built by the USSR.170 Without Allied intervention and Lend-Lease, Soviet margins in these areas would most likely have widened, while margins in areas such as tanks would have shrunk significantly. If Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards, it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East.​

Idea 2)
Simialar to 1) but a virtually exhausted Germany is gradually winning when Britain intervenes with some nukes to force a settlement of some kind. This could include attacks on both civilian targets - but still with German civilian losses less than OTL - or on possible military concentrations or a mix of both. Peace is imposed on both states with Germany occupied and de-Nazification started, the setting up of independent states in eastern Europe and the Soviets restricted in their territories. [I can't see Britain having either the resources or will to try and occupy and control the bulk of the USSR. Even if the US is also drawn in on the allied side but they need to remove Nazi Germany as a threat and also try and restore peace and economic development to continental Europe.

The War in the East would already long be decided by the time Britain develops nuclear weapons in the 1950s.
 
No Western Front means the Germans win, this isn't even questioned in academic works that look at this, as I've cited to you before.

Western Aid for the Soviet Union During World War II: Part II by Denis Havlat:

During World War II the Soviet Union received large amounts of aid from the Western world in the form of supplies and military intervention, both of which were declared to have been irrelevant for the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany by Soviet historians. This article examines the claim made by Soviet historiography, and it comes to the conclusion that both Western supplies and military intervention were far more helpful than claimed by the Soviets. Without this aid the Red Army would not have been able to perform as well as it did historically, tilting the balance in Germany’s favor. Soviet claims about the irrelevance of Western aid can thus be dismissed as propaganda and inaccurate.​

Havlat also goes further, noting how the lack of the U.S. would have further effects:

Overall, the Western Allies were responsible only for a small fraction of the losses sustained by German infantry and armor between 1941 and 1943 (around 10 percent); however, their contribution in the destruction and occupation of the Luftwaffe was overwhelming. The same applies to their contribution in forcing the Germans to leave most heavy artillery in the Reich as anti-aircraft weapons, preventing them from being used as anti-tank weapons in the East. Without Allied military intervention, the Germans could have sent at least 2,000 additional tanks, some 5,000 additional 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, around 15,000 additional aircraft, tens of thousands of additional motor vehicles, and up to half a million additional soldiers to the Eastern Front in the years 1941–1943, which would have shifted the balance in their favor.​

Further on:

Without the need to fight in the Atlantic; to transport large amounts of troops, equipment, and supplies across the entire continent; and the necessity to defend against Allied bombing, Germany could have massively reduced its U-boat, locomotive, and anti-aircraft gun and ammunition production and converted at least part of these capacities into the production of more aircraft and equipment for land warfare. Additionally, without bombing, and the need to maintain a large enough army to fight on several fronts, there would have been less need to use forced labor in the factories, thus boosting production. Historically, Germany already outproduced the USSR in certain areas like locomotives, trucks, and even bombers, with 12,664 produced by Germany in the years 1941–1943 as compared to 11,359 built by the USSR.170 Without Allied intervention and Lend-Lease, Soviet margins in these areas would most likely have widened, while margins in areas such as tanks would have shrunk significantly. If Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards, it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East.​



The War in the East would already long be decided by the time Britain develops nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

The US would refuse to give anywhere near as much Lend-Lease to the USSR if Britain isn't also in the war, right?
 
The US would refuse to give anywhere near as much Lend-Lease to the USSR if Britain isn't also in the war, right?

It would depend on the situation. FDR seems to have realised how big a potential threat Germany was but provided aid to the Soviets would have been politically considerably more difficult without the example set of L-L to Britain. Mind you possibly China could be a stepping stone politically here?

On the other hand if it did happen its likely to be larger - logistics permitting which would be the big problem - compared to OTL as there's no bitter war in the Atlantic and possibly no Pacific war either.
 
No Western Front means the Germans win, this isn't even questioned in academic works that look at this, as I've cited to you before.

Western Aid for the Soviet Union During World War II: Part II by Denis Havlat:

During World War II the Soviet Union received large amounts of aid from the Western world in the form of supplies and military intervention, both of which were declared to have been irrelevant for the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany by Soviet historians. This article examines the claim made by Soviet historiography, and it comes to the conclusion that both Western supplies and military intervention were far more helpful than claimed by the Soviets. Without this aid the Red Army would not have been able to perform as well as it did historically, tilting the balance in Germany’s favor. Soviet claims about the irrelevance of Western aid can thus be dismissed as propaganda and inaccurate.​

Havlat also goes further, noting how the lack of the U.S. would have further effects:

Overall, the Western Allies were responsible only for a small fraction of the losses sustained by German infantry and armor between 1941 and 1943 (around 10 percent); however, their contribution in the destruction and occupation of the Luftwaffe was overwhelming. The same applies to their contribution in forcing the Germans to leave most heavy artillery in the Reich as anti-aircraft weapons, preventing them from being used as anti-tank weapons in the East. Without Allied military intervention, the Germans could have sent at least 2,000 additional tanks, some 5,000 additional 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, around 15,000 additional aircraft, tens of thousands of additional motor vehicles, and up to half a million additional soldiers to the Eastern Front in the years 1941–1943, which would have shifted the balance in their favor.​

Further on:

Without the need to fight in the Atlantic; to transport large amounts of troops, equipment, and supplies across the entire continent; and the necessity to defend against Allied bombing, Germany could have massively reduced its U-boat, locomotive, and anti-aircraft gun and ammunition production and converted at least part of these capacities into the production of more aircraft and equipment for land warfare. Additionally, without bombing, and the need to maintain a large enough army to fight on several fronts, there would have been less need to use forced labor in the factories, thus boosting production. Historically, Germany already outproduced the USSR in certain areas like locomotives, trucks, and even bombers, with 12,664 produced by Germany in the years 1941–1943 as compared to 11,359 built by the USSR.170 Without Allied intervention and Lend-Lease, Soviet margins in these areas would most likely have widened, while margins in areas such as tanks would have shrunk significantly. If Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards, it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East.​



The War in the East would already long be decided by the time Britain develops nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

Points
a) The assumption is that Britain makes peace. Which remove the excuse for the continued occupation of most of France and the massive 'occupation' charges the Germans imposed on France. That would take a lot out of the German economy.

b) Its one thing to operate forces in your well developed homeland and another to have them operating hundreds of miles away at the end of long and strained supply lines. I don't know about in Germany but in Britain much of the AA guns were occupied by volunteers who were working during the day. If the same in Germany then it needs to recruit those men or others to the military and transport them to the eastern front. Along with the equipment, munitions, spares and supplies they and their weapons need.

c) The 3rd expect from Havlat seems to be doing some double counting as he's talking about not needing to produce things like the AA guns without the war in the west, apparently forgetting he's already sent them east. Also depending on the terms of the peace treaty is Germany relieved of much logistical burdens anyway as other than France [and probably some of the smaller western states] not sure what other areas would cease to be occupied by Germany while there is still the bulk of the burden in the east and quite possibly in the Balkans. Furthermore a 41-43 comparison with the Soviets is not a good choice as this doesn't account for the massive hit on Soviet production in 41-42 due to the invasion, occupation of many industrial areas and need to move a lot of material into Siberia and Central Asia.

d) You also are making the assumption that in this scenario Britain wouldn't acquire nukes until the early 50's which under the circumstances is rather dubious.

As I say the Soviets will do worse with no western/southern fronts but its far from certain they will be overwhelmed as quickly as you assume and as I mentioned in my 1st example there are things that could go very badly for Germany. The sources you choose to quote may assume otherwise but its a much debated point.
 
'AHC: Make the Intermarium an actual thing, from Estonia to Yugoslavia & Czechoslovakia to Ukraine'

Can it be an Intermarium within the EU? Because right now, what the Intermarium countries within the EU are united by are a hostility towards both Wokeness and Muslim immigration:

Islam_in_Europe_by_Percentage.PNG


There's an almost Muslim-free zone in Eastern Europe/Intermarium. All you need to do to complete the Intermarium-within-the-EU project is to add Ukraine and perhaps Belarus to the EU, which can be done with time. :)
 
Reverse the result at
and you are half way there. Then give several Vaclav kings long and competent reigns.
Vaclav marries Rycheza of Poland, thus gets Poland as hubby to heiress of Przemysł (which is OTL!!!!1). This opens the way to Lithuania and Ukraine.
Interesting. I was thinking of 20th-century PODs, but this seems like it could get the job done early. Though, correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't Ottokar challenging the first Habsburg for the throne of the Holy Roman Emperor at the Marchfeld? It looks like the Bohemians winning would force the Premyslids to turn west rather than east, which could either distract them from the Intermarium project or make it + the Bohemian-led HRE into too unwieldy of a blob to stick together for long.
Can it be an Intermarium within the EU? Because right now, what the Intermarium countries within the EU are united by are a hostility towards both Wokeness and Muslim immigration:

Islam_in_Europe_by_Percentage.PNG


There's an almost Muslim-free zone in Eastern Europe/Intermarium. All you need to do to complete the Intermarium-within-the-EU project is to add Ukraine and perhaps Belarus to the EU, which can be done with time. :)
I guess, although I had in mind an 'Intermarium' as at least an independent power-bloc if not a single federation/confederacy. Maybe if the EU breaks up and the Eastern/Central/Balkan states on that map stick together as the 'Based Bloc'...
 
I guess, although I had in mind an 'Intermarium' as at least an independent power-bloc if not a single federation/confederacy. Maybe if the EU breaks up and the Eastern/Central/Balkan states on that map stick together as the 'Based Bloc'...

Yeah, if the EU will break up due to Western Europe becoming too Woke and/or Islamized, then the Eastern European countries could form their own Intermarium bloc, which is likely to be closely allied to the US and other Anglosphere countries.
 
'AHC: Have Nazi Germany deport the Polish Jews under its rule/control en masse to the Soviet Union in the 1939-1941 time period (specifically before the start of Operation Barbarossa) and have Stalin subsequently deport them en masse to Siberia or wherever'

Extraordinarily cruel, I know, but it would literally be the best way to save most of them from the impending Holocaust.
 
Is there any chance that African Romance speakers could be resettled en masse in Medieval Europe in order to avoid becoming Arabized en masse? :

Sardinia, Malta and the other Western Mediterranean islands seem like logical places to move them, since African Romance was said to be especially similar to Sardinian by Muslim chroniclers and they can bolster the islands' (and seaways') defense against Muslim pirates & amphibious raiders.

You'd probably need a strong and enduring HRE to coordinate such resettlement to a degree if you want the Africans to stick together as a cohesive ethnic group though. As well as a much more fanatically hostile (akin to the Almohads, for example) crew to take power in the Maghreb much earlier, to push the Christian Africans out before they've dwindled to almost nothing over the centuries.
 
Sardinia, Malta and the other Western Mediterranean islands seem like logical places to move them, since African Romance was said to be especially similar to Sardinian by Muslim chroniclers and they can bolster the islands' (and seaways') defense against Muslim pirates & amphibious raiders.

You'd probably need a strong and enduring HRE to coordinate such resettlement to a degree if you want the Africans to stick together as a cohesive ethnic group though. As well as a much more fanatically hostile (akin to the Almohads, for example) crew to take power in the Maghreb much earlier, to push the Christian Africans out before they've dwindled to almost nothing over the centuries.

By the time that the Almohads came to power in the Maghreb, was it already too late for this to work due to the too-small Christian % remaining in the Maghreb?
 
By the time that the Almohads came to power in the Maghreb, was it already too late for this to work due to the too-small Christian % remaining in the Maghreb?
Seems that way. The Almohads arose in the 12th century, while African Romance had been steeply declining for at least a century before that and progressively disappeared from the region (from Tunisia - the old Carthaginian core - by the mid-1200s, for example) until its definitive, total extinction by the 14th.

Basically, the earlier you can get the Afro-Latins out to safety elsewhere, the better their chances of surviving (or even participating in an African Reconquista) in the long term.
 
Seems that way. The Almohads arose in the 12th century, while African Romance had been steeply declining for at least a century before that and progressively disappeared from the region (from Tunisia - the old Carthaginian core - by the mid-1200s, for example) until its definitive, total extinction by the 14th.

Basically, the earlier you can get the Afro-Latins out to safety elsewhere, the better their chances of surviving (or even participating in an African Reconquista) in the long term.

Makes sense.

BTW, off-topic, but why did the Almohads fail to assimilate the Maghreb's Jews to the same extent that they could the Maghreb's Christians? Obviously Spanish Jewish immigration into the Maghreb had something do to with this (replenishing Jewish numbers), what else?
 
Mexico and Peru would be suitable candidates to have a large Chinese minority population, especially if the Spanish Empire had done more to attract Chinese immigrants to its colonies, but the only colony they’re willing to settle due to distance would be the Philippines, unless there’s a Latin American equivalent of the California and Yukon Gold Rushes.

Although there is one area that I wanted to explore, and that would be a more, Latin American style multicultural Philippines where Southern Europeans, Latin Americans, and maybe Africans would migrate to the Philippines, either during the American colonial period, or post-war period.
 
Mexico and Peru would be suitable candidates to have a large Chinese minority population, especially if the Spanish Empire had done more to attract Chinese immigrants to its colonies, but the only colony they’re willing to settle due to distance would be the Philippines, unless there’s a Latin American equivalent of the California and Yukon Gold Rushes.

Although there is one area that I wanted to explore, and that would be a more, Latin American style multicultural Philippines where Southern Europeans, Latin Americans, and maybe Africans would migrate to the Philippines, either during the American colonial period, or post-war period.

What about Indians?
 
What about Indians?
For the Philippines or Latin America? If the former, then the only PoD I can think of would be a successful British annexation of the Philippines from Spain, and Indians would be sent as indentured laborers in a British Philippines.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top