A question about the Eastern Front for my TL in-progress

Basically, the Axis ITTL consisted of Germany, France, Italy and the other OTL Axis countries. Japan didn't sign the treaty, but will launch their offensive against British and American targets in the Pacific when the time comes.

Assume the German leader (no, not Hitler, [1] but someone as evil as he was and just a bit more rational) launches Barbarossa more or less on schedule, but with more troops at his disposal (at least two field armies from the French, a larger Blue Division from Spain, and an American "volunteer" corps led by Mark Clark), [2] how would the war go? Also, how could I get an Axis defeat with the demarcation line running north-south across Poland?

[1] Trust me, I've got plans for Ole Adolf
[2] America underwent a revolution in the 30s and became a very interesting place (and when I say "intersting", I of course mean it in the Chinese sense)

Marc A

P.S. I plan to flush out TTL's history in a history class format, which is why I'll need to have some ideas on the war's progress... :eek:
 
France here is OTL France not just more cooperative Vichy? Also what about other German moves? Anschluss? Sudets? Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia? Invasion of Poland? Invasion of Norway?

Where do Low countries stand? Why isn't Britain freaking out over this massive bloc dominating Europe? are they already allied with SU because of this? If there are so many US "volunteers" does that mean US is somewhat pro-axis (or pro-German)?
 
Germany and co are likely still defeated, possibly even faster than IOTL. The Red Army will be naturally much better prepared for invasion, given that unlike IOTL there is no reason to believe Germany will attack another state, and will have been preparing for several years for an invasion. While the invaders will have more forces at disposal, they will suffer heavily logistically due to the increased supply demands on a Russian road and rail network already strained to the limit. Further, Germany will be unable to exploit France and the low countries like it did IOTL, resulting in a shortage of trucks and artillery tractors. Thus resources and equipment will be even more diluted than IOTL. Further, the Axis will lack interchangable parts, making repairs and logistics even harder.

Thus, while the Border battles are defeats for the Red Army, the Axis will be bled out in attritional battles while the Red Army only grows stronger. By 1943 the Axis will be totally defeated.
 
To get a Vichy French contribution, Germany would have to give Vichy a deal, a real peace treaty, and a "piece of the action", a return to 1939 boundries (Hitler talked about how alcase lorraine wasn't that important, speer talked about it in "inside the third reich"), so perhaps a more calculating Hitler would deal this way. Something like you give us 200,000 soldiers for 2 years, supplies for them, use of your colonies for bases, etc. and the deal is done.

However, some/most? Vichy leaders OTL would balk at even a "good" deal such as this with Hitler, thinking Hitler was Genghis Khan and the Germans the Mongols and so considered no deal was ever possible with such people. The lower down in leadership you went the more anti-German the feeling.

The Soviets, who would be completely prepared in this TL, because mobilizing all these allies would bound to tip off the Soviets. Defeating the Soviets would still be impossible without significant increases in air power and mobility, especially supply mobility, that extra thousands of allied soldiers might not do much more good beyond the first weeks when they went beyond their initial supply at the border.

Its a hard time line to do because a more rational leader than Hitler would have never started world war 2.
 
France here is OTL France not just more cooperative Vichy? Also what about other German moves? Anschluss? Sudets? Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia? Invasion of Poland? Invasion of Norway?

Where do Low countries stand? Why isn't Britain freaking out over this massive bloc dominating Europe? are they already allied with SU because of this? If there are so many US "volunteers" does that mean US is somewhat pro-axis (or pro-German)?

Germany and co are likely still defeated, possibly even faster than IOTL. The Red Army will be naturally much better prepared for invasion, given that unlike IOTL there is no reason to believe Germany will attack another state, and will have been preparing for several years for an invasion. While the invaders will have more forces at disposal, they will suffer heavily logistically due to the increased supply demands on a Russian road and rail network already strained to the limit. Further, Germany will be unable to exploit France and the low countries like it did IOTL, resulting in a shortage of trucks and artillery tractors. Thus resources and equipment will be even more diluted than IOTL. Further, the Axis will lack interchangable parts, making repairs and logistics even harder.

Thus, while the Border battles are defeats for the Red Army, the Axis will be bled out in attritional battles while the Red Army only grows stronger. By 1943 the Axis will be totally defeated.

To get a Vichy French contribution, Germany would have to give Vichy a deal, a real peace treaty, and a "piece of the action", a return to 1939 boundries (Hitler talked about how alcase lorraine wasn't that important, speer talked about it in "inside the third reich"), so perhaps a more calculating Hitler would deal this way. Something like you give us 200,000 soldiers for 2 years, supplies for them, use of your colonies for bases, etc. and the deal is done.

However, some/most? Vichy leaders OTL would balk at even a "good" deal such as this with Hitler, thinking Hitler was Genghis Khan and the Germans the Mongols and so considered no deal was ever possible with such people. The lower down in leadership you went the more anti-German the feeling.

The Soviets, who would be completely prepared in this TL, because mobilizing all these allies would bound to tip off the Soviets. Defeating the Soviets would still be impossible without significant increases in air power and mobility, especially supply mobility, that extra thousands of allied soldiers might not do much more good beyond the first weeks when they went beyond their initial supply at the border.

Its a hard time line to do because a more rational leader than Hitler would have never started world war 2.

I'll try to answer all questions here:

1. France went Fascist in 1934 after the riots of February 6

2. Belgium "wisely" chose to adopt a more pro-Axis stance some time after 1934. Blame Leopold for that

3. All OTL German moves happened until right after Poland, where things became much more murkier

4. Fascist France adopted a number of German weaponries (mostly tanks and small arms)

5. America ITTL is... well, pro-German and rabidly anti-Communist (that's all I can say without massive spoilers)

6. British Empire was so freaked out by this and developments in America and adopted Imperial Federation some time in 1935 and have a standing defense treaty with Denmark and Netherlands. Before 1941 it was suspicious of the Soviets, but are beginning to improve relations with them

7. The Great Purge happened on schedule, with equally devastating effects

8. Yeah the logistical constraints slipped my mind. I'll adjust the American "volunteer" force to one reinforced division. What would be the maximum sustainable French contribution to the Eastern Front?

9. When I say "(slightly) more rational" leader of Germany, I mean he would still be committed to exterminating Untermenschens, although he'd be more inclined to listen to his generals WRT battlefield decisions (at the very least, no "stand your ground" orders for ze Germans)

Hope it'll clarify things a bit.

Marc A
 
The general's decisions in summer 1941 would have led to strategic disaster. The generals in Army Group Center wanted to push straight on ahead to Moscow in August, as did Halder. Hitler, in a moment of strategic clarity, vetoed such a move despite the numerous objections and order 2nd Panzer Army to turn south, while 3rd panzer Army would support Army Group north. If AGC had pushed on the moscow it would have been defeated, with devastating results.
 
The general's decisions in summer 1941 would have led to strategic disaster. The generals in Army Group Center wanted to push straight on ahead to Moscow in August, as did Halder. Hitler, in a moment of strategic clarity, vetoed such a move despite the numerous objections and order 2nd Panzer Army to turn south, while 3rd panzer Army would support Army Group north. If AGC had pushed on the moscow it would have been defeated, with devastating results.

I was referring to the late-war bungles like Stalingrad. :eek:

Anyway, how do you guys think the war would go (esp. between '42 and '44)? Would the Axis swing south for the Caucasus oil fields, try for Moscow again, or do something about Leningrad? By my estimation the Axis of TTL would began to lose by mid-'44, when the Soviets final began large-scale counteroffensives (with significant but less than OTL's amount of Lend-Lease from Britain and friends), and the war would end in mid-to-late '45 when the Soviet offensive(s) ran out of steam and the Axis' elastic defense got pushed back further - and right into the oncoming Concord forces [1]?

[1] TTL name for the WAllies.

Marc A
 
I believe the War would be complete different. You can't assume that Barbarossa will be just the same but with more troops.

If we assume that Germany swallows up Austria and the Czech Republic just as OTL The differences will start with the attack on Poland

I don't think that Britain will give guarantees to Poland without France doing the same. As France seems to be a German ally - well Poland is gone.

But as France is Friendly Germany will probably NOT have signed a Molotov Ribbentropp pact to divide the East - why strengthening Russia when you want to attack it.

Germany might have attacked Poland alone, but if Russia tries to Grab parts of Poland, Germany might IMMEDIATELY be at war with Russia as iits likely that Germany will want all of Poland.

Russia probably will sit and watch Germany grabbing up Poland.

Probably no Winter War and probably no seizure of Bessarabia.

Baltic states might even remain independent.

All of this will mean Germany starts Barbarossa hundreds of miles further EAST - probably reaching Moscow and capturing it and Leningrad) - especially if there are French forces deployed (maybe the French start from Romania?)

Of course there will be NO fight for Norway - as Germany is not at war with Germany it will also not threaten to cut of the Swedish ore shipped through Narvik.

Of course no Fall Gelb/Rot - and most important no Battle of Britain.

Germany will be stronger than OTL even without French Forces.

Italy probably would not DOW on Britain, so no war in Africa (early) and probably Greece would be the point where Britain intervenes... - but maybe Greece would cave in TTL...

the deciding factor would IMHO be that Germany is NOT at war with the UK. So it would have much of its Luftwaffe (lost in France and BoB - OTL) intact.

Combine a french force of 1divisions (maybe 2-3 armored 1-2 mechanized, rest infantry) Germany can pursue a full thrust on Leningrad and having the French (replace 11th Army with french Forces and us 11 th Army to strengthen army group north - this is enough to actually capture Leningrad)

Germany could also avoid otls mistake and turn south to Minsk instead of advancing to Moscow.

Basically Germany could rech its OTLs objectives of 1941 and probably defeating the Russikes in 1942. (also no lend lease to both UK ans SU - as the US seems leaning towards the Germans (at least until Japan attacks, but would Japan be on Germanys side TTL? - also Japan would not have French indochina TTL to base its attack on Malaya...)

Butterflies rampart if France is on Germanys side...
 
the Axis ITTL consisted of Germany, France, Italy and the other OTL Axis countries. Japan didn't sign the treaty, but will launch their offensive against British and American targets in the Pacific when the time comes.


With this much powers on the Axis from Mid 30s its their game to loose.
 
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that regardless if fascists control france or not, france is still france with its national interests at stake, it can't just let Germany destroy Poland, send thousands of Frenchman to die to help Germany cripple the Soviet Union and from then on France has to live with a super power Germany right next door.

It seems a militaristic fascist France would be more than willing to enforce the Versailles treaty, find an excuse to occupy the Rhineland, rig the Saar elections and do to other stuff to weaken Germany.

Perhaps this France is run by some sort of deluded Laval like Germanophile, Poland would have no choice to deal with Germany, no help is coming. So Germany uses Polish territory to invade the Soviet Union in 1940. Finland doesn't help and neither does Rommania. I don't see hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen willing to die for Nazi Germany's war but maybe a few volunteers show up.

Germany wins early, commits its attrocities, forcing the Russians to stick with the Soviets regardless. Germany becomes an economic basket case, involved in an endless war, there is no loot to capture because the Soviets destroy everything as OTL, the German slaughter/starvation of the population becomes apparent this no anti-communist crusade, world wide sympathy even in right wing countries turns agains the Germans with economic embargos on Germany and the like plus non lethal aid is given by the British and even by the Americans. After a while Hitler dies or is assasinated and some German government reaches a peace deal with the Soviets.
 
I'll try to answer all questions here:

1. France went Fascist in 1934...
3. All OTL German moves happened until right after Poland.
4. Fascist France adopted a number of German weaponries...
5. America ITTL is... well, pro-German and rabidly anti-Communist...
6. British Empire... have a standing defense treaty with Denmark and Netherlands...
7. The Great Purge happened on schedule, with equally devastating effects

This TL will completely alter the 1935-1940 events. You can't get to a 1941 BARBAROSSA analog. It's like the old "WI the CSA won the Civil War? How would that affect WW I?" chestnut.

It's possible Fascist France would still be anti-German, but much less likely.

If France is Fascist from 1934, the Spanish Civil War goes differently, with France overtly supporting the Nationalist side (almost certainly not led by Franco - it took two stupid accidents to put him in charge).

Poland is in deep trouble here. France, their chief patron, is not going to go to war for them. Britain can't usefully help them. They can defy Germany and get stomped. Or they can deal. If Germany is proposing an anti-bolshevik crusade, the Poles sign on. Give up some borderlands to Germany, and get a slice of Ukraine.

Germany will deal, because why not take the freebie? They can always stab Poland later if they really want to.

So there won't be any war in 1939, and no Hitler-Stalin Pact.

Britain, now opposed to the Franco-Italo-German Axis, doesn't have many options for action either. All they can really do is build up airpower. A defense pact with Norway is plausible. But they can't protect Denmark, and with France hostile, they can't really offer the eventual comeback or counterstroke that was promised to Poland. Unless Britain actually stations forces in Denmark, and that's almost unthinkable in the 1930s. Even more so for the Netherlands.

Germany has no reason to attack Denmark and Norway, anyway. The Kiruna iron ore isn't vital - they can get it from Briey in France.

The U.S. being pro-German is another huge problem for Britain. They can't afford to provoke U.S. hostility. However, a U.S. volunteer legion is very unlikely. Isolationism in the U.S. cuts against it; that sort of thing was prohibited precisely because it could entangle the U.S. in foreign wars.

What else? No Hitler-Stalin Pact means no Winter War with Finland, no occupation of the Baltic States, and no occupation of Bessarabia. (Romania stays neutral, having nothing to gain.)

If Germany just attacks Poland - Stalin either remains neutral, or intervenes from the east. In the latter case, the Soviet forces expect to fight the Germans when they see them. There will be no sucker punch.

The Axis will not be under blockade. No shortage of oil for the Axis.

The German forces will win the opening engagements, but it will only be a major victory, not OTL's romp-and-stomp. However, with all the forces of Germany, plus detachments from Italy, France, and Spain, and probably Poland, the Axis has the edge, and can keep pushing on.

Without the experience of Poland and France, the Germans aren't as good as OTL. But they do learn quickly; the Axis allies learn too. They don't expect to win in one campaign, so they are prepared for the winter.

I don't see things getting better for the Soviets later. They have no advantages in industrial output, natural resources, or technology. They have a modest advantage in population over Germany, which is offset by the support of the rest of the Axis, and by the probable defection of Soviet subjects. The Soviets get no outside aid. It will take the Axis two years, but they can break the USSR.
 

Very good points, these. I shall think more on them.

snip good points

snip good points

Argh, this is why I really should've read more on the Ostfront... it's always been a weak spot of mine. :eek:

The volunteer legion thing was me trying to get Americans fighting on the Eastern Front for the Axis. It's mostly there for shits and giggles.

So it's not really possible for me to get an Eastern Front with similar-to-OTL results, then? Shame, I was hoping it could evolve into a Cold War-on-the Vistula scenario... :eek:

Marc A
 
Top