Nazi victory over USSR possible with the following series of PoDs?

Firstly, apologies for the violence towards deceased equines.

So, it seems to be more or less accepted here that the Third Reich was horribly outmatched in industrial production by the Soviets alone, let alone the USA, and as such really couldn't sustain themselves in a war against them, however, I was thinking if these allied advantages could have been reduced or nullified.

So, in order.

• More isolationist USA which offers much less or no economic support to the western allies. Weakens the British and Soviet materiel situation.
• Finland grudgingly agrees to the Soviet ultimatum on territorial concessions. Without the disastrous operational failure of the Winter War, the deficiencies of the Red Army go unexamined. Finland winds up in Germany's camp anyway due to popular discontent with the Soviet deal.
• Less incompetent Italy. Could Italy successfully occupy Greece with minimal or no German help?
• When Japan inevitably attacks the USA, the Third Reich does not declare war on the USA, but instead tells Japan that they can commit national suicide all by themselves. USA entry into the war averted.
• Barbarossa starts about as OTL, but with a weaker Red Army. Germany manages to occupy most of European Russia and decapitate the Soviet command structure. A Siberian government in exile probably can't hold things together and the Soviet Union implodes.
• Germany tries to implement Generalplan Ost, drowns in partisans and also implodes. Even if Germany could win the war, they almost certainly wouldn't have the capability to hold it. The only one who might win is Finland, who might be able to keep Greater Finland in the mess.

Would something like this be more or less plausible. In particular, would it be possible for Americans to be that isolationist, and when would the PoD have to happen. What about an Italian army powerful enough to occupy Greece?

Amurensis said:

Less incompetent Italy. Could Italy successfully occupy Greece with minimal or no German help?

Click to expand...

Completely ASB

ANything that keeps US entry out probably ends with nazi victory, followed by losing the occupation.

Amurensis said:

Firstly, apologies for the violence towards deceased equines.

So, it seems to be more or less accepted here that the Third Reich was horribly outmatched in industrial production by the Soviets alone, let alone the USA, and as such really couldn't sustain themselves in a war against them, however, I was thinking if these allied advantages could have been reduced or nullified.

Click to expand...

The USSR did not outmatch the Germans in industrial power; it outproduced Germany in some categories due to being mobilized for mass production earlier than Germany and not being blockaded, while Germany was being bombed and wrecked by Western air forces that collapsed the German economy in 1944; prior they seriously smashed it up starting in Spring 1943, while the blockade impacted getting sufficient raw materials, which in turn required Germany to build up a whole industry of synthetic materials to make up for the lack of natural oil, rubber, cotton, etc. Overall German industry was above the Soviets in overall output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP

Amurensis said:

So, in order.

• More isolationist USA which offers much less or no economic support to the western allies. Weakens the British and Soviet materiel situation.
• Finland grudgingly agrees to the Soviet ultimatum on territorial concessions. Without the disastrous operational failure of the Winter War, the deficiencies of the Red Army go unexamined. Finland winds up in Germany's camp anyway due to popular discontent with the Soviet deal.
• Less incompetent Italy. Could Italy successfully occupy Greece with minimal or no German help?
• When Japan inevitably attacks the USA, the Third Reich does not declare war on the USA, but instead tells Japan that they can commit national suicide all by themselves. USA entry into the war averted.
• Barbarossa starts about as OTL, but with a weaker Red Army. Germany manages to occupy most of European Russia and decapitate the Soviet command structure. A Siberian government in exile probably can't hold things together and the Soviet Union implodes.
• Germany tries to implement Generalplan Ost, drowns in partisans and also implodes. Even if Germany could win the war, they almost certainly wouldn't have the capability to hold it. The only one who might win is Finland, who might be able to keep Greater Finland in the mess.

Would something like this be more or less plausible. In particular, would it be possible for Americans to be that isolationist, and when would the PoD have to happen. What about an Italian army powerful enough to occupy Greece?

Click to expand...

All you really need for the Axis to win against the Soviets is a one-on-one war; the European Axis vs. Soviet Union without Britain or the US in the war would see the Axis win in the end. Also the Axis would need to not be blockaded. One way to do this would be for Churchill to be dead or out of the political picture in 1940 so that Halifax takes over the government and negotiates a peace deal in the wake of France falling. This keeps the US out of the war for a while at least, while Britain and the US end up fighting the Japanese in 1941 and Germany has no need to join in due to the lack escalation between Germany and the US in the Atlantic from 1940-41. LL isn't passed and the West is distracted from doing much to aid the Soviets directly, though they would probably sell the Soviets anything they could afford. Without Germany fighting anyone else in 1941 during Barbarossa, so thus being able to send in ~90% of its military, rather than being stuck in occupations all over and having no need to attack Greece or Yugoslavia or be involved in the Mediterranean/Norway, nor having to keep expanding its Uboat production or having lost all the men/equipment from July/August 1940-June 1941, the Axis would then be able to overcome any extra perparedness the Soviets had to offer due to Stalin being more likely to consider that Germany was planning to invade without Britain being in the war.

Of course the West could get involved eventually, but its the best bet for the Axis to keep the Allies out for a while and fight a one front war.

pattersonautobody said:

ANything that keeps US entry out probably ends with nazi victory, followed by losing the occupation.

Click to expand...

I've actually been under the impression that the Red Army alone could've gained victory over the German Army if it was at the operational capability it was in during Barbarossa IOTL. Granted, with an enormous cost, but still.

Honestly I think the only POD you need is the United States. Soviet industry was vast but relied on US lend lease for a number of crucially important things:

1. Trucks. The US sent over 400,000 trucks to the USSR, vital for their logistics efforts.
2. Tanks. Over 7,000 tanks, most being Shermans.
3. Aircraft. Nearly 12,000 of them. Around 1 in every 5 Soviet Aircraft was imported.
4. Petrol (2.7 million tons)

Without Lend Lease the USSR would've certainly collapsed. Their air force would have a 20% reduction in available aircraft, their logistics would be impacted and their stocks of petrol dented. I can't find a source but I'm 99% certain a significant portion of the imported fuel was aviation fuel, because the USSR couldn't produce much on it's own.

An isolationist US would, I believe, have been enough to cause the Soviet Armed Forces, stretched so dangerously far, to snap.

Poach said:

Honestly I think the only POD you need is the United States. Soviet industry was vast but relied on US lend lease for a number of crucially important things:

1. Trucks. The US sent over 400,000 trucks to the USSR, vital for their logistics efforts.
2. Tanks. Over 7,000 tanks, most being Shermans.
3. Aircraft. Nearly 12,000 of them. Around 1 in every 5 Soviet Aircraft was imported.
4. Petrol (2.7 million tons)

Without Lend Lease the USSR would've certainly collapsed. Their air force would have a 20% reduction in available aircraft, their logistics would be impacted and their stocks of petrol dented. I can't find a source but I'm 99% certain a significant portion of the imported fuel was aviation fuel, because the USSR couldn't produce much on it's own.

An isolationist US would, I believe, have been enough to cause the Soviet Armed Forces, stretched so dangerously far, to snap.

Click to expand...

Its more a question of what they could afford to buy; the US was selling to them from day 1 of the war, they just didn't give LL until October 1941. So if the US is isolationist, its still going to sell to anyone that could buy and ship it home, because that was Cash and Carry, the law of the day until LL was passed. So without LL the Soviets could still buy and ship home if they could. However, so could the Germans.

Amurensis said:

I've actually been under the impression that the Red Army alone could've gained victory over the German Army if it was at the operational capability it was in during Barbarossa IOTL. Granted, with an enormous cost, but still.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean? No the Soviets on their own would be hard pressed to win given the smashing they got in 1941. Without the Allied contributions to the war from 1942 on the Soviets would have been in serious trouble. Of course that depends on the Germans not making Stalingrad level mistakes, which isn't a given.

Until such a time as the United States no longer believed the USSR would be able to meet any payments, or until such a time as the UK ran out of ships to sail to Murmansk.

Bear in mind that a POD in which the US is firmly isolationist probably results in the UK seeking a negotiated way out of this. If, by 1942-43, the US was still firmly isolationist, I expect the UK would try to get a peace, or to switch sides.

They'd be fighting Japan and the Third Reich was racist, while Churchill was a known anti-Communist and also known to switch the banners he flew depending on political opportunity. I really can't say it's impossible that he wouldn't go to Hitler offering to switch sides once the writing was on the wall with regards to the United States and the loss of the balance of power in Europe.

wiking said:

Not sure what you mean? No the Soviets on their own would be hard pressed to win given the smashing they got in 1941. Without the Allied contributions to the war from 1942 on the Soviets would have been in serious trouble. Of course that depends on the Germans not making Stalingrad level mistakes, which isn't a given.

Click to expand...

It seems I had an overly rosy view of Soviet war capability. I don't really have any expertise on the subject beyond "I've read stuff". I guess someone people overemphasize how doomed the nazis were.

Amurensis said:

It seems I had an overly rosy view of Soviet war capability. I don't really have any expertise on the subject beyond "I've read stuff". I guess someone people overemphasize how doomed the nazis were.

Click to expand...

They were doomed once the US entered the war and were not doing well being in a two front war in 1941, but if Germany were facing either Britain or the USSR on its own it had a better than even chance of victory barring some really stupid decision (aka Stalingrad).

Amurensis said:

When Japan inevitably attacks the USA,

Click to expand...

Is it inevitable ? Japan attacked because of the oil embargo. The oil embargo was triggered by the occupation of french indochina, which in turn happened after france went vichy and the RN opened fire on the MN.

If there is no vichy (france continues to fight from north africa), there may be no occupation of indochina, no oil embargo, and no pearl harbor.

Pomphis said:

Is it inevitable ? Japan attacked because of the oil embargo. The oil embargo was triggered by the occupation of french indochina, which in turn happened after france went vichy and the RN opened fire on the MN.

If there is no vichy (france continues to fight from north africa), there may be no occupation of indochina, no oil embargo, and no pearl harbor.

Click to expand...

while the embargo was triggered by the occupation nothing says something similar, most likely in China, wouldn't happen leading to a similar but later response.

however with an isolationist USA, that might be avoided.

Pomphis said:

Is it inevitable ? Japan attacked because of the oil embargo. The oil embargo was triggered by the occupation of french indochina, which in turn happened after france went vichy and the RN opened fire on the MN.

If there is no vichy (france continues to fight from north africa), there may be no occupation of indochina, no oil embargo, and no pearl harbor.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, it's not that US would've necessarily forced Japan's hand or gone to war on its own, but that Japanese command believed this to be the case. It's not inevitable in the sense that Japan couldn't have taken actions that would've avoided the war, but rather inevitable in the sense that even if a path that did not lead to war was available, Imperial Japan would've never walked it.

Again though, I don't claim to any expertise on the subject.

For Germany to be facing the Soviets alone, they pretty much need to not invade Poland, because otherwise the UK and France will join in. And how does Germany invade the Soviets without Poland?

1) if Germany invades from East Prussia, the massive buildup will be very apparent, and even Stalin will have to believe his intelligence reports.
2) if the Soviets havent invaded Poland, then their original defensive line is still intact (rather than being mostly dismantled to help build the forward line in Poland)
3) Germany's still going to have to keep quantities of troops on the French border, which significantly lowers the number of troops available for the push east.

So. Germany attacks without surprise into defensive lines. Even if the Soviets are less improved, with no Winter War, they were OTL totally taken by surprise and disorganized.

End result? Germany loses worse than OTL.


---
Other thoughts
Halifax was not a defeatist surrender monkey, despite how he's portrayed by many. Hitler had totally blown his own credibility, and no PM even Chamberlain or Halifax will trust him as far as they can throw him at this point.

Lend Lease was desperately important for the SPEED of advance once the Soviets started rolling forward. Without it, the Soviets would have had a longer, harder fight but, as pointed out already, the most essential stuff they could have bought - and probably had shipped through Vladivostok. No desperate need for additional ships on the Murmansk route.

Besides which, if Germany doesnt attack west then the Murmansk route is MUCH more viable.

If Italy attacks Greece and German help is not coming, then Greece will take British help, and that will hold off the Italians.


So. No. Despite the Nazi fanbois, even up against the ussr alone, Germany almost certainly goes down to defeat.

I thought that japan was running out of money to buy the resources it needed for the war in china, so it would have had to either attack to get the resources or pull out of china.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

So. No. Despite the Nazi fanbois, even up against the ussr alone, Germany almost certainly goes down to defeat.

Click to expand...

Simply incorrect - Even if the USSR had been better prepared in 1941 - this would by far not have balanced the help it received by the western allies between 1941-1945.

By 1942 the west was allready destroying half of the Luftwaffe by 1943 the number had increased to 2/3.

Not to mention all the effort Germany had to invest in keeping up its industry in spite of strategic bombing and all the resources, food, trucks ect the Soviets received through LL

Considering all the effort the USSR had to invest into defeating Germany - with US and GB help - it is not hard to see that without the US+GB the effort for them would have been far to great to handle.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Other thoughts
Halifax was not a defeatist surrender monkey, despite how he's portrayed by many. Hitler had totally blown his own credibility, and no PM even Chamberlain or Halifax will trust him as far as they can throw him at this point.

Click to expand...

You're not understanding the situation; no one said he would surrender, IOTL he asked for terms to negotiate a peace and headed up the peace faction. He was certainly not alone and it was in fact Churchill who was going out on a limb by staying in the war. Halifax was in fact pursuing peace, but we don't know if that was to rearm for round two or accommodate the order in Europe.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Lend Lease was desperately important for the SPEED of advance once the Soviets started rolling forward. Without it, the Soviets would have had a longer, harder fight but, as pointed out already, the most essential stuff they could have bought - and probably had shipped through Vladivostok. No desperate need for additional ships on the Murmansk route.

Click to expand...

That's also in correct; LL was pretty critical to all areas of the Soviets war economy not just ending the war sooner; its also not just LL, but the total Allied contribution to the war effort, especially the strategic bombing campaign, which diverted huge Axis resources away from the Eastern Front and of course ground up the LW, which enabled the VVS recovery in 1943.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Besides which, if Germany doesnt attack west then the Murmansk route is MUCH more viable.

Click to expand...

Only if Murmansk holds out; it was pretty precarious IOTL and with more resources in 1941 it could well fall, especially if Leningrad falls and frees up Finnish troops that then cut the Murmansk railroad. Once that happens Murmansk is finished.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

If Italy attacks Greece and German help is not coming, then Greece will take British help, and that will hold off the Italians.

Click to expand...

No, in fact the Greeks specifically held off on British help IOTL to avoid German entry into the war; plus they were winning until the Germans jumped in. Also if the British negotiate a deal, part of that would be to stay out of continental affairs or at least Italy would be told that any Balkan adventures after the peace were their own problem, which probably keeps them off of attacking for fear of British participation; Mussolini only thought he could get away with it IOTL due to a larger war being on, so if there wasn't a war distracting the major players in the Mediterranean (i.e. the British), then he wouldn't have tried it in peacetime. Which if the July/August deal under Halifax is worked out, that is long before the OTL October invasion.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

So. No. Despite the Nazi fanbois, even up against the ussr alone, Germany almost certainly goes down to defeat.

Click to expand...

For all of the reasons above, you are simply basing this off incorrect premises, so the logic does not hold.

Amurensis said:

Would something like this be more or less plausible. In particular, would it be possible for Americans to be that isolationist, and when would the PoD have to happen. What about an Italian army powerful enough to occupy Greece?

Click to expand...

This is my first post, so go easy on me...lol

Like some of the posts here I think the likely POD for this to happen would be before the war.

I the USSR could have easily lost if one of these factors were different.

(1): The Stalin government failed to crush all meaningful organized opposition to Soviet power especially in the Western part of the country. I think when you factor this in, the right wing and anti-Semitic tendencies of the Tsarist regime and a more nuanced German policy towards Slavic people would make the difference.

(2): Someone other than Stalin takes the helm after Lenin's death. Stalin policies love them or hate them, pushed the rate of Soviet development to the max and hardened the people for a Total War. Even the folks in the Gulag were not sitting on their thumbs they were building factories, refineries, and infrastructure in Siberia which was crucial for the war. I think if the right or left wing groupings within the party had taken over the Nazis would have went into a USSR that was less developed/united and with strong organized anti-Soviet elements.

I'm not so sure if an isolationist US would have made much of a difference because I think that would not have stopped American industry from providing products to the British Empire and the Soviets. This factor would have eventually dragged us into the war because these interests would want their loans repaid.

I think even with a Soviet defeat, the Nazis would have eventually lost albeit on more favorable terms for Germany unless they get the nuke in '45.

wiking said:

Only if Murmansk holds out; it was pretty precarious IOTL and with more resources in 1941 it could well fall, especially if Leningrad falls and frees up Finnish troops that then cut the Murmansk railroad. Once that happens Murmansk is finished.

Click to expand...

Leningrad is going to be a meatgrinder though, as will Moscow.

I guess it's relatively clear that Germany would be superior in military terms and would basically win the war against the red army. The question is how exactly that victory will look, seeing as there is just so, so much space to cover. Does it make sense to say that even a German Military (operational?) Victory would lead to strategic defeat?

Cronos988 said:

Leningrad is going to be a meatgrinder though, as will Moscow.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It was nearly taken on the march IOTL, so with extra forces and supply train (all the Ju52s not lost at Crete, plus the FJ and air landing infantry) could well take the city. Without the BoB, Blitz, and Mediterranean/Balkans the LW would triple its close support/tactical bombers and overall double its numbers for Barbarossa, while the Afrika Korps and several other divisions, not to mention garrison troops to defend against the British will be available for Barbarossa that weren't IOTL. Moscow would be a mess, but Leningrad could have be taken before defenses were ready.

Cronos988 said:

I guess it's relatively clear that Germany would be superior in military terms and would basically win the war against the red army. The question is how exactly that victory will look, seeing as there is just so, so much space to cover. Does it make sense to say that even a German Military (operational?) Victory would lead to strategic defeat?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. Victory won't be total victory likely unless the Soviet regime collapses and Russia turns to warlordism/civil war. It will probably end up like a Fatherland situation for the East with a long grinding occupation and several failed Nazi policies each creating a mess (German settlers are not going to be successful in the Wild East, while the Hunger Plan is IMHO bound to fail due to the need for labor to make those territories productive, so killing all the Eastern Europeans is not a viable long term strategy). Plus then there is Hitler's health and potential assassination attempts succeeding. How much is the German public going to be willing to put up with? How much active combat continues after 'victory'? Its all going to be a major mess and very easily could collapse the Nazi state in the medium/long run even with full victory.