Operation Nevsky- Soviet Invasion of Western Poland

Martel · Feb 21, 2006

Hello all! For my first scenario:
Stalin orders a massive invasion of Axis Europe including western Poland and Besberarabia in April or May 1941, after the Axis commit to the Balkan campaign.

My opinion- Germany is thrown back toward Warsaw against the overwhelming force of the Soviets. Romania is in danger, forcing the Germans to abnadon much of their plans against the Greek islands in order to defend Ploesti (more likely the mountain passes or the Danube Delta). The British are able to fortify Crete. Without German re-enforcements, Italy is finished at least in North Africa. Likely the Fascist Council pushes for an armistice with either the British or the British and Soviets.

The questions:
1. Would the British push for an alliance with the Soviets (probably) and would the Soviets accept it (maybe, depending on the success of their campaign)?
2. What impact would the threat of a Red Europe have on American assistance?
3. How quickly could the Germans mount a counter-offensive and could the Soviets stop it before it crushed their spearhead?
4. What is the likely outcome of the Romanian campaign, which in many ways would be as important as the Polish campaign?
5. What about the remaining neutrals especially Turkey?

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 21, 2006

The Turks, if not remaining neutral, would declare war on the Axis, then attack Bulgaria and the occupied areas of Greece. If they do conquer Ploiesti, the Soviets would still be stopped by the Carpathians; they would, however, threaten Bulgaria, and I can see it switching sides.

Poland I can't tell you anything about.

PS: Romania had lost Bessarabia in the summer of '40.

blysas · Feb 21, 2006

Well if Stalin was to invade germany in January 1941, then he would have a good chance of reaching warzaw, wheter or not he burns his armies out before they reach the oder is another question?

Martel · Feb 21, 2006

Clarifications and additions

My bad, the Soviets did take Bessberarabia in 1940. However even Stalin wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the rich oil prize of Ploesti. The terrain between Bessbarabia and Ploesti though sucks for an offensive, either they try to get around the lowlands of the Danube Delta or they try to punch through the Transylvanian Alps.
A Turkish offensive in Balkans wasn't really what I had in mind, though it's far from implausible (except that Inonu, like Ataturk, was well aware of the dangers of playing in the Balkan sandbox). The main advantage for the Allies would be the ability to ferry supplies and possibily troops into the Black Sea, as well as providing air bases better able to strike at Romania than Crete. (OTL Hitler sacrificed his entire paratrooper corps to insure that Britain couldn't bomb Romania from Crete.)

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 21, 2006

Martel said:
My bad, the Soviets did take Bessberarabia in 1940. However even Stalin wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the rich oil prize of Ploesti. The terrain between Bessbarabia and Ploesti though sucks for an offensive, either they try to get around the lowlands of the Danube Delta or they try to punch through the Transylvanian Alps.

If they go through the Danube Delta they get on the other side of the river, in the Dobruja, and still have to cross the river again. In fact, given the Dobruja's shape, some Axis commanders might find it convenient to invite them in. The best way to go is in the corridor between the Danube and the Carpathians. Check an atlas to see what I mean. It'll be one hell of a bottleneck, but I think the Soviets can pull it off if the Germans are too busy protecting their own hides to aid Romania significantly. And the fact that Ploiesti is close to Bucharest, Romania's capital and most important city, opens up possibilities.

Martel · Feb 21, 2006

Finis Germanae

VoCSe said:
If they go through the Danube Delta they get on the other side of the river, in the Dobruja, and still have to cross the river again. In fact, given the Dobruja's shape, some Axis commanders might find it convenient to invite them in. The best way to go is in the corridor between the Danube and the Carpathians. Check an atlas to see what I mean. It'll be one hell of a bottleneck, but I think the Soviets can pull it off if the Germans are too busy protecting their own hides to aid Romania significantly. And the fact that Ploiesti is close to Bucharest, Romania's capital and most important city, opens up possibilities.

I think you're right, especially with British air support coming up from Turkey or Crete. Once that happens, Germany has no fuel for at least a year, until Speer gets the synthetic fuel plants working. Naturally Allies are unlikely to sit on their asses for a year.
Pretty much Hitler's only real hope would be a successful counter-offensive in Poland throwing the Russians back toward Minsk, disorganizing the Polish Front for the rest of 1941. Then assisting Romania in the recapture of Ploesti and probably Bucharest. That might keep Germany going, assuming that they can get anything out of the oil fields after the British and Soviets have finished wrecking everything before the retreat. It would be a big longshot though even with the crappy Soviet generalship.

Redbeard · Feb 21, 2006

Martel said:
Hello all! For my first scenario:
Stalin orders a massive invasion of Axis Europe including western Poland and Besberarabia in April or May 1941, after the Axis commit to the Balkan campaign.

My opinion- Germany is thrown back toward Warsaw against the overwhelming force of the Soviets. Romania is in danger, forcing the Germans to abnadon much of their plans against the Greek islands in order to defend Ploesti (more likely the mountain passes or the Danube Delta). The British are able to fortify Crete. Without German re-enforcements, Italy is finished at least in North Africa. Likely the Fascist Council pushes for an armistice with either the British or the British and Soviets.

The questions:
1. Would the British push for an alliance with the Soviets (probably) and would the Soviets accept it (maybe, depending on the success of their campaign)?
2. What impact would the threat of a Red Europe have on American assistance?
3. How quickly could the Germans mount a counter-offensive and could the Soviets stop it before it crushed their spearhead?
4. What is the likely outcome of the Romanian campaign, which in many ways would be as important as the Polish campaign?
5. What about the remaining neutrals especially Turkey?

Very good ATL!

Ad.1
The British and Soviets undeniably will be co-belligerants, and a formal alliance might be formed, but it will probably be even less enthusiastic than the OTL one. Where the basis of the OTL relation ship was a USSR attacked and struggling heroically for survival, it is now just another totalitarian aggressor which quite co-incidentially, and for the time being, is attacking our enemy. The British will probably hope for the nazis and soviets bleeding each other as pale as possible.

Ad. 2
In OTL the Germans had considerable success in gaining support for the "crusade against bolschevism". In this TL that support is likley to be increased manyfold, and I imagine quite a number of governments (like the Vichy French) officially declaring war on the USSR, and sending considerable contingents to the front.
This will make a big diffrence in USA, for what is actually going on in Europe? Is it a place oppressed by Germany or is it a place fighting the reds? Both claims are true, and so forms the best basis for staying out. It will surely be US policy to keep the British alive, but hardly more than that.

Ad. 3 and 5
By April-May 41 the bulk of the German army already was deployed for Barbarossa, which initially was planned for May, but was postponed waiting for dry weather and the closing of the Balkan campaign. A deployment for offensive is not the best position to defend yourself in (basically the problem of the Red Army in OTL 1941), and if the Soviets are capable of operating as effectively as the Germans in 1941 the Germans are in for some encirclement battles each taking out Divisions in two digit numbers. The Germans will have less reserves and less space to trade than the Russians and could be in very deep trouble. OTOH I doubt if the Red Army of 1941 is capable of that. One thing is the quality of the officer corps after purges and before the "on the job training" of the OTL Barbarossa, but another is the Soviet doctrine. It prescribed deep attacks by massive collumns of tanks, but not anywhere near the Germans in refinement of interarms co-operation and initiative.

My guess would be some intital advances by the Soviets, perhaps to Warshaw, but soon loosing momentum to furious German counterattacks at all levels and utilising all opportunities. By spring of 1942 the Germans will be ready for a major offensive into USSR, but this time they are supported by many more allied troops fighting under their own flags. And the Soviets are not getting much of the OTL suplies from UK and USA.

Turkey will probably stay neutral initially, but is likely to be persuaded into the Axis for the 1942 offensive. I see no way they could end up allies of the Soviets.

Ad. 4
Like Martel says the terrain to Ploesti is lousy to conduct an offensive in. I some time ago did a rather detailed map recon. of the area for another ATL, and concluded that 10 good Divisions probably would suffice to keep any attack from reaching Ploesti from Bessarabia, as the main attack will have to be channeled through the rather narrow strip of land bewteen the Carpathian mountains and the Danube delta. And the defender even has two rivers, first Pruth and then Siret, to base his defensive operations on. The Romanian army alone was some 25 Divisions, but not very well equipped. Enough however to keep the 1941 Soviets at bay until German reinforcements arrives. Judging from the OTL deployment before Barbarossa I estimate that 10 German Divisions could be in place and dug in at the Siret in about two weeks (mainly by rail from N. Europe).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

GBW · Feb 21, 2006

How would an earlier outbreak of war between the Axis and the Soviets have effected Japan? There was no oil embargo against Japan yet in April or May and the IJA had been preparing for a war against the Soviet Union (it's one reason why some Japanese equipment, designed for Siberia, fared none too well in the jungles of the Pacific War). If continental Europe rallies behind Germany and the US is seen to be not pushing the Axis as hard any more, Japan might see the advantage of making a grab at Soviet territory and their puppet state in Mongolia, despite the defeat at Nomonhan in 1939.

Would the US still initiate an oil embargo against a Japan that's opened a second front against the 'Red Threat'? Undoubtedly, Europe will likely be relieved that Japan's attention would then be pointing north instead of south towards their colonies. Though there is that problem of Japan having joined the Axis Pact.

Wendell · Feb 21, 2006

GBW said:
How would an earlier outbreak of war between the Axis and the Soviets have effected Japan? There was no oil embargo against Japan yet in April or May and the IJA had been preparing for a war against the Soviet Union (it's one reason why some Japanese equipment, designed for Siberia, fared none too well in the jungles of the Pacific War). If continental Europe rallies behind Germany and the US is seen to be not pushing the Axis as hard any more, Japan might see the advantage of making a grab at Soviet territory and their puppet state in Mongolia, despite the defeat at Nomonhan in 1939.

Would the US still initiate an oil embargo against a Japan that's opened a second front against the 'Red Threat'? Undoubtedly, Europe will likely be relieved that Japan's attention would then be pointing north instead of south towards their colonies. Though there is that problem of Japan having joined the Axis Pact.

But why would the Axis Pact even hold necessarily, and will Vichy still sell Indochina?

The Sandman · Feb 21, 2006

With the fact that the German Heer circa May 1941 was almost certainly more effective at almost every level of command, control, and training than the Red Army, wouldn't this just have resulted in the Red Army getting butchered a little bit further west?

Wendell · Feb 21, 2006

This makes things in Africa rather interesting....

Martel · Feb 21, 2006

thesandman said:
With the fact that the German Heer circa May 1941 was almost certainly more effective at almost every level of command, control, and training than the Red Army, wouldn't this just have resulted in the Red Army getting butchered a little bit further west?

True but as the saying goes, quantity has its own quality. The Soviets would massively outnumber the Germans and wouldn't likely suffer the appalling early losses of Barbarossa. The most important issue though is that the panzers are in Yugoslavia and Greece, not Poland in May. This means that the top German units are miles away facing an ugly choice of leaving the less threatening British in Balkans where the RAF can threaten key resources or jump into the slaughter in Poland. The Soviets also are in a better position materially in this scenario since the industry and agriculture of the Soviet West is still intact. And they haven't lost their whole airforce in the first days.

Also the Soviets are unwittingly about to land on the biggest single propaganda coup of the war, Treblinka, then under construction in the eastern General Government. Combined with the ghettos in Krakow and Warsaw, and they just might keep the Americans weakly on their side.

GBW · Feb 22, 2006

Wendell said:
But why would the Axis Pact even hold necessarily, and will Vichy still sell Indochina?

Indochina fell under Japanese control in 1940 after France fell, and Japan's aims towards the Soviet Union would have less to do with the Axis Pact and more to do with what territory seems easier to grab for Japan. After all, the Soviets will have just invaded eastern Europe and so won't be able to fully turn their attention to Siberia. It's also possibly the only area that Japan could try to expand into that the US wouldn't necessarily object to.

Archdevil · Feb 22, 2006

Martel said:
True but as the saying goes, quantity has its own quality. The Soviets would massively outnumber the Germans and wouldn't likely suffer the appalling early losses of Barbarossa. The most important issue though is that the panzers are in Yugoslavia and Greece, not Poland in May.

Not true, the Panzer divisions used for Marita (the codename for the Balkan campaign) spend Barbarossa in the factories getting their panzers repaired.
So the tanks used in OTL Barbarossa are still on the Polish front here.

This means that the top German units are miles away facing an ugly choice of leaving the less threatening British in Balkans where the RAF can threaten key resources or jump into the slaughter in Poland. The Soviets also are in a better position materially in this scenario since the industry and agriculture of the Soviet West is still intact. And they haven't lost their whole airforce in the first days.

The Germans will probably still kick the British out of the mainland, although I have doubts about Hitler allowing the Crete airborne assault with his elite units while the Russians are marching to the Vistula.
And the Soviets are definately in a much better strategic position with atleast for the moment having the initiative. How long this lasts depends on how quickly they'll learn. In OTL this took about two years...

Also the Soviets are unwittingly about to land on the biggest single propaganda coup of the war, Treblinka, then under construction in the eastern General Government. Combined with the ghettos in Krakow and Warsaw, and they just might keep the Americans weakly on their side.

The Wannsee conference where the Nazi's decided to go for the Endlosing was in 1943, so no gass chambers yet. And the Russians had Jewish ghetto's too, for centuries. Finally the German 'propaganda coup' when they discovered the Katyn mass graves didn't materialize either.

Alratan · Feb 22, 2006

Archdevil said:
The Germans will probably still kick the British out of the mainland, although I have doubts about Hitler allowing the Crete airborne assault with his elite units while the Russians are marching to the Vistula.

It really depends on quite how well the Russians do in the first few days, if the Germans suffer heavy losses of stores then the German army in Greece could find themselves having problems advancing - something that may also effect the Axis forces in North Africa.

Martel · Feb 22, 2006

Archdevil said:
The Wannsee conference where the Nazi's decided to go for the Endlosing was in 1943, so no gass chambers yet. And the Russians had Jewish ghetto's too, for centuries. Finally the German 'propaganda coup' when they discovered the Katyn mass graves didn't materialize either.

The Wannsee Conference was in December of 1941 (it was actually postponed because of Pearl Harbor). Treblinka was set up as a demonstration project before Wannsee; construction including gas chambers had begun in early 1941. The camp wasn't in operation in May, but the basics were there.
The Nazi-run ghettos were significantly different from the ghettos of tsarist Russia (or anywhere else in Europe). They were wildly overcrowded with inadequate food, medical care, and sanitation. This wasn't just a segregated area like the Russian ghettos (I know that things weren't easy in the Russian ghettos, but we're talking orders of magnitude; at the very least the old Russian ghettos were no more over-crowded than African-American ghettos in the US).
The main issue is what effect these revelations would have on American public opinion and would it be enough to mitigate Soviet aggression. The point about Katyn is significant, but part of the problem with Katyn at the time was that there weren't any siginificant neutrals left to influence. And the US, Britain, even the Free Poles weren't in much of a position to hurt the Soviets in retaliation for the massacre without hurting their own war effort.