Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII: Could Stalin have made peace?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WWII: Could Stalin have made peace?

    Simple question, again for the book. Just how committed was Stalin to crushing the Germans with or without Hitler? See the thrust of my story is that the Germans overthrow Hitler and are pleading for a peace. Stalin refuses to quit the fight, as the Red Army has ejected the Wehrmacht from mother Russia, but made no headway except in the Baltic. This makes the Allies politically unable to make peace with the German Junta, because at best they sold an ally out and at worst, a totally Red Germany.

    But would Stalin really do that?

    I need Stalin to be the heavy, but if he's not inclined to have East Europe, I may have to rethink. In the story, there are Red Army leaders who want peace, at once fearing social collapse of a Russia bled dry further by a potent and effective German defense, and also see the real prize is Asia, and much easier to take from the Japanese.

    And also I don't know what the thrust of the Red Army would be. They have taken most of the Baltics, but seeing how this Wehrmacht gets most of it's oil through the Balkans, a southern thrust might be more logical, or maybe more direct thrust though Poland straight to Berlin? I do know the Red Army cannot do all three, and anything will make the Wehrmacht hurt the Reds bad.

    So play with me for a second. What are the facts I should be aware of? Any movers and shakers who might influence Stalin one way or another? Anything like that?
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

  • #2
    I don't think that Stalin could/would have looked at a peace treaty with a Germany that was totally defeated . He was interested in a total defeat of the Germans. And as for his extending mercy towards the Germans after the invasion of 1941 and what t hey did then . Stalin wouldn't extend mercy to the ravishers of the motherland .

    "To all who serve , have or will serve , Thank You"

    Comment


    • #3
      I started a thread on "Stalin's peace feelers" in june. No conclusive answers. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=78597
      "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
      "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

      "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
      Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actualy, Wolery, are you up for a bit of "Mission Impossible"? Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to see if you can get access to this document http://www.jstor.org/pss/1861311?cookieSet=1 that was referred to at post # 28 in the above thread(entitled "Stalin and the prospects of a separate peace in WW2"). I can't access from here in Australia. However, because you are in the US you may be able to. It may answer some questions.

        P.S. You don't have to look like Tom Cruise to accept this assignment.
        Last edited by At ease; 20 Sep 09, 03:55.
        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
        Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

        Comment


        • #5
          You ARE a persistent one!

          I just hope this does not degenerate into another political circle-jerk.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
            You ARE a persistent one!

            I just hope this does not degenerate into another political circle-jerk.
            I think we are at clean up stage now...just some paperwork to be done. If I could get to a library that had the papers I was after I would be finished by now.
            "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
            "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

            "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
            Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
              You ARE a persistent one!

              I just hope this does not degenerate into another political circle-jerk.
              Why do you think I started a new thread?
              How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
              275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

              Comment


              • #8
                Anyway, Stalin sued for peace in 1941 but the Germans believed they were on the verge of victory so they spurned the offer. According to some sources there were low-level exploratory peace discussions between the two sides in Spring 1943 but these petered out. From there onwards there's no indication that Stalin sought anything less than total defeat for Germany. This mood was reflected through Soviet society due to the enormity of German crimes against the civilian populace in the territories they had occupied. But Stalin wanted more. He wanted a 'buffer zone' of states friendly towards the Soviet Union in between the western border of the USSR and what he perceived as the USSR's enemies in the West. The only thing that might have caused Stalin to think again was a series of telling defeats on the Red Army, something that would have hinted at a German revival. At that point he might have been willing to settle for most of Europe east of the Oder.

                There are some questionable assumptions in your alternative history. What is in Asia that Red Army generals might want? Resources are scarce, China unconquerable, and the old colonial powers unlikely to acquiesce to any nu-style imperialism if it impinges on their possessions. Secondly, if the Germans were willing to hand over alleged Nazi criminals to the Western Allies for trial then I don't see why some kind of separate peace treaty might not be hammered out. Churchill in particular was pretty clear that he regarded the Nazis as the real enemy, not the German people as such.
                Signing out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Monty,

                  Valid questions. The simple answer is the German Junta wants a peace with everyone, they want the war to stop. At the same time, they will give Stalin nothing, The USSR will go back to it's 38 borders, where the Red Army is more or less now. Germany may or may not be able to hold them their, but it will be bloody. A separate peace is impossible not because of Britain, but because of America. America never betray an ally, and America always wins. Truman understands that making peace with Germany will be politically unpopular in a nation feed the line of unconditional surrender.

                  As for Asia, the Red Generals understand that when Japan falls, China will be both a US ally and potential staging ground for attacks in Siberia. Whether or not the Americans see that is besides the point. A Red China would be an excellent buffer state, springboard for exporting revolution to colonies, and possibly a still crispy Japan. But the most important reason they want a redirect to Asia is because Japan is weak and there's a whole lot of real estate for the taking.

                  Stalin is very aware his generals and members of the Politburo are frightened of social unrest over war, which is why the Czar was overthrown. As fearsome as the NKVD can be, the Soviet death toll is approaching 30 million people, and the numbers will rise dramatically because the Wehrmacht is not by any means spent. Asia is a consolation prize instead of Eastern Europe, which might kill the Communist regime to get those buffer states. At least in my thinking Stalin wants decisive victory to bolster his hold on absolute power, and fears plots if anyone in Russia thinks him weak.

                  Does that cover everything?
                  How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                  275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I still find the interest in Asia, at least beyond ensuring China goes Communist, a bit unfathomable. Politicians and military men don't chase real-estate unless is a) offers up a better military position or b) contains useful resources. There are exceptions, of course (Lebensraum being one example), but territorial grabs in the 20th Century follow those basic tenets. So let me tentatively make a suggestion, forget the territorial expansion (for now at least) and focus on China. Historically the support given to Mao by the USSR was pretty small. The generals, aware that the Republicans had failed in Spain want to give much greater assistance to Mao's Communists and clash with Stalin over this issue. They win their argument by a bullet or two and send men and equipment into China thus setting up a clash with the USA. This allows the US (and UK no doubt) to make peace with the Germans as the USSR is now threatening US interests in Asia. Feel free to use none of that but it might make a useful plot device.

                    This bit is very strange

                    As fearsome as the NKVD can be, the Soviet death toll is approaching 30 million people, and the numbers will rise dramatically because the Wehrmacht is not by any means spent.
                    How can the numbers rise dramatically? 75% of Soviet deaths were civilians, even a revitalised Wehrmacht is unlikely to make the total dead rise substantially.

                    Oh and America doesn't always win.
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Peace talks between Germany and the USSR did take place in 1942 and 1943...but came to an end because the two leaders could not settle on a post war border. Stalin wanted a return to 1940 borders and Hitler wanted the borders to be where they were when fighting ended. So yes Stalin and Hitler were interested in peace on their own terms.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                        Why do you think I started a new thread?
                        "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."- Sir Winston Churchill, about R.A.F. fighter pilots."
                        "It is well that war is so terrible, else we grow to fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by strathnaver View Post
                          I don't think that Stalin could/would have looked at a peace treaty with a Germany that was totally defeated . He was interested in a total defeat of the Germans. And as for his extending mercy towards the Germans after the invasion of 1941 and what t hey did then . Stalin wouldn't extend mercy to the ravishers of the motherland .
                          Um....remember Stalin opted to join germany over the allies,telling me that Russia wanted every other european races sluaghted apart from germans.

                          So in other terms,Stalin (hit two birds with one stone) used germany and even used the allies for Russian benifits.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ELLE View Post
                            Um....remember Stalin opted to join germany over the allies,telling me that Russia wanted every other european races sluaghted apart from germans.
                            It's a complex issue but here .....

                            So in other terms,Stalin (hit two birds with one stone) used germany and even used the allies for Russian benifits.
                            ..... you are correct as far as I am concerned.

                            Try to bear in mind that the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany was not an alliance but a temporary expedient from which both parties gained short term benefits. Neither expected it to last.
                            Signing out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              FullMonty,you qouted-
                              "Try to bear in mind that the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany was not an alliance but a temporary expedient from which both parties gained short term benefits. Neither expected it to last."

                              I actually believe that Stalin was going to stay with germany right though the war,and make peace with Hitler.
                              After the war,stalin would have split europe in half with germany,both had plans on ruling there side of Europe.
                              The non-Aggression pact between USSR and Germany,how do you know it was only temporary on Stalin's behalf? yes,Hitler was planning a temp,after all,Germany attack first,at that time Stalin was quite happy to be serving with german forces with invading poland.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X