Occupation and division of Germany without Soviets

[Ultima Ratio]

So I had this idea that a combination of German sanity and Soviet incompetency leads to the Allies taking Berlin and the eventual Iron Curtain being on the OTL Soviet border. No Warsaw Pact, although Yugoslavia still goes communist, they remain unaligned due to being surrounded by NATO. I know this might lead to no Cold War at all, but let's assume for the sake of the thread that there is one, although the Soviets are obviously much weaker. My original idea for this came from a more "Asian" Cold War, where the Soviets are weak in Europe, but have a Communist India (including Pakistan, I know borderline ASB) and perhaps Manchuria on their side (give or take smaller states such as Iran and Afghanistan), while KMT remains in power in the rest of China.

I know this does not seem to be related but bear with me.

So, given how there is still a Cold War, how would the occupation of Germany look like? I assume there would be a Polish Zone as well (likely OTL DDR?) and Königsberg may still go to the Soviets.

Would, in the face of tensions rising, the occupation zones be merged? Would they allow limited German rearmament? Or would they break up Germany to smaller states?

 

[BigBlueBox]

With Germany lacking a border with the Soviet Union the Western Allies are going to be far harsher and much less willing to rebuild Germany.

 

[NoMommsen]

So I had this idea that a combination of German sanity and Soviet incompetency leads to the Allies taking Berlin and the eventual Iron Curtain being on the OTL Soviet border. No Warsaw Pact, although Yugoslavia still goes communist, they remain unaligned due to being surrounded by NATO. I know this might lead to no Cold War at all, but let's assume for the sake of the thread that there is one, although the Soviets are obviously much weaker. My original idea for this came from a more "Asian" Cold War, where the Soviets are weak in Europe, but have a Communist India (including Pakistan, I know borderline ASB) and perhaps Manchuria on their side (give or take smaller states such as Iran and Afghanistan), while KMT remains in power in the rest of China.

I know this does not seem to be related but bear with me.

So, given how there is still a Cold War, how would the occupation of Germany look like? I assume there would be a Polish Zone as well (likely OTL DDR?) and Königsberg may still go to the Soviets.

Would, in the face of tensions rising, the occupation zones be merged? Would they allow limited German rearmament? Or would they break up Germany to smaller states?

... what do you perceive as the "OTL Soviet border" ?
The OTLE russian-bjelarussian border, the bjelarussian-polish border or the polish-german border ?

With Germany lacking a border with the Soviet Union the Western Allies are going to be far harsher and much less willing to rebuild Germany.

The former OTL GDR was part of the soviet coldwar empire/zone of influence.
If you give ITTL Poland this status, then Germany would still be a "front state" and therefore "eligible" for "support" by the wallies in the upcomming cold war.

However, even if even Poland is part of the "western empire"/zone of influence and Germany would not be a front state ...
I don't think the US would make the same error as the Entente made it after WW 1. There would still be a lot of economical and other support to Germany ... as much as there was for Britain (the biggest net "gainer" from the Marshal-plan btw) France and others OTL. It was the only economical as well as financial sensible thing.
And ... as already mentioned on several occasions on this board :
Germany was OTL economically already rebuilding on its own without the Marshal-plan help. With the Marshal-plan the US had at least a foot in the door to participate on this.
Much the same ITTL. The biggest european economy in the heart of europe ... do you really think the US-economists would let this opportunity pass ?? ... for some "revanchism" satisfaction ?

 

[jamesownz]

I don't understand...

So the Germans are still in Russia when the allies take Berlin?

Soviet incompetent?? So they killed out of war? I don't think the allies invade with that

 

[Ultima Ratio]

... what do you perceive as the "OTL Soviet border" ?
The OTLE russian-bjelarussian border, the bjelarussian-polish border or the polish-german border ?

Borders of the SU proper, including Belorus, the Baltic and Eastern Poland that was taken OTL. Possibly Königsberg as well, although that might be Polish, I haven't really thought out the exact details, the point is to have the Iron Curtain further east.

Much the same ITTL. The biggest european economy in the heart of europe ... do you really think the US-economists would let this opportunity pass ?? ... for some "revanchism" satisfaction ?

I'm talking more about the occupation zones that the Allies implemented IOTL, and if they would let Germany properly unite or just break it up for good (there were plans for this).

So the Germans are still in Russia when the allies take Berlin?

Soviet incompetent?? So they killed out of war? I don't think the allies invade with that

The Soviets are still rolling back the Germans, but at a much slower pace and the Allies meet the Soviet troops somewhere in Eastern Poland. This is also assuming that everything goes extremely well for the Allies, with a more successful Italian campaign, and possibly a successful Market Garden analogue.

 

[Midwestern Shadows]

Remember Potsdam and in particular Yalta: Berlin lay in the zone of control promised to the Soviets postwar. This would be a key POD, as the Soviets regarded Poland—in particular, a Soviet-controlled Poland—as vital to their national security, and with good reason to. Many invaders like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and of course, Hitler, had used Poland as a corridor to invade the Russian homeland, and Stalin was absolutely insistent that this passageway be secured. It'd be a very hard position for the western allies to negotiate away, and I can't imagine they'd be willing to attack their ally.

How would the Italian campaign have gone better, I'm curious to know. Market Garden I can imagine, but I'm having trouble contemplating a swift Italian campaign, considering the terrain and vast German defenses that lay there (which were not silenced until the end of the war).

The only possible POD I could see that does not involve a catastrophic amount of Soviet incompetence early in the war is a properly reinforced Dnieper line that in turn saps strength from either the Italian or African theater, thus accelerating D-day. At this point, catch-22 is invoked on Nazi Germany: funnel reinforcements to the western front and the Soviets break through and get a rush to Berlin. Continue defending the Dnieper line and the western Allies face far less resistance, perhaps even precluding a Battle of the Bulge, since such reserves would be fueled into defending against the Soviet onslaught.

For reference, here's a map of the Dnieper line (which in OTL was hardly a defensive line and more of a theoretical concept) and Soviet operations against it.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Remember Potsdam and in particular Yalta

The POD obviously has to be before these, so that the Soviets do not get these territories promised.

 

[fasquardon]

The POD obviously has to be before these, so that the Soviets do not get these territories promised.

This is enormously unlikely. The WAllies wanted Soviet young men to die killing Germans, not their own young men. In a way, the Soviets doing worse is more likely to make them promise more, not promise less, since the worries that the Soviets would make peace with the Germans would be greater in such a scenario.

It is very hard for the WAllies to win WW2 without the Eastern Front being active, even once nuclear weapons come on line since the Germans can start spending the resources that were tied down in the east on defending their airspace and garrisoning the coasts.

(Equally, it's very unlikely that the Soviets would gain much further west of OTL if they did extremely well - the partition line in Europe is very hard to move in BOTH directions.)

I don't think the US would make the same error as the Entente made it after WW 1. There would still be a lot of economical and other support to Germany ... as much as there was for Britain (the biggest net "gainer" from the Marshal-plan btw) France and others OTL. It was the only economical as well as financial sensible thing.

A big impetus for the Marshal plan was to stop Western Europe falling to Communism. Without the Soviet Union being seen as the main destroyer of Nazism and Fascism, then it will have much less appeal in the rest of Europe and the US will have far less interest in the hardships of Europeans.

As for being smart with Germany - the "lesson" learned by the US was that Germany had a deep and stubborn militarist strand in its culture and the only way to ensure the veterans of WW2 didn't have to see their sons go fight Germans again was to destroy Germany as a technological and industrial power. If the Soviet Union is contained on the far side of Poland, I suspect that the US could stay that course until the Democrats loose the Whitehouse, if not a bit longer.

fasquardon