• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate World War 2

So, is it even plausible (with any POD) for a non-Nazi Germany (preferably with a restoration) to come out of the Second World War with 1939 borders (including West Prussia but excluding Czechia)?

P.S. I’ve read your timeline Decisive Darkness, and it’s a brilliant, brilliant timeline. Very well done.

I think the fundamental problem is by the time the Germans would offer this, they're losing too badly for it to be accepted.

And when the Allies would accept it, early on, the Germans wouldn't.

Your best bet for a peace with Germany maintaining those borders is a pre 1941 pod. An earlier, quicker war could see the western allies keep Germany intact to defend against the USSR.

No German invasion of the soviet Union would likewise make the allies less willing and able to fight to the death.

And I don't think it's entirely impossible for the Uk to drop out of the war after Dunkirk and the soviets to exhaust themselves in the east to the point of accepting a winning peace rather than total victory. Though that's the longest shot.
 
So, is it even plausible (with any POD) for a non-Nazi Germany (preferably with a restoration) to come out of the Second World War with 1939 borders (including West Prussia but excluding Czechia)?

It's possible but probably not with a 1943 PoD. As @Alex Richards said, a junta coming to power at some point between July 1940 and June 1941 and offering these terms would have a good chance but even then it wouldn't be a certainty and its still difficult for conditions to be created where such a regime could remove not only Hitler but also the Nazi state at the height of its popularity.

P.S. I’ve read your timeline Decisive Darkness, and it’s a brilliant, brilliant timeline. Very well done.

Thanks!
 
Hitler has a heart attack and dies in September 1940. Somebody takes over who offers peace with Britain on a basis of withdrawing the army from the west and restoring the 'independence' of Poland with the General Government boundaries and an end to the occupation of Bohemia-Moravia, reparations are demanded from France but Belgium, Denmark etc. are let off lightly. Subtle suggestions are made about how the real enemy is the Bolsheviks.

I think that's basically the only option- something that looks sufficiently like a Peace with Honour that it can be accepted.

I think the fundamental problem is by the time the Germans would offer this, they're losing too badly for it to be accepted.

And when the Allies would accept it, early on, the Germans wouldn't.

Your best bet for a peace with Germany maintaining those borders is a pre 1941 pod. An earlier, quicker war could see the western allies keep Germany intact to defend against the USSR.

No German invasion of the soviet Union would likewise make the allies less willing and able to fight to the death.

And I don't think it's entirely impossible for the Uk to drop out of the war after Dunkirk and the soviets to exhaust themselves in the east to the point of accepting a winning peace rather than total victory. Though that's the longest shot.

It's possible but probably not with a 1943 PoD. As @Alex Richards said, a junta coming to power at some point between July 1940 and June 1941 and offering these terms would have a good chance but even then it wouldn't be a certainty and its still difficult for conditions to be created where such a regime could remove not only Hitler but also the Nazi state at the height of its popularity.

What conditions would need to be met for the war to be able to end early? (If it has to be earlier than 1943, preferably 1941) Does it become impossible after Barbarossa is launched? Is it even possible before Barbabossa?


You're welcome!
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, a lot of high-ranking Americans believed that they should be focusing on the Japanese rather than the conflict in Europe. With costly failures in Italy and the Germans still deep inside Russia, a peace deal that sees the end of Nazism without the Germans, the Soviets or the British taking over Europe might seem favourable, especially to a man like Henry A. Wallace. I don't know though, that's the point of this thread.

No, with Wallace as VP I don't think there's a chance for a peace with the new regime. He'd be the last guy who'd listen to a suggestion that the west should team up with Germany against Stalin.
 
It's difficult. Roughly speaking, at any point where the Allies would be prepared to accept any deal, the chances of Germany offering a deal are vanishingly small. At any point where Germany is prepared to make a deal, the chances of the Allies agreeing are vanishingly small.

You might be able to do something with an immediate post Fall of France, and a Halifax Administration who accepts a peace with honour settlement with a view to restarting when they've got the country organised (buying time for further rearming), only to find that there isn't the will to go to war to help Stalin once Barbarossa starts.

That's good, but unfortunately I would be left with an entrenched Nazi government. And I really don't like the idea of an entrenched Nazi government.
 
Last edited:
That's good, but unfortunately I would be left with an entrenched Nazi government. And I really don't like the idea of an entrenched Nazi government,

Could something be done with the resulting Barbarossa going wrong somehow, but in a way that doesn't actually cripple Germany? I'll note that I am very much not a military historian (even to the small extent I am an anything historian) so the following may well be rubbish.

Presumably it would be a bit more obvious that Germany was gearing up to attack the USSR in this case (because who else are they going to attack) and so the Soviets can defend better. However as this Germany has had more time to prepare they will have more stuff. Let's say there's a horrendous stand off at say Minsk and Kiev that makes everyone start going "this is not worth it in the slightest." The Nazis insist on pushing, one too many offensives go bad and they start losing ground. They sue for peace (after a regime change if you want), and as the war never really became one of national survival for the USSR they are inclined to be more lenient than OTL.
 
So, to summarise:

You need to engineer a situation where both Germany and the Allies are prepared to come to terms, and it's really hard to locate any point where both sides would be willing to agree. When Germany might deal, the Allies won't. When the Allies might deal (and you're really looking at pre-USA entry, because it becomes essentially impossible after), Germany has not a single reason to deal.

You also need to engineer a situation such that Nazi Germany somehow stops being Nazi Germany, which means not merely removing Hitler, but also removing the whole of the rest of the Nazi hierarchy, and discrediting the Nazi government such that the replacement Government doesn't simply pick up where the previous leadership had left off, and have this replacement Government also be able to hold what might well be a politically disintegrating situation together (what with the entire hierarchy having just been replaced - inevitably in a messy fashion).

You also need to engineer the situation such that the Allies don't have a reason to go for the throat of this now completely disorganised Germany, where strategic decision making is in turmoil and is busy fighting itself (the SS units aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and accept a new regime reversing everything they had fought for).

Good luck with that. I'm stumped.


So am I to be honest.
 
short, it knows that here, Germany is screwed nine ways from Sunday, and given Germany's record on keeping to deals at this point, no-one is going to want to leave a functioning Nazi Germany

I thought this would be the kicker.

Hmm, this gives me a dark idea. Not at all the scenario that was posited, but without the western allies in the war, is it possible for the war to go on long enough that the Germans can develop a functioning atomic bomb (especially given there'd potentially be a lot less sabotage)? I could see a scenario where the germans could be losing badly but not completely out, and then suddenly Moscow (or Stalingrad or whatever city would be the best option) suddenly isn't. At which point the German offer is "let us leave this war with a vaguely intact country, or we're taking you down with us".
 
One thing to bear in mind Venocara is to be clear about what the goal of the timeline is.

If you want to painstakingly explore a logical chain of events, then yes, this thread should be disheartening.

If you just want to tell a tale in a world where a Junta got a negotiated peace in 1943- well, just write the story. The old saw is that in genre fiction the readers will always accept one big bit of implausibility to get the plot moving, and it's true.
 
When the US dropped the nukes, Japan had next to no planes left, or did they? That wouldn't be the case of Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Union. Let alone the fact that Otto Hahn had vowed rather to kill himself than making a nuke for Hitler. And their other problems.
 
One thing to bear in mind Venocara is to be clear about what the goal of the timeline is.

If you want to painstakingly explore a logical chain of events, then yes, this thread should be disheartening.

If you just want to tell a tale in a world where a Junta got a negotiated peace in 1943- well, just write the story. The old saw is that in genre fiction the readers will always accept one big bit of implausibility to get the plot moving, and it's true.

So you're of the opinion that it isn't possible to do plausibly?
 
I'm not saying that, though it's true I can't think of how to do it plausibly.

Rather, I'm saying don't get hung up on it. Implausibility is an issue if the writer handwaves every single plot development- because if anything can and will happen, the reader loses interest.

It's not an issue when the writer knows that the implausible event isn't actually the focus of the story.

Look at SSGB or Fatherland: the first relies upon a successful Operation Sealion, the second on a total German victory that doesn't entangle the US.
Now, if someone posted those backstories update by update on this site then it's probable that it wouldn't work- people would nitpick, it wouldn't be dramatically interesting since it's an unbroken string of Axis victories, and the whole thing would putter out.

But what Len Deighton and Robert Harris knew is that the interesting question isn't always "What if?" but "And then what?"

"What if Germany invaded Britain?" "Then they'd lose." Not that interesting.
"So the Germans have invaded Britain successfully, and eighteen months on the occupation is really feeling the strains. Then what happens?"
That's an alternate history classic.

"What if the German codes were never cracked, and they took the Caucasus, and they didn't hit US shipping with U-boats?" The answer is: sooner or later the Americans find a reason to enter the war rather than let the whole of Eurasia fall into the hands of hostile powers, and the war is much bloodier and longer. Potentially interesting, but not a classic hook.

"The Germans have won, and twenty years later a Berlin detective stumbles upon the greatest murder mystery in history. Then what happens?"
That's Fatherland.

If you have a story you want to tell about a Germany that's neither Fascist, nor Communist, nor Democratic but is gripped in the hands of reactionary Prussian officers like it's still the nineteenth century- tell that story.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that, though it's true I can't think of how to do it plausibly.

Rather, I'm saying don't get hung up on it. Implausibility is an issue if the writer handwaves every single plot development- because if anything can and will happen, the reader loses interest.

It's not an issue when the writer knows that the implausible event isn't actually the focus of the story.

Look at SSGB or Fatherland: the first relies upon a successful Operation Sealion, the second on a total German victory that doesn't entangle the US.
Now, if someone posted those backstories update by update on this site then it's probable that it wouldn't work- people would nitpick, it wouldn't be dramatically interesting since it's an unbroken string of Axis victories, and the whole thing would putter out.

But what Len Deighton and Robert Harris knew is that the interesting question isn't always "What if?" but "And then what?"

"What if Germany invaded Britain?" "Then they'd lose." Not that interesting.
"So the Germans have invaded Britain successfully, and eighteen months on the occupation is really feeling the strains. Then what happens?"
That's an alternate history classic.

"What if the German codes were never cracked, and they took the Caucasus, and they didn't hit US shipping with U-boats?" The answer is: sooner of later the Americans find a reason to enter the war rather than let the whole of Eurasia fall into the hands of hostile powers, and the war is much bloodier and longer. Potentially interesting, but not a classic hook.

"The Germans have won, and twenty years later a Berlin detective stumbles upon the greatest murder mystery in history. Then what happens?"
That's Fatherland.

If you have a story you want to tell about a Germany that's neither Fascist, nor Communist, nor Democratic but is gripped in the hands of reactionary Prussian officers like it's still the nineteenth century- tell that story.

But that's the reason why I think AH stories written on forums like this one are far better than most of the conventional ones. Because the simple fact of the matter is that, as a Alternate History, Look to the West written by @Thande is far, far more plausible than The Two Georges. I want to write a plausible yet interesting story.
 
What conditions would need to be met for the war to be able to end early? (If it has to be earlier than 1943, preferably 1941) Does it become impossible after Barbarossa is launched? Is it even possible before Barbabossa?

I'd say it's more possible before Barbarossa than after, the WAllies and the Soviets had agreed that Germany would have to revert to at least 1937 borders as early as September 1941. With Britain facing Germany alone prior to Barbarossa, adding on top of that the Nazi regime removed and the offer of pretty decent terms in a relative sense I could see the British at least entertaining the notion although it's not a certainty and it's still more likely the war would just continue on.
 
But if it is before Barbarossa, and after the Fall of France, then why on earth would Germany even begin to consider any agreement, and why on earth would anyone even begin to imagine that Germany would keep to any deal?

I suppose it would require changes to the Wehrmacht and changes to the British government as well. Perhaps have more Georg Thomas figures around who, when the junta has taken control, have enough influence to point out that Germany isn't capable of riding out blockade forever and have more figures within the British cabinet who are amenable to continued appeasement. The issue is both of these would require a PoD prior to 1939, arguably 1933 for the former.
 
Which then begs the question that if these figures are significant before 1939, and if Germany is concerned about blockade and etc, then does WW2 even start in any recognisable form?

My assumption was that Hitler would still be in charge when the war starts and things go broadly as per OTL until the fall of France, even with a more grounded Wehrmacht leadership. Either such men would be quietly going along with Hitler's demands (perhaps with some being sidelined only to regain prominence after his death) whilst others are drawn in by his charm. The spell breaks after his death and, somehow, the Wehrmacht ends up in charge of the country and you have figures who are apt to realise that the situation is far more precarious than it initially seems and that an advantageous peace with some retreats is better than an unwinnable war.

It's why I prefer not to decide what the desired end result is to be, but just see where the POD takes me.

Normally I'd agree with you but what's being asked for here is a specific setting that feels plausible-ish.
 
There's a problem that arises when you decide that you want to set the story in a specific setting (in this case, a non-Nazi Germany having come to terms with the Allies in some manner) and that you want to reach this point in a plausible and logical way. The problem is that from any given start point, there are essentially two ways of proceeding.

First, you can let the progression from the POD proceed in a logical and organic way, with the various decisions made developing as they will. They might not turn out as the decision-makers intend, but they go however seems appropriate to the author. That can lead the history to go in unexpected directions, and it's a bit of a voyage of discovery. This is how people make decisions in real-life. They don't get to see what the outcome will be before they make their decision. They know what has happened, and they have the information available to them, and they know what they would like to happen, but they don't get to see what the outcome will be until later.

I once wrote a TL, kind of set around The Troubles in Northern Ireland in the mid 1970s (it started to sprawl rather, but that was the fundamental issue). I chose not to decide what the destination of the TL was, and just wrote it up, day-by-day. People made decisions based on what they knew, and then other people responded to these decisions, and it bubbled along in a somewhat confused manner. The story was the journey. To take one example, the Uganda-Tanzania war broke out during the course of the TL. I had no idea how this would turn out, or how it would impact things elsewhere, but the war developed as it did, with events impacting down the line. One unexpected consequence of this was that a young press officer for the CEGB ended up out advising Nyerere on possible electricity developments for Tanzania. It was a natural part of the journey, and that was fine, because the story was the journey.

The story will meander and go to unexpected places, and you can't predict what the outcome will be 200 pages later.

The second way of proceeding is to decide what the setting is you want, and write the journey from the POD to get to that setting. This has the problem that the decision points are forced towards achieving a certain end. It's one of the big failings of What if Gordon Banks had Played. Every decision point was angled towards achieving a certain end, and in places, it showed. Those factors opposing that direction of travel sometimes made some very implausible decisions, simply to ensure that the desired end result was achieved. People started to act in ways that seemed heavily out of what we know of their character, and the journey wasn't entirely convincing.

SSGB, Fatherland, Man in the High Castle, and so on are telling a story in a particular setting. How that setting arose isn't actually that important for the story. On a more humbler level, it's the approach I adopt in Six East End Boys. The story requires a certain setting. That setting is a given, and it's where the story starts. There's a bit of explanation as to how the setting arose, but it's essentially a hand-wave. It's one that, given the time, I could develop the journey from Thatcher dying in the Brighton bomb to the 30 years later start point of the story; things might be different in superficial ways, but that journey could be told. But that wasn't the story I wanted to tell. That would be a separate story entirely.

It's entirely what you want to write. If you want to write about the journey, then it's likely to be a plausible story of the journey (or less plausible, but that's a function of the quality of the writer). The end point (if there is an end point) is likely to be as much a surprise to the author as any reader. To take the example of my Troubles story, that ended at the end of 1976 with the Green and Orange Balaclavas discussing a possible cease-fire cum agreement with the British Government, with Paddy Ashdown effectively playing the role Mo Mowlam took much later in OTL. I don't know if they ever came to some agreement, or if the difficulties proved too hard to overcome. That would be another story.

If you want to tell a story in a very specific setting (such as a non-Nazi Germany having reached an agreement with the Allies), then concentrate on that story. The journey is not important to the story.

If you want to tell a story in a very specific setting which requires unlikely events to achieve, and to also tell the story of a plausible journey to reach that setting, then I hope you're immortal, because that is a very tall order.

I understand your points, but I really want to do a whole timeline, from the POD to present day, and make it plausible. For every timeline I've planned, I've always known almost exactly where I want it to end up, and then I take steps (with considerable tweaking) to make sure I can get it there and make it the most interesting timeline possible. What If Gordon Banks Had Played is a cautionary tale in this matter, as the events (especially from 1977) were clearly very steered and you could recognise the pattern to guess where the timeline would end up next. I want to avoid that, but I do want to be able to take a plausible POD and make a whole, plausible timeline of it.

P.S. Who wrote What If Gordon Banks Had Played?

I'd say it's more possible before Barbarossa than after, the WAllies and the Soviets had agreed that Germany would have to revert to at least 1937 borders as early as September 1941. With Britain facing Germany alone prior to Barbarossa, adding on top of that the Nazi regime removed and the offer of pretty decent terms in a relative sense I could see the British at least entertaining the notion although it's not a certainty and it's still more likely the war would just continue on.

Yeah. It's not an easy one.

I've had an idea though. What if Roosevelt agrees (upon the advice that he was given) to meet with Fumimaro Konoe, and the negotiations that take place in October 1941 bare fruit, meaning that the US don't get involved in the war. Then, in January 1942, Hitler dies from whatever cause. Obviously, Barbarossa has failed, and the Battle of Moscow has just finished in the Soviets' favour. The German Army might be persuaded to act upon the fear that the Germans have found themselves in the same situation as Napoleon found himself in in 1812, and the Soviets might be willing to deal because of the fact that the Germans are still deep inside Soviet territory. If this deal goes ahead, there is very little that the British can do and with the chances of the Americans getting involved smaller than ever, they might be persuaded to deal as well.
 
I've had an idea though. What if Roosevelt agrees (upon the advice that he was given) to meet with Fumimaro Konoe, and the negotiations that take place in October 1941 bare fruit, meaning that the US don't get involved in the war. Then, in January 1942, Hitler dies from whatever cause. Obviously, Barbarossa has failed, and the Battle of Moscow has just finished in the Soviets' favour. The German Army might be persuaded to act upon the fear that the Germans have found themselves in the same situation as Napoleon found himself in in 1812, and the Soviets might be willing to deal because of the fact that the Germans are still deep inside Soviet territory. If this deal goes ahead, there is very little that the British can do and with the chances of the Americans getting involved smaller than ever, they might be persuaded to deal as well.

By October 1941 America formally joining the war against Germany was pretty much inevitable, regardless of what happened with Japan. Without Pearl Harbour it might be delayed by some months but in the Atlantic the shooting had already started.
 
Yeah, the Atlantic war was already underway.

Maybe you could work with that? Perhaps, counterintuitively, you have the Soviets win a severe and early victory- I dunno, the Germans commit more troops to the Battle for Moscow after it's already been lost. Then the Fuhrer lets his generals know that on top of this he's going to formally declare war on the US, which gives one of the resistance groups the momentum they need to launch a coup.

Just spitballing.


One other thing: they certainly wouldn't establish a 'British-style constitutional monarchy.' A restoration of the monarchy at some point is possible, but the Junta wouldn't be moving to give power to a civilian government any time soon. You might see an uneasy balance with people like Goerdeler trying to quietly get more authority, but while the war is going on I'd expect something more along the lines of the WW1 style military government.

Besides which, a democracy runs the risk of electing Nazis. Or socialists. Or republicans. Or separatists. Or people who want the generals out of politics!

Clearly unacceptable.
 
Anthony Wells, I think. If memory serves, he regards it as a flawed work for precisely it railroading events to achieve a specific objective. In his defence, it was a very early work of internet forum TLs, and many of the accepted practices just weren't in place. For example, it predates Alien Space Bats. There are quite a few people now on this very forum who weren't alive when it was written.

Hmmm. It had a good premise but I feel like it was too steered, it was too easy to see where it was going, and the author's bias was too obvious in its writing. (I mean, Thatcher was bad but she wasn't a genocidal maniac...)
 
Back
Top