No Operation Barbarossa impact on the war
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
No. British grand strategy (draw the Americans in!) is working. By late 1941 the US is already engaging in acts of war against the Axis and the US and UK will still become military allies in December.
Very hard to say. It's so dependent on what Stalin does and whether he thinks his greater enemy is Germany or the western allies at any particular point. If the former, then he may choose to starve Germany of resources then jump in at some opportune moment. If the latter, then he'll keep the German supplied to an extent and allow them to bleed each other.
The two most likely possibilities are, firstly, the cost of beating a Germany not ground down by the Soviets proved too great to beat for the WAllies. Some form of cease-fire is hammered out. Stalin makes bank off of selling the Germans what they need, rebuilds the Red Army, and waits to see what happens next.
Secondly, Anglo-American political will proves up to the challenge. At the cost of millions of their lives and quite a number of nukes, the Anglo-Americans grind their way across Western Europe and put an end to Nazi Germany sometime in 1946 or 47. Stalin still makes bank selling the Germans stuff, finishes rearming and reforming the Red Army, and probably backstabs the Germans right at the end to grab Eastern Europe as American tanks roll through the Ruhr.
Those are the two most likely outcomes. Then there are the much less likely, but still theoretically possible, scenarios like “Stalin attacks Germany in 1943 or 44” or “the Germans manage to successfully pull off a Med Strategy” or what-have-you.
Secondly, Anglo-American political will proves up to the challenge. At the cost of millions of their lives and quite a number of nukes, the Anglo-Americans grind their way across Western Europe and put an end to Nazi Germany sometime in 1946 or 47. Stalin still makes bank selling the Germans stuff, finishes rearming and reforming the Red Army, and probably backstabs the Germans right at the end to grab Eastern Europe as American tanks roll through the Ruhr.
Those are the two most likely outcomes. Then there are the much less likely, but still theoretically possible, scenarios like “Stalin attacks Germany in 1943 or 44” or “the Germans manage to successfully pull off a Med Strategy” or what-have-you.
Last edited:
First,
I am not sure I agree. Ultimately, it was Germany who declared war on the U.S., not the other way around. I agree that in anything resembling our timeline the eventual military allanciae does seem like a foregone conclusion, but if the wheels have so badly fallen off the German bus that they've had to set aside their great decisive war with Jewish-Bolshevism for ideological supremacy, it's at least possible that Hitler will have more on his plate to worry about than picking a fight with the U.S. At least in our timeline, the big battle with the Soviets was hard baked into Nazi ideology in a way that war with Britain and the U.S. wasn't, but in this alternate timeline, apparently the Soviet war isn't happening either.
That said, just to put all my cards on the table here, I say this as someone who has already long believed that the best strategy for Germany in mid-1940 was probably simply to declare victory, tell Britain the war was over whether they liked it or not, and commence fortifying their new boundaries while waiting for the eventual British recognition of those boundaries. A strategy probably outside the head space of Nazi leadership, but the best, nonetheless.
This part I do agree with. I have to think that from Stalin's perspective, Germany wading into long, grueling battles of attrition is simply fantastic news. He can supply them what he thinks is just enough material to stay in the game but not enough to enable a prompt and decisive victory. That said, I'm not sure Stalin has the capacity to maintain that kind of balancing act very effectively and he certainly doesn't have an impartial, objective foreign and intelligence service to help him in making the calculations.
I am not sure I agree. Ultimately, it was Germany who declared war on the U.S., not the other way around. I agree that in anything resembling our timeline the eventual military allanciae does seem like a foregone conclusion, but if the wheels have so badly fallen off the German bus that they've had to set aside their great decisive war with Jewish-Bolshevism for ideological supremacy, it's at least possible that Hitler will have more on his plate to worry about than picking a fight with the U.S. At least in our timeline, the big battle with the Soviets was hard baked into Nazi ideology in a way that war with Britain and the U.S. wasn't, but in this alternate timeline, apparently the Soviet war isn't happening either.
That said, just to put all my cards on the table here, I say this as someone who has already long believed that the best strategy for Germany in mid-1940 was probably simply to declare victory, tell Britain the war was over whether they liked it or not, and commence fortifying their new boundaries while waiting for the eventual British recognition of those boundaries. A strategy probably outside the head space of Nazi leadership, but the best, nonetheless.
This part I do agree with. I have to think that from Stalin's perspective, Germany wading into long, grueling battles of attrition is simply fantastic news. He can supply them what he thinks is just enough material to stay in the game but not enough to enable a prompt and decisive victory. That said, I'm not sure Stalin has the capacity to maintain that kind of balancing act very effectively and he certainly doesn't have an impartial, objective foreign and intelligence service to help him in making the calculations.
thaddeus
Donor
my view the weaknesses of Italy are apparent and they need to strike deal with France to better position themselves in their unwanted theater of Med.
gain control over French submarine fleet (even if they prove impossible to operate Germany was not allowed u-boats after WWI, hard for Vichy regime to argue for continued use of submarines) and some of French merchant fleet (THAT they could operate.)
in the Balkans they are not recruiting for invasion forces, no need frankly for Romania? (they are always going to favor Hungary and Bulgaria) reduce country to borders of "old Kingdom?" (they only ever got half the oil production, no need here to obtain by "diplomatic" means?)
gain control over French submarine fleet (even if they prove impossible to operate Germany was not allowed u-boats after WWI, hard for Vichy regime to argue for continued use of submarines) and some of French merchant fleet (THAT they could operate.)
in the Balkans they are not recruiting for invasion forces, no need frankly for Romania? (they are always going to favor Hungary and Bulgaria) reduce country to borders of "old Kingdom?" (they only ever got half the oil production, no need here to obtain by "diplomatic" means?)
Last edited:
Would the Western Allies try a containment policy on the Germans in the event of a cease-fire
The US has already started with war with Japan with the oil embargoes US ships will soon be escorting British convoys the US following Pearl would have gone to war with Germany it would have taken a bit longer sure but eventually, a major US vessel will be hit and Roosevelt has his casus belli
This sounds like one of those strategies where you forget that your enemy may not play the role you intend them to play.
thaddeus
Donor
when USSR was invaded they were recast somewhat in more favorable light, continued cooperation with Nazi regime and at some point Allied side tires of waiting for Inevitable (war between the two?)
meaning the Soviets are maintaining balancing act with Allies also. where is their primary interest? probably forcing access to Black Sea, regaining the border area from Turkey? and/or control of at least part of Iran?
takerma
Banned
USSR was already armed to the teeth and rearming quickly. By 1942 or 43 it will not even be a contest, unless Germany somehow get pushed into full on 100 commitment to war production in 1941 they will get steamrolled.
Imagine all of those mega tank factories did not have to be moved.. imagine no losses in 1941.. Germany is fucked. It is more of a question of where Soviet logistics can take them, Berlin I think so. Rest of Germany probably. Atlantic? With French 5th column, maybe?
Would Americans use nuclear bombs in Europe? Maybe.. with the Red Menace now covering all of Europe and huge Chunk of Asia I think Americans will strike against Communists once the accumulate enough bombs by 1947-48.
Imagine all of those mega tank factories did not have to be moved.. imagine no losses in 1941.. Germany is fucked. It is more of a question of where Soviet logistics can take them, Berlin I think so. Rest of Germany probably. Atlantic? With French 5th column, maybe?
Would Americans use nuclear bombs in Europe? Maybe.. with the Red Menace now covering all of Europe and huge Chunk of Asia I think Americans will strike against Communists once the accumulate enough bombs by 1947-48.
Anchises
Banned
That is a common ASB people tend to portray as realistic in my oppinion.
A Soviet attack would have ended in a disaster probably.
The Red Army prior to WW2 suffered from the same leadership problems as your run of the mill Arab dictatorship. Political reliable officers were promoted, not talented officers. So it is very unlikely that the tactical performance of the Red Army would have improved in a meaningful manner. The lessons of Barbarossa and Blau allowed the Red Army to step up their game.
So yeah the Red Army would have used more troops and more modern equipment to conduct a terrible "1941 OTL style" offensive. Into a territory with different rail gauges and against a prepared Wehrmacht with short supply lines.
The Wehrmacht would have been prepared because the Nazis were absolutely paranoid about Judeo-Bolshevism. Stalin assumed that Hitler would behave like a calculating statesman while Hitler assumed that Stalin would act like a "subhuman communist".
And a lot of the advantages the Soviets enjoyed are now working for Germany.
-Logistical problems: The Soviets have to handle the rail problems. The Germans have short and well functioning supply lines.
-Climate and terrain: Poland (and to a lesser degree the Balkans) are well suited for the high mobility manouver warfare that the Wehrmacht preferred. Wear and tear is going to be DRASTICALLY reduced for the Wehrmacht.
-Morale: This is not the Great Patriotic War. This is Stalin sending the Red Army against the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht at the time seemed invincible. So without the experience of the Nazis raping their homeland the Soviet soldiers might have a slightly different opinion than OTL after they realize the massive casualties that the Wehrmacht inflicts.
Air Force losses: Well the Soviet Air Force avoids the high losses of the initial air offense while the Luftwaffe avoids the massive losses that constant rebasing to poor Soviet airbases caused. The situation would probably be similiar to OTL because the Germans also have ground based Air defenses available.
Central Poland would probably be a deathtrap for the well armed Red Army formations leading the attack. We would see massive encirclements and large scale counter offensive.
And we have to keep in mind that the Wehrmacht would use a "relatively" peaceful 1941-43 (when the Soviets attack) to develop new weapons too.
Looking at the Luftwaffe's inherent failings when compared to the WAllies, it would seem that eventually the skies over France would be cleared, and then German forces can be broken down into defeatable chunks. It would be a bloodbath, and would likely require more than a few atomic bombs, but it can't see things getting bad enough for the WAllies to come to the table.
Deleted member 1487
It has an influence on the Japanese, who now need to consider that the Soviets might be a threat if they attack the Allies. If Hitler opts out of Barbarossa indefinitely, does he try to actually respond to the Soviet offer of Axis entry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Soviet_counterproposal_agreement
Without Barbarossa the Germans can afford to actually pay for what they owe to the Soviets, as they aren't fight a massive war in the East, which at up at least 45% of the military budget, nor are they paying to build up a massive army to invade; instead they can demobilize half the army and return them to industry (IIRC they wanted to demob 80 divisions after Barbarossa and took 1.5 million men out of industry for Barbarossa).
This could change the outcome of the war. The situation in the Mediterranean is dramatically changed, as without Barbarossa the Axis has the fuel to use the Italian navy and to fund greater Italian naval construction, plus follow up on the Crete victory and really hone in on Malta (IOTL they eased off pressure from May 1941-January 1942 to fight on other fronts, especially in the East). The situation with Spain gets revisited without Barbarossa. Turkey becomes a serious open question, as does a Middle East Front. Rommel might get anything he wants regardless of logistics expense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Soviet_counterproposal_agreement
Without Barbarossa the Germans can afford to actually pay for what they owe to the Soviets, as they aren't fight a massive war in the East, which at up at least 45% of the military budget, nor are they paying to build up a massive army to invade; instead they can demobilize half the army and return them to industry (IIRC they wanted to demob 80 divisions after Barbarossa and took 1.5 million men out of industry for Barbarossa).
This could change the outcome of the war. The situation in the Mediterranean is dramatically changed, as without Barbarossa the Axis has the fuel to use the Italian navy and to fund greater Italian naval construction, plus follow up on the Crete victory and really hone in on Malta (IOTL they eased off pressure from May 1941-January 1942 to fight on other fronts, especially in the East). The situation with Spain gets revisited without Barbarossa. Turkey becomes a serious open question, as does a Middle East Front. Rommel might get anything he wants regardless of logistics expense.
Anchises
Banned
One of the deciding factors of the weak German war economy was the lack off qualified and loyal workers. If the Germans demobilize after the Fall of France we would see a "Rüstungswunder" (really bad term) much earlier giving the Germans more production capabilities. Especially if the Soviets keep delievering ressources.(Personally I think a Soviet attack was highly unlikely, Fascists and Capitalists exhausting each other was exactly what Stalin wanted).
If the Axis Powers are able to secure the Mediterranean (conquering Malta and Gibraltar for example) we might see a much stronger Heeresgruppe Afrika. If the Germans then decide to attack Turkey and to continue pushing into the Middle East, then the Suez is seriously threatened.
If the U.S. enter the war this would still not change the outcome but Great Britain alone would he hard pressed to win with against a stronger German War economy that has access to an "Axis Mare Nostrum".
Deleted member 1487
They did demobilize a large part of the army after France, but reactivated them for Barbarossa. It was somewhere around 1-1.5 million men.
I agree that Stalin wanted to watch the fireworks and wouldn't attack unless he could get cheap gains.
The issue with Turkey is that Stalin had interests there and did not want to see the Germans unilaterally invading; you'd need Stalin's support to make that viable, which gets back to Soviet entry into the Axis. I also don't think US entry is necessarily guaranteed either without Barbarossa. There would be a question at what point the Brits decide that continuing is no longer in their interests.
Anchises
Banned
Well the demobilization after France was too short to really affect the production. The workers need a while to adjust to the production and constant mobilizations and demobilizations are counterproductive.
I don't think that Soviets would have needed to enter the Axis. The Germans were interested in stable supply lines for a "HG Mittlerer Osten/ AG Middle East" so there was a possibility to accomodate the Soviet interests in Turkey without a full Alliance.
Well we have massive butterflies at least so there is a chance that the U.S. don't join (or at least to late). Imho we need an earlier POD for that though.
I don't want to sidetrack this too far but just to clarify my point there, any objective (and therefore unrealistic) analysis falling the fall of France would have to be that neither Germany nor Britain has any serious strategic options left for comprehensively defeating the other. So are as I can see they can (a) fight in marginal areas like the Balkans and North Africa, which could inflict some injury but not force a surrender; or (b) attempt to compel a surrender through air assault, which has never been done before. The idea of Britain invading the continent on its own is obviously farfetched, and the idea of Germany invading Britain only slightly less so.
And that's without the benefit of hindsight. If the argument for declaring war on the U.S. is that you might as well get it over with because it's going to happen anyways as a result of a tonnage war that you are ALSO already going to lose anyways, that doesn't seem like much of a defense to me.
Anyhow, that was my thinking and while you're certainly welcome to respond again to let me know your thoughts, out of respect for the fact that this thread is going in another direction I will not respond further. It's not that I don't want to engage anyone on this but I don't want to threadjack, either.
thaddeus
Donor
not blowing thru fuel and losing scores of aircraft in USSR they might build proper transport aircraft? more Condors and JU-252s/352s that could fly from Germany to North Africa. not send 60 u-boats past Gibraltar but proper Type II overland or in sections?
takerma
Banned
The wake up call for Soviet Army came in Finland, the war that started as a disaster but was still won. They were already in process of reform to try and improve many of the issues revealed there.
We will never know what Soviet plans would be but I bet they would involve pounding Romanian oil from air and perhaps ground offensive too, supported by that enormous airborne core that USSR possessed.
USSR wins that war without a doubt, we can argue about it being a steamroller or not but Soviet position in 1942 on attack would be vastly superior to 1941 on defense.
And Soviet Army was nothing like Arab “armies”. It cared not about lives of its soldiers but it possessed planning, operational theory, ability to adapt, steel resolve instilled by fear of commissars.