Delayed Barbarossa

[anamarvelo]

if he allows romol to capute the middle east oil and cut off britain he can easly win in brian with air and naval surpirotuy
then he can put all of his forces agsit russian and he will probably win witch will alow him to win the senond world war

[MattII]

Originally Posted by anamarvelo

if he allows romol to capute the middle east oil and cut off britain he can easly win in brian with air and naval surpirotuy
then he can put all of his forces agsit russian and he will probably win witch will alow him to win the senond world war

Rommel screwed up in 1941, and oil shipments didn't go through the Med.

Also, Wiking, all all of that is going to do is force Britain into an armistice, which Britain is going to tear up in late 1942 when the Germans are good an deep in Russia.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by anamarvelo

if he allows romol to capute the middle east oil and cut off britain he can easly win in brian with air and naval surpirotuy
then he can put all of his forces agsit russian and he will probably win witch will alow him to win the senond world war

No, by 1942 assuming Hitler gets a cease fire with Britain the USSR is already far too powerful for the Germans to get near Smolensk and Kiev.

[KACKO]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

No, by 1942 assuming Hitler gets a cease fire with Britain the USSR is already far too powerful for the Germans to get near Smolensk and Kiev.

Also we should take into consideration that in 1942 Molotov line will be in higher degree of preparedness. In 1941 a lot of finished bunkers were without armaments or without crew. So even if not holding long enough it can give to Russians extra time.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by KACKO

Also we should take into consideration that in 1942 Molotov line will be in higher degree of preparedness. In 1941 a lot of finished bunkers were without armaments or without crew. So even if not holding long enough it can give to Russians extra time.

We should also not underestimate the simple effects of fighting all across the Soviet borders instead of surprise. 3 million Germans face 2 million Russians who are ready and waiting for them, instead of surprised? That's going to both be the biggest battle in human history *and* eat heavily into German logistics right out of the starting gate.

[Genmotty]

Originally Posted by ”[URL="http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/member.php?u=164"

Snake Featherston[/URL] & ObssesedNuker”]
...that happened in the first two weeks of the war. During that time the Wehrmacht met their concept of what victory was, for reasons that would have happened regardless of Moscow directing or not directing.


'When Titans Clashed', page 37-38:
Behind the five forward fronts, a completely separate group of five field armies was in the process of forming a second strategic echelon behind the original three belts. This Reserve Front was assembling along the line of the Dnepr and Dvina Rivers. Their force concentration was typical of the Soviet principle of echeloning forces in great depths; it was virtually invisible to German intelligence prior to hostilities. Both the Reserve Front and significant elements of the Forward units had only begun to deploy in late-April 1941 As in so many other respects, the German attack on 22 June caught the Soviets in transition.


page 44, same book.
In retrospect, the most serious Soviet failure was neither strategic surprise nor tactical surprise, but institutional surprise. In June 1941 the Red Army and Air Force were in transition, changing their organization, leadership, equipment, training, troop dispositions, and defensive plans. Had Hitler attacked four years earlier or even one year later, the Soviet Armed Forces would have been more than a match for the Wehrmacht. Whether by coincidence or instinct, however, the German dictator invaded at a time when his own Armed Forces were still close to their peak while his arch enemy 3was most vulnerable. It was this institutional surprise that was most responsible for the catastrophic Soviet defeats of 1941.

This has still not invalidated my point that Stalin nearly 'lost it' and helped pave the way for the German advances, like in my oridginal posted source. Hence it was still a pivotal moment at Barbarossa that could have seen a collapse of leadership at the top. Without Stalin as the 'iron man' giving directive what is going to happen to the Red Army if his 'surprise' really had been a nervous breakdown, or the politburo had removed him from his position? Then we could have seen a different set of opening events that see the Soviet Union totally collapse at the beginning of the war, just like Hitler’s gamble was essentially aiming for, (if not in concept, then in practice).


Thus the military industrial complexes of the SU and 3rd Reich don't matter. If this pivotal moment played out differently. Hence why its not an 'inevitable victory' for the Soviets.


Note: A delayed Barbarossa is more likely not to see Stalin nearly 'loose it' since he would have heard more from his intelligence reports and like the sources state the SU would have completed its defence preparations.

[MattII]

Hey Snake, how big do you think the Warsaw Pact would be? I'm assuming all of Germany, probably Austria, maybe Greece and possibly Finland as well. Plausible you think?

[PMN1]

Originally Posted by anamarvelo

if he allows romol to capute the middle east oil and cut off britain he can easly win in brian with air and naval surpirotuy
then he can put all of his forces agsit russian and he will probably win witch will alow him to win the senond world war

Well, apart from needing an ASB to give him good road and rail networks into the parts of the SU that he needs to win.......

For the UK, British Isles oil imports in 1939 were as follows:

Approx 46% - Caribbean - mainly Venezuela, but includes Trinidad and Mexico
Approx 30% - Middle East - Persia (Iran), & Iraq
Approx 19 % - US
(the rest came from Rumania)

Then with Italy entering into the war in mid-1940, and the Central Med. becoming a war zone, middle east oil became more expensive since it had to be shipped around the Cape. In consequence by 1942, no middle east oil was sent to the UK, both Persian and Iraqi oil production/refining was scaled back short term (civil unrest didn't help), and that which was produced was used "in house", i.e. the Mediterranean theatre, plus some sent to India, especially after the loss of the Far East oil producers; NEI, Burma, Borneo and Malaya to the Japanese. So this is the picture for UK petroleum by 1942:

Approx 60% - US,
Approx 40% - Trinidad, Venezuela and Mexico.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

This has still not invalidated my point that Stalin nearly 'lost it' and helped pave the way for the German advances, like in my oridginal posted source. Hence it was still a pivotal moment at Barbarossa that could have seen a collapse of leadership at the top. Without Stalin as the 'iron man' giving directive what is going to happen to the Red Army if his 'surprise' really had been a nervous breakdown, or the politburo had removed him from his position? Then we could have seen a different set of opening events that see the Soviet Union totally collapse at the beginning of the war, just like Hitler’s gamble was essentially aiming for, (if not in concept, then in practice).

The thing is that it really doesn't matter. The Soviet leader's breakdown was in the first two weeks of the war. The USSR did not have the systemic breakdown matter past the point when Barbarossa had already failed. For it to do so requires Stalin to have something more like a stroke. The Nazis literally thought the war was over after only two weeks. You need Stalin to die of natural causes for this to work.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Thus the military industrial complexes of the SU and 3rd Reich don't matter. If this pivotal moment played out differently. Hence why its not an 'inevitable victory' for the Soviets.

The chronology of the event argues differently.

Originally Posted by MattII

Hey Snake, how big do you think the Warsaw Pact would be? I'm assuming all of Germany, probably Austria, maybe Greece and possibly Finland as well. Plausible you think?

Depending on chronology it might include Yugoslavia and Austria, though I doubt the UK would ever accept Greece, and the USSR might well trade Greece and Finland for a pro-Soviet Yugoslav state with Tito having a convenient "accident."

[Julian]

Stalin's breakdown is a total myth, a fabrication made after his death. Logs of his movements and his meeting schedule show that he was in meetings with Zhukov, Timoshenko, and the rest of the group that would form the State Defense Committee in sessions that sometimes went as long as 22 hours. He was certainly surprised and disoriented during the first week, but he never failed to continue working through the new situation.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Depending on chronology it might include Yugoslavia and Austria, though I doubt the UK would ever accept Greece, and the USSR might well trade Greece and Finland for a pro-Soviet Yugoslav state with Tito having a convenient "accident."

Either way, a Warsaw pact with Germany and Austria is going to be a lot more powerful, not quite Red Europe maybe, but a lot closer.

I also imagine them taking some minor territories in the east, say Hunchun and Rason before handing half of Korea off to the West to occupy.