A bunch of WW2 PODs; what would have changed?

Moscow could have been hard, not impossible. It might well have been the easiest of the 'big three' cities (Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad).

With German production increased, more Soviet losses in the Winter War, no Axis losses in Greece or Yugoslavia, better equipped Germans, a handful of Soviet losses in Afghanistan plus Spanish, Greek, Swedish, Yugoslavian and as one person suggested possibly even Turkish troops adding to the assault, it adds up to a substantial difference. Will it bring about the fall of the USSR? Probably not, but the Axis will do better, far better.

No, it definitely would not be. Moscow is much better built than Stalingrad or Leningrad, with numerous large, modern building which are very difficult to destroy with artillery or vehicle fire. Moscow is also outside of the supply radius for German forces which Smolensk provides (Source; Absolute War by Chris Bellamy) meaning that any attacking force would run very low on supplies quickly. Moscow is also shielded to the north by the Moscow-Volga Canal, which present a major geographic obstacle to attacking forces. Furthermore the city was defended by 3 major defensive belts even before the city itself which could not easily be defeated by attacking German forces. German forces likewise would be very overextended in any push to Moscow which would leave their flanks vulnerable to concerted attacks by millions of Soviet troops and thousands of tanks and aircraft. Finally, winter is STILL A PROBLEM. Even with good uniforms the Germans lack the correct lubricant or fuel for their weapons and vehicles, which means that those effectively freeze up and stop working in the winter.
 
I guess the vets would be used as trainers. To create an army you need experienced NCOs they are the backbone of any army. I am not sure about junior officers, bunches of lieutenants, captains and majors would end up captured. How long to train them? I guess more than few years. I guess there would be some just getting out of academies and such, but I guess fewer junior officers will be felt.

I am not sure Japanese could reach deeper into India, OTL front was already at the far end of their logistics capacity.

I'm sure the Japanese could grab a little more ground in India, seeing as a handful more Indian troops will be tied down with the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, seeing as there's bound to be a resistance movement of some sort.

Maybe we could add a more active Azad Hind to the mix?
 
Sorry everyone, just clarifying. I'm asking what if ALL these things happened, not which one would make the biggest difference.
 
Fair enough. I still think that the Germans could take Moscow in this scenario. Holding it; that's a different question altogether.

Taking Moscow would end the war. Moscow was the spiritual, political, economic, and military capital of the nation. Most major Russian rail lines ran directly through it. Its seizure would cripple the Red Army logistically and militarily, as it would efefctively cut the nation in two and halt the free movement of supplies and reserves. Furthermore, Moscow would serve as a valuable frontline logistic hub for German forces. OKH was correct in their assumption that the city was extremely valuable, but incorrect in the one that it could somehow be taken by winter.
 
Taking Moscow would end the war. Moscow was the spiritual, political, economic, and military capital of the nation. Most major Russian rail lines ran directly through it. Its seizure would cripple the Red Army logistically and militarily, as it would efefctively cut the nation in two and halt the free movement of supplies and reserves. Furthermore, Moscow would serve as a valuable frontline logistic hub for German forces. OKH was correct in their assumption that the city was extremely valuable, but incorrect in the one that it could somehow be taken by winter.

So you don't think that with less German troops dealing with the French resistance, no Axis losses in Yugoslavia or Greece, greater Soviet losses in the Winter War, a stronger Finland, greater German production capacity with simplified production methods, perhaps a super-heavy or two, better equipped Germans, some Soviet troops bogged down in Afghanistan, plus added help from Spanish, Swedish, Greek, Yugoslavian and Turkish troops would allow the Axis this victory?

Either way, what are your thoughts on Stalingrad and Leningrad? Any change there?
 
So you don't think that with less German troops dealing with the French resistance, no Axis losses in Yugoslavia or Greece, greater Soviet losses in the Winter War, a stronger Finland, greater German production capacity with simplified production methods, perhaps a super-heavy or two, better equipped Germans, some Soviet troops bogged down in Afghanistan, plus added help from Spanish, Swedish, Greek, Yugoslavian and Turkish troops would allow the Axis this victory?

Either way, what are your thoughts on Stalingrad and Leningrad? Any change there?

No, I don't think those will allow Axis victory. Those are minor changes at best which do little to alter the simple mathematics of the war; alone the Soviet Union easily outmatches Germany in terms of quality and quantity, even with "super heavies" which will break down after traveling a few hundred kilometers, if the Tiger II is anything to go upon. Furthermore, humongous amounts of lend lease and eventually Allied troops in Europe and North Africa will quickly see the tide of the war turn in the Allies favor. Simply put Germany never had a chance once it declared war on the USSR. It could never take Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad, and even if it took the later too it would soon suffer such crushing defeats due to overextension that the costs associated with those victories will be utterly worthless. Many authors have written about the Second World War and the Eastern Front, and they universally agree that Germany never was in a position to achieve victory. I recommend the many works of David M Glantz in particular. Richard Overy also wrote a nice work on the Eastern Front.
 
My timeline on the Peru/Ecuador war getting out of hand is called Axis of Andes.

But I don't think that it would significantly affect the rest of WW2.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So you don't think that with less German troops dealing with the French resistance, no Axis losses in Yugoslavia or Greece, greater Soviet losses in the Winter War, a stronger Finland, greater German production capacity with simplified production methods, perhaps a super-heavy or two, better equipped Germans, some Soviet troops bogged down in Afghanistan, plus added help from Spanish, Swedish, Greek, Yugoslavian and Turkish troops would allow the Axis this victory?

Either way, what are your thoughts on Stalingrad and Leningrad? Any change there?

Conquering Russia is more about when the Russian will breaks, than how many cities are taken. Napoleon took Moscow, Russia wins. Hitler took all the Ukraine, isolated St. Petersburg, and had threaten Moscow. Russia Wins. The Kaiser takes Poland, Lithuania, some of Belarus and a little of the Ukraine. Russia losses. Poland alone forces the Soviets to negotiate peace in the 1920's. Based on the land taken, Hitler was most likely to win, Nappy second. The Kaiser barely got started, and most of the gains were two years before. Poland alone forcing the Russians to make peace in 1921, that would be call ASB in 1911.

For the Nazi's to take the Soviets, ask this: What breaks the soviet will? How many soviets must die? Must the Soviet leadership be killed? My guess is for the Nazi to win, they must either drive all the way to the Urals or the Soviet leadership must be wiped out. A German bombing raid killing Stalin and 20 senior soviet leaders in a meeting is more likely to win the war than one more Axis victory.

Now, if it all lines up for the Nazi's on the battlefield. I would say Leningrad falling is most likely. I can easily see followup German forces or Greeks or Yugoslavian forces taking Leningrad in 1941. It is much easier to supply than the front lines around Moscow, and since it is a "secondary", "mopping-up" operation, it is easier to imagine the lesser axis powers attacking their. This would free up extra German forces for the next summer. However, the the forces around Leningrad were not using a lot of fuel, equipment, and supplies compared to an advancing Panzer Army.

Moscow is just too hard to take in 1941, due to Winter and bad logistics.

Stalingrad. Stalin had the best forces defending Moscow. So an attack here in 1942 makes sense for the Nazi. Attack where weak, not where the enemy has been has been preparing all winter. Extra forces help the Germans. If smart and if the lesser power agree, throwing Jewish, Ukrainian, Greek, or Yugoslavian divisions into the meat grinder of Stalingrad helps Maybe even a smart German commander keeps several additional corps of German Infantry in Army Group South Reserve. With a lot of extra men, say Stalingrad is secured fully. And say the extra Army Group South reserve stop the initial Soviet counter attack. The Germans are still in a war of attrition, where the other side has the advantage. The Americans have still landed in North Africa. And the Americans have nuclear weapons, and will have lots of nuclear weapons in 1946. The Nazi still lose unless the other sides will breaks.
 
So you don't think that with less German troops dealing with the French resistance, no Axis losses in Yugoslavia or Greece, greater Soviet losses in the Winter War, a stronger Finland, greater German production capacity with simplified production methods, perhaps a super-heavy or two, better equipped Germans, some Soviet troops bogged down in Afghanistan, plus added help from Spanish, Swedish, Greek, Yugoslavian and Turkish troops would allow the Axis this victory?

Either way, what are your thoughts on Stalingrad and Leningrad? Any change there?

No, as the Nazi attempt to invade the USSR, kill all the Slavs, and reap the collapse of the Soviets to their "master race army" will simply drive the Russian population into Stalin's hands anyway and if it's Nazi will v. Soviet the best case for the Nazis is a stalemate driven out of the USSR's borders.
 
Taking Moscow would end the war. Moscow was the spiritual, political, economic, and military capital of the nation. Most major Russian rail lines ran directly through it. Its seizure would cripple the Red Army logistically and militarily, as it would efefctively cut the nation in two and halt the free movement of supplies and reserves. Furthermore, Moscow would serve as a valuable frontline logistic hub for German forces. OKH was correct in their assumption that the city was extremely valuable, but incorrect in the one that it could somehow be taken by winter.

When the Germans start focusing on cities, it's a tacit confession the original concept of Barbarossa failed. The original concept was destroy the Red Army and joyride east slaughtering everything in their path. So they smashed 12 Soviet armies. Then came another 12. Then those were smashed, then yet another 12, and at the end of it German armor and air power were routed by infantrymen.
 
Conquering Russia is more about when the Russian will breaks, than how many cities are taken. Napoleon took Moscow, Russia wins. Hitler took all the Ukraine, isolated St. Petersburg, and had threaten Moscow. Russia Wins. The Kaiser takes Poland, Lithuania, some of Belarus and a little of the Ukraine. Russia losses. Poland alone forces the Soviets to negotiate peace in the 1920's. Based on the land taken, Hitler was most likely to win, Nappy second. The Kaiser barely got started, and most of the gains were two years before. Poland alone forcing the Russians to make peace in 1921, that would be call ASB in 1911.

For the Nazi's to take the Soviets, ask this: What breaks the soviet will? How many soviets must die? Must the Soviet leadership be killed? My guess is for the Nazi to win, they must either drive all the way to the Urals or the Soviet leadership must be wiped out. A German bombing raid killing Stalin and 20 senior soviet leaders in a meeting is more likely to win the war than one more Axis victory.

Now, if it all lines up for the Nazi's on the battlefield. I would say Leningrad falling is most likely. I can easily see followup German forces or Greeks or Yugoslavian forces taking Leningrad in 1941. It is much easier to supply than the front lines around Moscow, and since it is a "secondary", "mopping-up" operation, it is easier to imagine the lesser axis powers attacking their. This would free up extra German forces for the next summer. However, the the forces around Leningrad were not using a lot of fuel, equipment, and supplies compared to an advancing Panzer Army.

Moscow is just too hard to take in 1941, due to Winter and bad logistics.

Stalingrad. Stalin had the best forces defending Moscow. So an attack here in 1942 makes sense for the Nazi. Attack where weak, not where the enemy has been has been preparing all winter. Extra forces help the Germans. If smart and if the lesser power agree, throwing Jewish, Ukrainian, Greek, or Yugoslavian divisions into the meat grinder of Stalingrad helps Maybe even a smart German commander keeps several additional corps of German Infantry in Army Group South Reserve. With a lot of extra men, say Stalingrad is secured fully. And say the extra Army Group South reserve stop the initial Soviet counter attack. The Germans are still in a war of attrition, where the other side has the advantage. The Americans have still landed in North Africa. And the Americans have nuclear weapons, and will have lots of nuclear weapons in 1946. The Nazi still lose unless the other sides will breaks.


In fact I have often wondered what the impact on the Eastern front in 1941 would have been if Hitler had been willing to give up some ground. Have the Germans pull back 300 miles or so shorten their lines and simplify their logistics in November dig in and figure to continue the attack in the Spring since they didn't really have the equipment to handle a Russian winter.

But that would have involved admitting that they were involved in a multiyear campaign which would have been hard for anyone in the German high command to do. Maybe Hitler gets an overdose of some drug and has a "vision" of all his troops dying of frostbite so he lets them pull back, dig in and sends winter uniforms...I just don't know what the POD would be to let them do this but I think it would be an interesting TL.

Tom.
 
A thought about the winter war one, is it possible for Finland to become part of the allies in this situation? as during the start of the winter war Germany and the ussr were technically allies.
The Germans & soviets attacked poland and after that the soviets also attacked Finland.
With Finland (and maybe Sweden) on the allied side, would the chances of the ussr becoming part of the allies when barbarossa starts be much smaller?
Effectively turning this in a tripolar war, otherwise.
And with Finland and Sweden in the allied camp would the invasion of Norway still occur?

edit: maybe in this situation Chamberlain gets inspired to declare war on the soviets for it?
 
Last edited:
to understand the war in the east is to understand that with weapons alone you can´t beat russia.

but hitlers ideology (or as i call it satanistic massmurderer ejaculate) forbid to win the people in the areas you take.

if the germans act fair and good against the people in the baltic, white russia, ukraine, these areas will be fast progerman and will battle the rump partisan organisations of surviving russian soldiers.
instead of fighting a gigantic area this area will help you... even troops for combat duty is possible... so instead of loosing the war you win it. with the same troops, with no problems.

But hitler cannot go this way,or hitler was replaced or the complete nazi ideology... also, without the "lebensraum im osten"shit, the germans do not need to attack russia.

but - if all the things happen you describe, the germans can take leningrad. if they take it, their defeat in winter 41 is lesser (in the north it is nonexisting), so they have a better position in the spring 42... logistical improvements (no partisan actings disturb the supply of army group north, finland and germany can cut the (not so important) northern supply route and has much more troops free, esp. inf-troops, they lacked since autum 1941...

so yes, german army is much stronger. but - with the nazis still as evil as they are, the russians will fight till death. and this war the germans cannot win. this war against russia can win nobody, not even todays usa against 1944-russia... the country is to big.
 
In fact I have often wondered what the impact on the Eastern front in 1941 would have been if Hitler had been willing to give up some ground. Have the Germans pull back 300 miles or so shorten their lines and simplify their logistics in November dig in and figure to continue the attack in the Spring since they didn't really have the equipment to handle a Russian winter.

But that would have involved admitting that they were involved in a multiyear campaign which would have been hard for anyone in the German high command to do. Maybe Hitler gets an overdose of some drug and has a "vision" of all his troops dying of frostbite so he lets them pull back, dig in and sends winter uniforms...I just don't know what the POD would be to let them do this but I think it would be an interesting TL.

Tom.

If the Germans retreat in front of Moscow in the early winter of 1942 then Georgi Zhukov's military career is Khalkhin Ghol-savior of Leningrad-destroyer of Army Group Center and thus of Nazi military power. Hitler actually was more interested in not pushing Germany's luck, but the generals prevailed on him that they could capture Moscow without undue loss, and the start of Operation Typhoon seemed to validate this.....and then the generals got blindsided with a full quarter-million troops that showed yet again their idea of how many Russian soldiers there were in the Soviet Union was....flawed.

Hitler sometimes was rather cautious in the middle of his gambles and refused to push his luck, and as it was Typhoon gave the Germans ultimately the worst of all worlds: a major Soviet victory, impossible logistical damage that was irreparable, Hitler's hubris getting even stronger than it already was, and an overextended and badly weakened army that depended on its enemies staying incapable of co-ordinating modern warfare and was doomed if the Soviets ever did discover how to do what Tsar Nicholas's regime never did.
 
A thought about the winter war one, is it possible for Finland to become part of the allies in this situation? as during the start of the winter war Germany and the ussr were technically allies.
The Germans & soviets attacked poland and after that the soviets also attacked Finland.
With Finland (and maybe Sweden) on the allied side, would the chances of the ussr becoming part of the allies when barbarossa starts be much smaller?
Effectively turning this in a tripolar war, otherwise.
And with Finland and Sweden in the allied camp would the invasion of Norway still occur?

edit: maybe in this situation Chamberlain gets inspired to declare war on the soviets for it?

For the purposes of this 'what if', Finland and Sweden fight against Russia, France and the UK don't declare war or help in any way. Once the Winter War is over, relative peace returns to the region until the Norwegian campaign, then Stalin declares war on Finland and Sweden beginning the Continuation War after Hitler and the various Axis nations invade the USSR.
 
Enigma

Fairy simple; the Allies fail to break the Enigma Code
Simple, but nothing like easy. You'd need to wipe out the Polish Cypher Bureau, or at least the Polish efforts to crack it, plus their willingness to share with Britain & France, plus the German defector who turned over the cypher keys to France.
Greece

Italy doesn't attack Greece ...This would allow an earlier Barbarossa
No, it wouldn't. Barbarossa was governed more by the rasputitsa than Greece.
Invasion of Darwin
ASB. IJA had neither the manpower nor the shipping to bring it off, & everyone involved knew it.
Assembly Lines

Put them in pretty much all German factories.
Without a POD in, what, 1890? Not to mention transforming the German weapon-design bureaus & Hitler's preference for competing "empires"...
Long-Range Bombers

Nuff said?
Thus crippling German production of bombers she could actually use?:confused:
Winter Uniforms for German Troops in Russia

Seems obvious, but something Hitler overlooked
Expecting the campaign to be well over before winter...:rolleyes:
Heavy Tanks

Simplify the design with sloping armour, then build some. Maybe the Maus, maybe the Ratte, maybe the Monster. I'm not sure how many or which should be built, gap in my knowledge here >.<
Forget "heavy". A sensible Pz 5, derived from the Pz 4 chassis, using T-34-style sloping armor & the 88mm L/56, would have been more lethal & more effective, & could have been more numerous, than the Pz 5, & more useful than the absurd Pz 6 variants.:rolleyes:
Dunkirk

The Germans run right up to the channel in time to stop Operation Dynamo, thereby killing or capturing over 300,000 Allied troops
One of my favorite propositions. Forces a greater reliance on Commonwealth manpower in the short term, at least. Seems to mitigate against supporting Greece at the expense of finishing in North Africa, & against an Italian campaign.:cool::cool: Send Monty to a POW camp?:cool::cool::cool: (Shoot him trying to escape?:cool::cool::cool::p) With Monty gone, might also manage to avoid the Antwerp screwup in '44:rolleyes: & end the war nearly a year sooner.:cool:
No major changes here, just that Japanese bombers manage to take out the oil tanks and submarine base.
Yamamoto has to expect a long war. That requires the entire Japanese high command, IJN & IJA both, not to be populated with morons who don't know the difference between "tactical" & "strategic".:rolleyes: For which you probably have to go back to, oh, IDK, 1868?
 

Cook

Banned
Invasion of Darwin
ASB. IJA had neither the manpower nor the shipping to bring it off, & everyone involved knew it.
They had both the manpower and the shipping to do invade Darwin. The manpower was on its way to Timor and Bali and they were already on board ships bound for those destinations, destinations of far less value than Darwin.

Far from everyone knowing it, Yamashita, the most experienced commander on the southern front proposed doing exactly that two days before Singapore fell. The Japanese diplomatic staff when they were exchanged were not searched and took with them intelligence gathered on Northern Australia prior to the war including full details of the defences of Darwin, which were almost completely non-existent. Yamashita’s plan to use a division to invade Darwin was overkill, it wouldn’t have needed a brigade to take and hold Darwin in February-March 1942.
 
... it wouldn’t have needed a brigade to take and hold Darwin in February-March 1942. [/FONT]
:eek: I can only say I got it confused with the broader "invasion of Australia".:eek::eek: Which was, indeed, impossible.:eek:

Allowing Enigma is secure, the impact is in North Africa & on the land campaign more than in the Atlantic (contrary to the myth). Using Enigma to interdict supplies to DAK was of considerable importance. Enigma's influence was so pervasive, it's virtually impossible to separate it out. In the Atlantic, though, DF was as valuable: if you pick up a signal near a convoy, reading its content isn't really essenital.
...Pacific war goes much more smoothly and Japan surrenders in 1944.
I don't see this happening, I mean this POD does not speed up either of the most likely things that motivated the Japanese to surrender. This won't make the european theatre progress faster than OTL, thus the Russians won't be able to shift their focus onto Japan any earlier. This also won't make the A-bomb get developed any earlier, IIRC the manhattan project was using a less efficient method for extracting fissile material, leading to them adopting a quicker method later on, but even if they do it right from the beginning, how much earlier could they have gotten a working bomb by? six months maybe? And I seriously doubt that the US is going to kick off Olympic earlier than they would have IOTL without some serious need to do so, and I don't see such a thing happening either.
Since the PacFleet Sub Force brought Japan's economy to a virtual standstill by Jan '45 OTL, in spite of MacArthur & basing in Oz, it's perfectly possible the PacWar ends that soon. MacArthur's P.I. campaign lengthened the war 6mo on its own, not counting the delay added by having more forces in Iwo Jima & Okinawa (which were bound for P.I. but never arrived, thanx to the Sub Force). And Japan was looking for terms to surrender in April '45 OTL, right around the time FDR died.:eek: Change that at all, Japan could get a deal with the U.S. Say with the U.S. capture of Saipan in '44, which saw the Japanese government fall?
 
Last edited:
Top