Hitler drew the ire of the western allies when the Wehrmacht invaded Poland. His goal was always the Soviet Union; if we've said that once we've said it a thousand times. What if, instead of going through Poland, Hitler took advantage of his quasi-ally Finland in 1940 and came through the Soviet Union through their direct border? Would this avoid war with France and Britain?
AHC: Nazi Germany invades Soviet Union using a different route.
- Thread starter VirginiaHistoryTeacher
- Start date
There's no way to hide the movement of 3 million+ troops + thousands of tanks and vehicles. Stalin will know what's going on. Also Norway and sweden are not going to give military access and there aren't enough ships.
Other routes?
A landing in murmansk/ archangel. The kriegsmarine lacks the capability. Also the supply lines are immensely long.
Turkey isn't going to give the wehrmacht military access.
A german buildup in manchuria though...
Other routes?
A landing in murmansk/ archangel. The kriegsmarine lacks the capability. Also the supply lines are immensely long.
Turkey isn't going to give the wehrmacht military access.
A german buildup in manchuria though...
Was there even a feasible way to achieve a German buildup in Manchuria? That seems even more far-flung than the Murmansk idea or the Finland option. Above all else, I'm trying to see if it's possible to avoid war with France and Britain but still pursue the Soviet Union.
Your post would have been dead on (although all mentioned routes are also logistically impossible), if you had omitted that last sentence.
Hang on, let him/her defend it before we throw him/her down the stairs.
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, actually, I think that is possible. In the late 30s, it was seen as all but inevitable that the USSR and Germany would go to war.
Sweden was pretty happy to let the Wehrmacht through.
Finland? Ehh, not so much, and definitely not before the Winter War.
Finland? Ehh, not so much, and definitely not before the Winter War.
They have to go through Poland (and Romania). Even if the build up for WWII allows Germany to invade Poland without war with France and the UK that means they have an intact French army close to the Ruhr. And the different political landscape might require, for instance, the lack of the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the valuable loot they took from them.
Driftless
Donor
Here's a reach.....
Bypass Poland.
Leverage Hungary & Slovakia to allow a German attack on Romania - go for the oil fields.
Push on through into the Ukraine from Slovakia, Hungary, Romania.
The British and French probably aren't going to war to protect either Hungary, Slovakia, or Romania anymore than they did for the Czechs.
Bypass Poland.
Leverage Hungary & Slovakia to allow a German attack on Romania - go for the oil fields.
Push on through into the Ukraine from Slovakia, Hungary, Romania.
The British and French probably aren't going to war to protect either Hungary, Slovakia, or Romania anymore than they did for the Czechs.
The trouble is, going through Poland, with the OTL UK and France governments, WILL lead to war from Germany's western border. I guess I'm trying to test the feasibility of a "limited war" JUST between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with not one German boot marching on Polish soil. Finland, though incredibly difficult, seems like the only remotely reasonable secondary route.
You still have the Czech, Hungarian and Romanian borders with the Ukraine without the need for Poland don't you? Poland only made up about 1/3 of the front unless I've got it all wrong in which case I'll be the first to call myself a numpty ...
That option seems like the most feasible. If the western allies were selectively defensive about Eastern European nations, then maybe Romania could be a worthy sacrifice, as Czechoslovakia was.
I'm agnostic about the manchurian option because I don't have enough information to judge its merits.
1. Theoretically I suppose it would be possible for the kriegsmarine to transport an invasion force to manchuria but first of all the route is crazy, from the german baltic ports, through the channel, round the cape, into the pacific and then to china. It simply takes too long to transport that many men. The other option, the NW passage is dangerously close to Soviet territory. Secondly due to the size of the kriegsmarine, again it simply takes too long. It is possible in theory but impossible in practice. Also the soviets ARE going to learn about kriegsmarine troop transports moving into Manchuria
2. There would be NO way to meaningfully supply the force through the path I've described. I'm do not very well versed on Japanese history so I don't know whether the Japanese would have been willing/capable to supply that many men and machines but I don't think its possibe.
So I don't have enough information to dismiss the Manchurian option altogether although I would describe it as unfeasible.
1. Theoretically I suppose it would be possible for the kriegsmarine to transport an invasion force to manchuria but first of all the route is crazy, from the german baltic ports, through the channel, round the cape, into the pacific and then to china. It simply takes too long to transport that many men. The other option, the NW passage is dangerously close to Soviet territory. Secondly due to the size of the kriegsmarine, again it simply takes too long. It is possible in theory but impossible in practice. Also the soviets ARE going to learn about kriegsmarine troop transports moving into Manchuria
2. There would be NO way to meaningfully supply the force through the path I've described. I'm do not very well versed on Japanese history so I don't know whether the Japanese would have been willing/capable to supply that many men and machines but I don't think its possibe.
So I don't have enough information to dismiss the Manchurian option altogether although I would describe it as unfeasible.
Quite the contrary. While everyone remembers that Britain offered a guarantee to Poland, the fact is that at the same time Britain offered a guarantee to Romania.
On top of that, Romania was of course already an ally of France, exactly as Poland.
This whole idea sinks fast as soon as one realizes that the point wasn't saving Poland, specifically. It was drawing "a line in the sand" and stop the loose cannon of Europe, Nazi Germany, before it got stronger. If it is not Poland, it may very well be Romania, or Finland.
As to not helping the Czechs, that's right - and Chamberlain later understood that that had been a mistake, and was determined not to do such a mistake again. Whence the guarantees. Concluding that since Britain and France had not helped Czechoslovakia, they wouldn't help the next victim of Germany, either, is a mistake - and we know that as a sure thing, from the history of 1939.
TumblrShipper
Banned
A Manchurian invasion of the USSR.....will not work. There's very little in important stuff there and it's wayyyy far from 'valuable core' regions of the USSR so there's lots of times for soviets to retreat....
EDIT: Best idea is to bribe Turkey with claims of pan-turanianism after the molotov-ribbentrop includes Turkey so the USSR annexes regions of eastern turkey and kicks the turks out and replaces them with Armenians
EDIT: Best idea is to bribe Turkey with claims of pan-turanianism after the molotov-ribbentrop includes Turkey so the USSR annexes regions of eastern turkey and kicks the turks out and replaces them with Armenians
Were the Japanese and Nazis allied close enough to even permit this, even if it were possible?
Driftless
Donor
In hindsight, Poland was the line in the sand, certainly. But the Nazis went into Poland anyway. If ITTL, the Germans felt that war with the West was guaranteed with a German attack on Poland, might they have picked the southern route as an alternative to attack the Soviets? With no attack on Poland, would the British gone in with the French on protecting Romania?
*edit* With more hindsight, the choices the Nazis made were all going to end badly, but that didn't prevent them from destroying most of Europe in the process.
Last edited: