why would it vindicate Hitler tho, the circumstances are very different even tho on the surface it is similar, which is what I think a lot of communist supporters would say. I think the Americans and the Europeans would be fine with it if the justification is more 'the Austrians want to be part of Germany, we've done referendums and its been a majority' and the such.
Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
Because it would have encouraged the idea that Hitler was right about something. That’s not a sentiment the WAllies nor the Soviets want to encourage. I still believe they’ll still view Austria as a victim of fascism.
In OTL German reunification was already viewed very warily by the former WAllies. Thatcher preferred Germany remain divided when the issue first came up. And the WAllies made sure Germany wouldn’t press any territorial claims in the east either as part of the reunification agreement.
Letting Austria join Germany would give Germany too much power and can cause worry for its neighbors. German unification in OTL only happened after assurances that it won’t lead to things going down the toilet like the last two world wars.
Last edited:
Unless Austria becomes part of a south German federation with Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg, then it won't be allowed to be part of a Germany. Just like IOTL, there is enough of a distinct Austrian identity to make it the basis of separate nationhood, and like IOTL it will have been strengthened by disillusionment with what union with Germany actually brought about.
Also there’s a lot of people who opposed Anschluss who I imagine will get back into power somehow and will make sure that nothing like it ever happens again.
A lot of the post-war decisions was about nullifying the legal status of Nazi decisions. Anschluss is thus going to be seen as a violation of the Versailles System and annulled. A German Austria is also something the Yugoslavs or the Italians will oppose.
No mustard gas for certain. Otherwise damage is very much comparable. Wever is managing the Luftwaffe relatively better than it was managed in OTL but it also has to deal with one more active theater and the Soviet Air force being relatively more powerful thanks to Polikarpov. So it more or less even out.
I'm not certain if playing on their Catholicism is a good or a bad thing
Technically they are at the moment the senior opposition party since everyone else is in the coalition government under Stergiadis.
If someone reads between the lines the British for good or bad aren't very trusting of Kurdish units as frontline troops. Which may well be stupid of them... but it happens. Assyrians are at the moment being fed into the Indian divisions fighting in the Anatolian front to keep them in strength.
Why when did it rebel in OTL?
Entire divisions in Greece managed to join the Allies, often after having to fight it out for days or weeks with the Germans. It stands to reason that many of these men don't just go home and cease fighting. The Allies would hardly mind additional Italian forces on the field. Whether they would prioritize arming Italians over arming French or Greeks or Serbs on the other hand is a different question. On the third hand Italy DOES have a fair bit of industry of its own even if most of it is controlled by the Germans at the moment.
Tens of thousands crossed the border to go fight in OTL... TTL they don't quite need to do the same.
Iran was lucky TTL to avoid Pahlavi installing himself as emperor and in Teymourtash survival. That it will be ending the war not occupied by the Allies and with the war actually as a rallying experience is... an added bonus so to speak.
At the moment the Falangists are clearly losing. Of course the winning side is a coalition government between moderate Nationalists and moderate Loyalists from the fist civil war tacitly backed by the Spanish communist party on Moscow's orders...
I would note that while there is an Arab division, as well as an Israeli division the Assyrian units are being put into Indian units. This British behavior can be construed in many ways...
Yugoslavia will be claiming Zara, Istria and Trieste. How successful either side is remains to be seen.
Teymourtash is an obvious political alternative with strong political credentials. So how Mossadegh does and what's his role is something to be seen. That TTL he's had direct contact in Washington during wartime, certainly doesn't hurt...
For the Allies the problem at the moment is not considered to be the Nazi party but rather German militarism...
To be an ally of Arab countries it would beed to be established... and this would be out of Arab lands. A Christian state in the middle East whose population is thought by its Arab neighbors to be British puppets? Ok not the recipe for the best of relations...
What stops the strong Germany from turning again against the west for the third time? The fourth if you ask the French. Germans are not exactly trusted at the moment...
Technically Kurdistan has begun in Iraqi land TTL. Something that's going to be "fun" to resolve as the war is coming to an end.
Churchill WAS talking for a north south split of Germany one notes. Stalin was also talking of an independent Bavaria and at a point the Americans about a five way split.
For all we know further splitting of Germany may well be in the cards TTL. For one thing one notes that Allied... movie crews and troops have been going through liberated parts of Greece for about a year now and it's not unlikely they will be going through Yugoslavia well before the war. And German occupation in the Balkans was even bloodier than out west. The Allies would be likely leery of letting Germany keep Austria. And I'm uncertain the chips in occupied Germany will be falling just like OTL. For example as noted early on both Stalin and Churchill were supporting a separate Bavaria as part of a split up Germany. I'm not entirely certain when these plans got cancelled in favour of the split we know and why.
Germany keeping Austria post defeat is very unlikely in pretty much any Second World War scenario. One thing all the Allies could agree on was taking Germany back to it's 1937 boundaries as the starting point for further curtailment. The details and internal divisions are very much up for debate but 1937 borders are the starting point, not 1939.
Essentially if Poland , Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are more or less neutral but independent states between the USSR and the West, you have less of an incentive to keep a united Germany as a potential bulwark. In another name the fate of Germany is tied to the fate of Poland. Even a neutralist Poland largely negates the arguments for a united Germany. And there are various arrangements that can be made for German states that still can lead to an economic boom. Let us not forget. The idea and experience of a unitary German state was a Nazi one. Both before and after, German political culture was federalist or confederalist (even if asymmetrical). Thus one could see the Wallies going for a confederal solution.
Tbf a German confederation would be an interesting concept, with the main difference between that Prussia would most likely not exist (maybe it's called Brandenburg or Pomerania instead?). I do think that a North-South German state as proposed by Churchill would be interesting tho especially if Poland is a neutral state in the cold war.
I'm thinking of a possible independent Bavaria now that you said it.
Stalin could still try to push for Poland getting lands that it took in OTL if it means trying to create a counter to what he thinks will be a pro-Western Germany. Wouldn't be surprised if he forces Poland to hand over eastern territories like OTL in the process and gains Kaliningrad too.
Tbf I think the eastern annexations would still occur, but I don't think Poland will gain Pomerania but take Upper Silesia.
Financially speaking you cannot avoid some kind of mittleuropa arrangement including any Germanic states. The Danube -Rhine systems pretty much creates a economic region that whether it likes it or not will always trend to multilateralism.
Indeed, I think there are indications that the post-war map of Europe will have some stark differences compared to OTL.
I doubt that Turkey will keep fighting post spring-summer 1944. An armistice will be declared soon after the final attack is launched. That would mean releasing a lot of Allied units from the theater. How the soviet Army of Caucasus will be utilized would be an interesting question. The Germans will also most likely lose their 5 divisions in south-eastern Anatolia. At the same time, the better part of a full greek army, two french and two british corps will be released. I don't think the Allies will go for a full occupation of Anatolia, so I would expect to keep some garrisons at strategic points.
Most of the Western Allied formations will end up in Italy and the Balkans - probably with the exception of the French. How will Bulgaria react to having to protect a weak flank ? The Straits will open and a drive from East Thrace to the Evros/Maritsa valley is a mortal danger. Come summer 1944, the Germans will be forced to a fighting retreat towards the Danube, with a western army group on their heels. I think it would make sense that Hungary will become a battlefield that will include not just Soviet, but also Western troops inside the post-Trianon borders. I think there might be a chance of Hungary ending up neutral like OTL Austria.
And then we have the Italian Front. Then the Allies are in a better situation than OTL. Certainly, the Italians lack their industrial base, but still they have intact units and can be trusted for more combat roles compared to OTL. From spring 1944 onwards the Germans will be more stretched compared to OTL, while the Allies will be a bit stronger. I don't see how the 8th Army won't advance further than OTL. There is a good chance that Austria ends up a NATO ally, integrated in the western security system. If Czechia is controlled by the Western Allies at the end of the war, there might be a different post-war landscape. Czechslovakia might be neutral or it might be broken up between a neutral/NATO Czechia and a Soviet Slovakia.
In any case, such developments would reduce the need for a united Western Germany.
Last edited:
All good on discussions about a more successful western advance but why wouldn't the Soviet advance as well? I mean if the Germans face problems defending the Soviets will be the ones to exploit it the most with their huge army. Only through diplomacy all those countries would remain neutral and then something else would have to give...
I doubt the kurds and Assyrians can form a alliance its important to remember that the kirds played a major role in the late ottoman genocides and I think they have overlaping territories
Everyone in the Middle East has overlapping territorial claims, so that alone isn’t the end of the world. The bad blood between the groups will definitely put a damper on any alliance talks though. If Assyria forms their best shot at survival is allying with Iran ASAP since Iran is likely going to have its own issues with Kurdistan and whatever Arab state forms in the area of OTL Iraq. I can realistically see the 1960’s Middle East looking a lot like pre WW1 Europe with a lot of Interconnected alliances waiting for a domino to fall
Kurdistan and Assyria to be have an obvious strategic problem they need to address... what's their outlet to the outside world?
Appendix Casualties in Mediterranean fronts 1943
| Country | Military Casualties in Near East fronts 1943 |
|---|---|
| Greece | 100,989 |
| Britain | 52,325 |
| France | 29,593 |
| Poland | 18,504 |
| Yugoslavia | 28,040 |
| USA | 12,238 |
| Iran | 9,338 |
| Germany | 143,541 |
| Italy | 77,225 |
| Turkey | 305,009 |
| Bulgaria | 87,585 |
| USSR | 68,217 |
| Country | Military Casualties in Italy |
|---|---|
| Greece | 909 |
| Britain | 50,203 |
| France | 1017 |
| USA | 40,458 |
| Germany | 27,931 (Sicily only) |
| Italy | 154,039 |
| Greek civilian casualties by year | Deaths |
|---|---|
| 1941 | 134,967 |
| 1942 | 155,231 |
| 1943 | 169,087 |
Last edited: