A Different 1941.

My basic question is this. Assuming 2 major PODs in Dec 1941, the Japanese do not start a war in the Pacific due to sucessful negotiations with the USA, and Operation Typhoon succeeds in its objective in capturing Moscow what happens in 1942 and beyond?

These are some of the things I see happening.

Due to a lowering of Red Army morale and heavier losses, the Germans "win" the war in the east by Oct 42 gaining there Barbarossa objectives up to the Caucasus.

The British still manage to defeat the axis in the desert and drive them from the north african continent, prehaps involving an all british Torch, do not know if the latter is feasiable.

The USA still stays officialy Neutral but takes over garrisoning duties elsewhere from the British say freetown, to release British troops for combat duties.

The undeclared naval war in the atlantic continues with much heavier USN involvement due to no pacific war as a result the Battle of the Atlantic is won earlier with lower shipping losses.

So by the beginning of 43 we have a stalemate, the Germans dominate the continent but cannot really get at the British (with one exception that has major problems see below), the British empire is intact, the naval lines of communication are safe but the British cannot really get at the Germans and the Soviets whilst still in the fight are really only able to sustain Gurrelia level resistance as most of there industry, resources manpower has gone. What happens, an attempted German thrust through the Caucasus? A seconD BofB? a negotiated peace or do the USA come in and build a huge 300 divison army etc?

The exception I talked about is an attempted drive through the Caucasus into Persia, but the logistical problems of this would be huge, with only 6-10 divisons being able to be supplied.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
If Moscow falls and Stalin is killed or captured, you can expect the morale loss from that to bascially knock the Soviets out of the war.

If, however, Stalin escapes (as in he chose to evacuate to Kuybyshev instead of stay in Moscow) then the Soviets would probably stay in the war and (eventually) be able to beat the Germans.
 
At the end of the day Moscows just another city. The Soviet Union is still in practically the same strategic situation as it was in OTL Febuary 1942.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
At the end of the day Moscows just another city. The Soviet Union is still in practically the same strategic situation as it was in OTL Febuary 1942.

Exactly. They had already evacuated everything and everybody important (except Stalin) anyways. They actually planned on losing the city.
 
At the end of the day Moscows just another city. The Soviet Union is still in practically the same strategic situation as it was in OTL Febuary 1942.

Ok it is just another city, but I was thinking on four lines.

(1) Without the Japanese going south, I dont see the Siberian divisons being available for a counterattack, as the Japanese threat is still there. This has obvious ramifications.

(2) If either a weaker Soviet counterattck is defeated, or Moscow taken then The soviets will have lost more equipment and men and have been pushed further back, this will not be the same situation as Feb 42.

(3) Not sure on my geography but if Moscow is like most capitals a communications hub this is going to cause more problems.

(4) They have just lost ther Capital and possibly there feared/loved great leader I think this would have morale implications.

Basicaly in this scenario I am trying to get a situation where by early 43, you have either an anglo/german war or an anglo american german war only, as I have always been interested in how this would pan out.
 

Typo

Banned
5) Moscow is the heart of the planning which makes the Soviet economical system work

Along with the above reasons, it is not -just- another city, it is certainly the single most important one in the country
 
(1) Without the Japanese going south, I dont see the Siberian divisons being available for a counterattack, as the Japanese threat is still there. This has obvious ramifications.

The amount of troops held back to defend against Japan was insane. The amount of divisions held back there could easily have torn the Kwantung Army to pieces and liberated China. You could quite easily take 80% of its strength and the remainder(especialy with Siberian tundra) could easily check any advance.

(2) If either a weaker Soviet counterattck is defeated, or Moscow taken then The soviets will have lost more equipment and men and have been pushed further back, this will not be the same situation as Feb 42.

No but the fact loss of equipment and territory had no impact on the army was one of the many reasons the Soviet Union was the most important country in WW2.

(3) Not sure on my geography but if Moscow is like most capitals a communications hub this is going to cause more problems.

Yes but as one man recalled in hindsight "We took everything that wasn't nailed to the ground". Moscow was a hub but the damaged would be minimalised.

(4) They have just lost ther Capital and possibly there feared/loved great leader I think this would have morale implications.

Stalin didn't gamble he knew the Germans had run out of steam and that the Soviet counter attack was about to happen. If neither of these things occured you can be assured he'd behind the Urals before you could say "Flee"

Basicaly in this scenario I am trying to get a situation where by early 43, you have either an anglo/german war or an anglo american german war only, as I have always been interested in how this would pan out.

The best chance for this would be an offensive early on aimed directly at the South and the oilfields. If the Germans could capture the Ukraine and reach Baku by the end of 1941 then the Red Army would be hit much worse than if they took Moscow.

Then in 1942 whilst the Red Army is improving but at a much slower rate the Germans aim north capturing Leningrad,Moscow and Murmansk. The morale of the Soviet people crumbles and combined with a Japanese seizure of Vladivostock Lend Lease becomes near impossible. By 1943 the Germans launch another successful offensive deep into Russia as the Red Army begins to collapse due to a lack of fuel and food. By May 1944 Stalin finally sureenders ceding vast swathes of territory to the Germans encompassing the Baltics,Ukraine and a large part of western Russia.

Whilst Japan and the Soviets get bogged down in a stalemate with Japan in Siberia D-Day commences leaving the fate of mankind in the hands of the Western allies...

How's that ;)
 
The amount of troops held back to defend against Japan was insane. The amount of divisions held back there could easily have torn the Kwantung Army to pieces and liberated China. You could quite easily take 80% of its strength and the remainder(especialy with Siberian tundra) could easily check any advance.



No but the fact loss of equipment and territory had no impact on the army was one of the many reasons the Soviet Union was the most important country in WW2.



Yes but as one man recalled in hindsight "We took everything that wasn't nailed to the ground". Moscow was a hub but the damaged would be minimalised.



Stalin didn't gamble he knew the Germans had run out of steam and that the Soviet counter attack was about to happen. If neither of these things occured you can be assured he'd behind the Urals before you could say "Flee"



The best chance for this would be an offensive early on aimed directly at the South and the oilfields. If the Germans could capture the Ukraine and reach Baku by the end of 1941 then the Red Army would be hit much worse than if they took Moscow.

Then in 1942 whilst the Red Army is improving but at a much slower rate the Germans aim north capturing Leningrad,Moscow and Murmansk. The morale of the Soviet people crumbles and combined with a Japanese seizure of Vladivostock Lend Lease becomes near impossible. By 1943 the Germans launch another successful offensive deep into Russia as the Red Army begins to collapse due to a lack of fuel and food. By May 1944 Stalin finally sureenders ceding vast swathes of territory to the Germans encompassing the Baltics,Ukraine and a large part of western Russia.

Whilst Japan and the Soviets get bogged down in a stalemate with Japan in Siberia D-Day commences leaving the fate of mankind in the hands of the Western allies...

How's that ;)

Ok how would a war where the western allies are fighting the germans alone and with no war against Japan pan out? Could they launch an Overlord type operation or would they wait until they have developed the Atomic bomb and then make the Third Reich glow green?
 
Yes they would be able to lauch Torch the invasion of Sicily and D-Day as the majority of German troops would be in the Soviet Union still. Eventually the Allies would be able to retake large parts of France but would be drawn into stalemate with the Germans as both sides become increasingly matched. However that all changes in August 1945 when Germany is nuked until it surrenders.
 
Germany would probably not been nuked in 1945 or possibly not ever because:

1)
The United States of America would put less emphasis on the rapid production of an atomic bomb due to it's neutrality.

2)
Germany's atomic bomb program would face less stress and major supply problems due to the fact that the American military industrial complex would have been less overstretched.
 
Ok it is just another city, but I was thinking on four lines.

(1) Without the Japanese going south, I dont see the Siberian divisons being available for a counterattack, as the Japanese threat is still there. This has obvious ramifications.

The Japanese didnt actually go south until the end of 1941, so this shouldnt effect soviet decision making much. And, as has been stated earlier, the russian army in the east was more than sufficient to hold back the Japanese with men to spare. In fact, in 1939 the red army had demonstrated this quantative superiority at Khalkhin Gol, and probably knew that the Japanese were unwilling to challenge them as a result.

(2) If either a weaker Soviet counterattck is defeated, or Moscow taken then The soviets will have lost more equipment and men and have been pushed further back, this will not be the same situation as Feb 42.

OTOH, the Heer gets that much more burned out as a result of the bloody city fighting as it pushes its way into Moscow.

(3) Not sure on my geography but if Moscow is like most capitals a communications hub this is going to cause more problems.

Correct. For a variety of reasons (including stalin, as it happens), Moscow was and is the main transportation nexus for european russia. that said, however, losing moscow is not an insurmountable problem, especially if a winter counterattack retakes the city.

(4) They have just lost ther Capital and possibly there feared/loved great leader I think this would have morale implications.

Somehow, I wonder whether stalin would have truly staked his life on moscow (ie if he knew it was a losing cause he would find some less chancy gamble to win back his people's morale). Losing moscow would hurt, and give the germans a propaganda boost of the sort they never quite got from capturing a key russian city (although at this stage of the campaign it wont quite be as meaningful). But russia can survive losing even moscow (see 1812).

Basicaly in this scenario I am trying to get a situation where by early 43, you have either an anglo/german war or an anglo american german war only, as I have always been interested in how this would pan out.

i see where you are trying to take this. The problem is there is only so much success that barbarossa can achieve, and even that requires inordinate amounts of luck. And then there is the Pacific portion of the equation. Japan had a number of set reasons why she made the drive south IOTL. what is happening with her and china to prevent the set of circumstances which led to pearl harbour an the pacific war?
 
Germany would probably not been nuked in 1945 or possibly not ever because:


Emanresu11,

Sorry but no. Topic of the bomb has been done to death here and the sources are readily available.

1) The United States of America would put less emphasis on the rapid production of an atomic bomb due to it's neutrality.

The US program was begun while that nation was neutral and was wholly triggered by the prospect of a Nazi bomb. There's no reason to believe that the program would be abandoned as long as Nazi Germany and it's perceived threat still exist.

2) Germany's atomic bomb program would face less stress and major supply problems due to the fact that the American military industrial complex would have been less overstretched.

The Nazi program that came the closest, and that's still stretching things, to producing a bomb was run by the Post Office. Hitler barely understood the potential and wanted a reactor first.


Bill
 
... the Japanese do not start a war in the Pacific due to sucessful negotiations with the USA...


Rip89,

Define successful.

Are the Japanese going to stop the war in China, withdraw to Manchuria, and withdraw from southeast Asia per US demands?

Is the US going to start selling oil to Japan, release Japanese assets, and acknowledge Japan's occupations in China and southeast Asia per Japanese demands?

The reasons the negotiations failed in the OTL is because there was no more middle ground between the two sides. What's the difference this time?


Bill
 
I have a favorite anecdote that shows how far from the Nuclear Bomb Nazi Germany was.

When Heisenberg was told that America had detonated a atomic bomb over Nagasaki he first wanted to know how big the aircraft was that deployed it. He assumed that atomic device itself was a reactor.
 
Focusing more on the far east here. This negotiated peace between the US and Japan would have to include some sort of concessions. The only thing I can think of is US diplomatic recognition of Manchuko and the Jingwei regime.

Maybe a Wilkie victory in 1940 causes this somehow. Wanting peace and to expand US business into China, he brokers a deal with Japan recognizing their puppets in exchange for trade rights.

In turn he stops supply Chiang with weaponry and large elements of the KMT fall into Wang Jingwei's camp, leaving Mao as the main element of resistance.

So either you have Japan focusing her effort on hunting down Mao, or you have several divisions freed up to reinforce the Kwungtung Army for an invasion of the Soviet Far East after Moscow falls. This would be a good example of Japan grabbing an oppurtunity when she sees it.

Depending on who is running the Soviet Union, you could see a seperate peace signed between the Soviets and Japan ceding some chunks of Eastern Siberia to Japan plus Mongolia of course. You could have this happen for one of two reasons, either Germany is forcing them to aquiesce or they desperately need to free up the men fighting Japan in a hope to throw back the Germans.

Seems a longshot though.
 
Top