AHC: Non ASB Axis victory?

[ObssesedNuker]

Define what you mean by Soviet defeat. Hitler's plan AA line was not feasible, but something along the lines of a Brest-Litovsk is not outside the realm of possibility...provided the West is not involved in the war.

Not if they attack in 1942. The Soviets were able to outproduce the Germans after losing a ton of resources and manpower in IOTL's 1942 without assistance from the Western Allies. ITTL, the Soviets will have suffered much less manpower casualties (while inflicting much greater manpower casualties on the Germans to boot) and be in retention of a lot more of their natural and industrial resources to boot. That translates into even greater production achievements then they achieved IOTL and what the Germans can possibly manage given the blocks they still face in material and manpower, not to mention their still poorly mobilized war economy...

The earlier they start the night bombing

The earlier the Brits start to defend against it.

being bottled up by air deployed naval mines in the Mersey,

Ah, I see the ASBs magicked away British mine-sweeping capability.

Then there is opportunity cost; what is Britain not producing to make night defenses?

Well, since the Germans are apparently not making much effort to bomb Britain during the day ITTL...

Without the BoB to rally the US public to the cause of Britain, there isn't going to be the same sort of support.

So long as Britain survives the summer of 1940, then the US perception of Britain is going to be "the Brits stuck it out!"

Without that moment, rather a start to a blockade, then the US public doesn't have the romantic story of US pilots helping the British in their hour of need,

Which wasn't much of a big part of said story in the first place.

nor do they get the story of the evil Germans bombing British civilians in terror raids

Instead, they get the story of the evil Germans trying to starve British civilians via blockade.

(Liverpool is a legitimate military target, as was Hamburg when the British started trying to bomb it in 1939).

Which matters for nothing as far as shaping public perception goes.

 

[ryackov]

Not if they attack in 1942. The Soviets were able to outproduce the Germans after losing a ton of resources and manpower in IOTL's 1942 without assistance from the Western Allies. ITTL, the Soviets will have suffered much less manpower casualties (while inflicting much greater manpower casualties on the Germans to boot) and be in retention of a lot more of their natural and industrial resources to boot. That translates into even greater production achievements then they achieved IOTL and what the Germans can possibly manage given the blocks they still face in material and manpower, not to mention their still poorly mobilized war economy...

Don't be silly. While the Soviet armaments production far shadowed any lend lease imports of armaments, the resources for the production came from lend lease.
http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/SovLendLease.html

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Don't be silly. While the Soviet armaments production far shadowed any lend lease imports of armaments, the resources for the production came from lend lease.
http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/SovLendLease.html

Hold on one moment while I find that post which detailed how 90% of Allied lend-lease was sent to the USSR after ~October 1942. Watch this space.

 

[ryackov]

Hold on one moment while I find that post which detailed how 90% of Allied lend-lease was sent to the USSR after ~October 1942.

According to wikipedia:
1941: 2800 medium vehicles built
1942: 12,578 vehicles built
1943: 17,192 vehicles built
1944: 16,242 vehicles built
1945: 13,485 vehicles built
~62,000 vehicles built in total

80% of Soviet vehicles were produced between 1943 and 1945.

Lend-lease FREED UP Soviet production towards armaments. The west bankrolled the Eastern Front.

There is no coincidence that Hitler faced continuous defeats after 1943.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Here it is! Just click the little ">" sign next to my name if you want to see the post (and thread) in its entirety.

The very paragraph you quoted is certainly not discussing Soviet production in 1942...

Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement:

(emphasis bolded)

And the Soviet surge in war production took place in the first half of 1942, a period which coincides with the Russians bringing those factories transferred in 1941 back online.

Furthermore, the Soviets had the capacity to produce more trucks then they did (although they probably wouldn't reach the quantity and quality of the trucks they got from Lend-Lease), although it would have meant less T-60s... but I'm pretty sure the Red Army can live with that if they alternative is no new trucks. Also, the Russians were able to make better use of their own raw materials by clever improvization in the production of their equipment... like substituting wood for aluminum parts and using airplane engines that could run on the otherwise terrible-quality of their aviation fuel.*

In any case, there is no reason to suspect lend-lease will be cancelled. Indeed it might even be increased, since the United States will have more excess production now that it doesn't need to equip an army to invade Europe.

*Source for both claims on this paragraph: "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945" by Walter Scott Dunn.

Now where lend-lease was truly vital was in sustaining such high levels of Soviet production into 1943 and 44. Not that this is truly relevant to ATL, since without the IOTL losses in manpower and territory, the Soviets won't need as much lend-lease.

 

[ryackov]

That's true, they also wouldn't get as much lend-lease if the Japanese blockaded Vladivostock. A quarter of lend-lease aid under American crewed and American flagged ships arrived there.

The margins for victory or defeat for Russia was so small that every percent counts.

One must not forget that everyone was living on nearly starvation rations.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

That's true, they also wouldn't get as much lend-lease if the Japanese blockaded Vladivostock. A quarter of lend-lease aid under American crewed and American flagged ships arrived there.

Actually, the Pacific route accounts for half of lend-lease tonnage, although the Japanese won't be able to maintain said blockade for long since they will rapidly run out of fuel thanks to the western embargo.

 

[ryackov]

Actually, the Pacific route accounts for half of lend-lease tonnage, although the Japanese won't be able to maintain said blockade for long since they will rapidly run out of fuel thanks to the western embargo.

They had a year or two worth of bunker fuel.

 

[Sulemain]

Once America enters the War, it's all over. It's unreachable, and even if it was reachable, unbreakable. And then it's a waiting game until The Bomb appears.

 

[ryackov]

Once America enters the War, it's all over. It's unreachable, and even if it was reachable, unbreakable. And then it's a waiting game until The Bomb appears.

Not really. If the Germans defeat the Soviets on the Eastern front, then they would be free to fortify Fortress Europe.

It all comes down to defeating Russia.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

They had a year or two worth of bunker fuel.

One year for war-time level operations. The Soviets can hold on that long. After that, the Japanese are militarily and economically screwed.

It all comes down to defeating Russia.

The Red Army had already bitch-slapped the IJA once. Even with the Germans breathing down their neck, they can hold the Japanese off until they run out of fuel.

 

[ryackov]

You make victory in WWII seem more predetermined then it actually was.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not if they attack in 1942. The Soviets were able to outproduce the Germans after losing a ton of resources and manpower in IOTL's 1942 without assistance from the Western Allies. ITTL, the Soviets will have suffered much less manpower casualties (while inflicting much greater manpower casualties on the Germans to boot) and be in retention of a lot more of their natural and industrial resources to boot. That translates into even greater production achievements then they achieved IOTL and what the Germans can possibly manage given the blocks they still face in material and manpower, not to mention their still poorly mobilized war economy...

That's patently false:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=201813
Basically the Soviets outproduced the Germans in some categories like tanks and aircraft, but were outproduced in others like Uboats, missiles, APCs, etc. Had the Germans not been under aerial bombardment and not needed to focus on building Uboats and AAA defenses, then their production would have been higher. In terms of aggregate output the German economy outproduced the Soviets, but it appears the Soviets produced more weapons, because they were focused only on mass producing those weapon systems to the exclusion of all else; for instance Germany massively outproduced the Soviet in terms of locomotives and rail cars (IIRC 30,000 locomotives for the Germans and less than 300 for the Soviets), because the US produced those for the Soviets, which allowed them to focus on tanks.

Without any other fronts but the Eastern, the European Axis would have many more weapons than IOTL and the Germans could properly equip her allies with modern weapons, rather than letting them fend for themselves. Also the greater Soviet production in the extra 10 months of a delayed Barbarossa would be met by a greater Axis production in the mean time, especially if they can get the British out of the war and open up international markets for raw materials, which was a major factor in limiting Axis production IOTL. Also even with the greater numbers of weapons the Soviets are just replacing their old equipment in 1941-42. And having more and modern equipment doesn't mean they will be any better at using them. Plus stopping the Axis further West in this version of Barbarossa actually helps them avoid losses they experienced from being badly out of supply and overextended during the Winter, leaving the Soviets further from their supply lines, closer to the Axis ones, and of course leaving the Axis closer to prepared airfields. One of the benefits of letting the Soviets build up in 10 months from June 22nd 1941 to May 1942 is that they will complete paved airfields near West of the Dnieper-Dvina line, which means the Axis gets that infrastructure for their air forces, which they lacked IOTL and suffered from the lack of prepared airfields in the East in 1941-42. So they are then that much more effective in aerial combat in 1942-43 ITTL.

The earlier the Brits start to defend against it.

As I stated earlier, they can't get the Beaufighter and AI radar any sooner than IOTL. IOTL they were pushing as hard as possible to get their AAA defenses up to snuff, which wasn't even enough by May 1941 IOTL. They can start defending sooner, but the tools at their disposal were not sufficient until at earliest March 1941

Ah, I see the ASBs magicked away British mine-sweeping capability.

No, but the time spent sweeping is time spent not moving in or out shipping; especially as the Germans introduced new fuzes which took the British time to figure out how to counter, shipping gets shut down. Also thinks like demagnetizing hulls took a week and lasted 6 months while taking up dock space in that time, which couldn't be used for anything else. 'Wiping' took several hours, but lasted only a few days, requiring serious delays to get a ship in or out of the mined area. So mining does bottle up shipping significantly, even if it doesn't fully stop it...which it does until the British figure out how to sweep new triggers that the Germans were introducing to make their mines more effective.

Well, since the Germans are apparently not making much effort to bomb Britain during the day ITTL...

Which means if the Germans decide to probe them during the day, they'll find defenses aren't as strong as IOTL.

 

[NorthernFiend]

So Ribbentrop learns magic?

<weary sigh>
Yeah ok - Ribbentrop is a super villain that can see the future

Go and read the wiki page on Ribbentrop - the damage that one man does to the nazi cause really is staggering. A half smart Ribbentrop might delay WW2 for years.
"largely due to Ribbentrops influence it has been argued that in 1939 Germany went to war with the country it regarded as an ally (Britain) and was allied with the country it wished to regard as an enemy (Russia)"

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Without any other fronts but the Eastern, the European Axis would have many more weapons than IOTL and the Germans could properly equip her allies with modern weapons, rather than letting them fend for themselves.

No they wouldn't. They would have spent 1940-1941 producing the weapons needed for fighting the air-naval war against Britain (IE: Aircraft and ships). That means resources they are not going to be using preparing for Barbarossa. As you said: "opportunity costs".

Also the greater Soviet production in the extra 10 months of a delayed Barbarossa would be met by a greater Axis production in the mean time, especially if they can get the British out of the war and open up international markets for raw materials, which was a major factor in limiting Axis production IOTL.

German imports from non-European sources had dwindled to nothing even before the war began. Therefore, even should they manage to force Britain out of the war and even should the British and Americans not strong arm non-European powers from trading with Germany, Germany has already burned those bridges.

Also even with the greater numbers of weapons the Soviets are just replacing their old equipment in 1941-42.

And yet, that means they will still have more new equipment then the Germans will.

And having more and modern equipment doesn't mean they will be any better at using them.

Why? Are the Soviets suddenly incapable of pressing forward the training plans for their troops or conducting military exercises? The Soviets had already identified the qualitative flaws in their military and were moving to try and correct them when the Germans invaded.

Plus stopping the Axis further West in this version of Barbarossa actually helps them avoid losses they experienced from being badly out of supply and overextended during the Winter,

This ignores the fact that stopping the Axis further west means that the Axis would have taken heavier losses in the first place. Net-gain for the Soviet Union.

leaving the Soviets further from their supply lines,

Soviet supply problems in 1941 had nothing to do with the length of their supply lines.

One of the benefits of letting the Soviets build up in 10 months from June 22nd 1941 to May 1942 is that they will complete paved airfields near West of the Dnieper-Dvina line, which means the Axis gets that infrastructure for their air forces,

This is predicated on the Germans not running out of steam west of the Dnieper-Dvina line, which is probably what will happen.

As I stated earlier, they can't get the Beaufighter and AI radar any sooner than IOTL.

September 1940 is plenty early enough.

No, but the time spent sweeping is time spent not moving in or out shipping;

That is okay from the British perspective, a routine will develop and the ports out-of-German reach can pick-up the slack.

Which means if the Germans decide to probe them during the day, they'll find defenses aren't as strong as IOTL.

That is okay, since the Germans are concentrating on doing their damage at nighttime.

 

[Garrison]

Hitler not being antisemitic for one and not driving the German scientists away.

And that is ASB because then he wouldn't be Hitler and the Nazi's wouldn't be Nazi's

 

[History_Pintobean]

I'd like to address the OP's original points.

• Nazis capture Moscow and West Russia

Which is wholly possible, through a variety of means. Perhaps Army Group Center makes a push into Moscow, battling for control of the city in a battle reminiscent of Stalingrad. However, Moscow was ridiculously well-defended and very much so prepared for a long siege. It is likely, at least IMHO, for the battle of Moscow to turn into a sort-of Stalingrad one year prior to the OTL battle of Stalingrad, with a variety of factors governing whether or not the Nazis can take and hold the city.



And if they can take and hold the city or, better yet, win a crushing victory over Soviet forces, then it is possible that west-central Russia would fall as the war ends in a Nazi victory.



Thus we have Nazi domination of the western Soviet Union, quite possibly by 1941 or into 1942, who control Moscow and have beaten the Soviet armies in the field or during the battle of Moscow.

Britain remains an independent nation and is not occupied by Nazis

Which is easy as long as Germany doesn't have a navy or air force capable of challenging the Royal Navy and Air force. Even if the Germans win in the east and vanquish the USSR, Britain was impregnable as long as the channel and the surrounding seas are controlled by the superior RN.



What's more likely is a starving out of Britain through U-boat warfare, which could force Britain to the negotiating table while keeping the island independent.

Japan becomes a stable Eastern power and conquers all of the East Asian coast

Which is possible if the Japanese can beat the Americans, say, at Midway as well as defeat and subjugate China.



So in this AH scenario Japan dominates the Pacific, with its rule extending over much of China and east Asia as part of its Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The U.S., reeling from defeat by Japan, retreats into a period of isolationism which IMHO is possible assuming the U.S. loses the war prior to the 1944 presidential elections (i.e. a Dewey presidency)

Communism, as a political movement, slowly comes to an end

Communism, as an ideology, won't simply come to an end even with the defeat of the USSR by the Nazis; Nazism-modern fascism-as an ideology didn't end with the military defeat of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.



And assuming a limited Nazi victory in the war, its likely as the excellent short story/novel Moon of Ice established that communism would still manage to find roots in Europe owing to the equally totalitarian nature of Nazism.


An idea can't be killed, not really IMHO.


The most likely result is a weakened yet surviving Soviet rump state and thus a weakening of Marxism's appeal around the world.

Nazis become the leading superpower in the world

Which could happen assuming the above conditions are met, but it would take some real progress to rise above the U.S. and Britain post-war.

Have Mao and the Communists remain in Western China

IMHO if we are going to have the USSR become vastly reduced in size and influence, the logical outcome is to get rid of the Chinese communist insurgency entirely either thorough repression of the agrarian revolution in the countryside by the Japanese or Nationalist armies.


Destroying Mao's communist base areas in northern China would keep Marxist ideas out of one of the world's most populated country, which would only further isolate a defeated Soviet Union in the east.

 

[Malice]

I think an Axis Victory could be achieved but POD would have to be about April 1940.

Some steps the Axis could've taken:

1. The Germans don't attack Denmark and Norway. Neither occupation was necessary and proved in the longer run to be a major military blunder as the German Navy lost a sizeable proportion of their naval forces with the result the forces they could deploy for any potential invasion of Britain was not available.

2. The Germans don't let the British and French escape from Dunkirk. In the shoert term the "miracle of Dunkirk" was a major psychological boost to the British public and in the long run the intelligence these soldiers brought back re: German weapons and tactics played a major role in how the British army was rebuilt and deployed, especially after 1942.

3. The Germans concentrate on attacking shipping, ports and radar stations in the opening stages of the Battle of Britain. It would've blinded the RAF and taken away their advantage of knowing that the Germans were on their way and attacks on shipping would've created critical shortages in the UK in everything from food to munitions and fuel for the RAF fighters.

4. Better utilisation of the U-Boats by the Germans by deploying them against British shipping where the ports are out of range of German bombers, thus effectively blockading the British Isles.

5. Warn Mussolini that if the Italians attack any country in the Balkans they are on their own and could expect no help from the Germans. The German attacks on Yugoslavia and Greece to bail out Mussolini not only delayed Operation Barbarossa by a critical 5-6 weeks but it tied down a lot of German troops that Hitler desperately needed elsewhere, especially when Operation Barbarossa started to falter.

6. Operation Barbarossa should've been launched on the original date of May 15. The reason the delay in launching the operation proved to be deadly to the Germans wasn't because of the winter but the autumn rains. The autumn rains ground the German army to a halt. Between the autumn rains and the winter snows arriving the Germans had about a month when the ground was hard enough for the tanks and trucks to move but the cold wasn't bad enough to freeze engines and weapons. Had they launched the attack in May they would've been much closer to Moscow by the time the rains fell so when the ground hardened they could've easily swept into Moscow.

7. Hitler should've pushed for the Japanese to attack Soviet targets in the Far East in December 1941. That would've forced Stalin to keep his Siberian troops in the Far East and deprived him of the manpower he needed to launch his December 1941 counter-offensive. Note: these attacks didn't need to be a full-scale invasion but enough to convince Stalin that an invasion was imminent.

8. Hitler should've waited until AFTER the war to launch the Holocaust. The amount of manpower, fuel, materials, weapons and rolling stock that was wasted on carrying out the Holocaust, not to mention the fact it encouraged the Russians to fight to the death rather than surrender or switch sides, proved to be catastrophic in the longer run.

9. The Japanese should've by-passed the Phillippines and ignored Pearl Harbour in their drive for southeast Asia. It is highly unlikely the Americans would've declared war on Japan over Japanese attacks on British, Dutch and French colonial territories. Anti-colonial sentiments were extremely high in the USA.

10. The Italians should've stayed out of British Somaliland and concentrated their entire war machine on driving the British out of Egypt. In addition, Hitler should've provided Rommel with at least another panzer division and two mechanzied infantry divisions. That would've given Rommel everything he needed to take Egypt and the all important Suez Canal.

11. Hitler should've bent over backwards and offered everything under the sun, even Eva Braun if need be, if that was what it would've taken to get him to invade Gibraltar. The loss of Gibraltar would've devastaed British morale, trapped the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean Sea, and prevented oil and other supplies from reaching the British Isles. That would've driven them to a ceasefire with the Germans.

12. In 1942 Hitler should've avoided Stalingrad and driven across the steppes from Rostov to the Caspian Sea and cut off the oil fields in the Caucasus from the remainder of the Soviet Union. That would've been enough for Stalin to ask Hitler for a ceasefire.

Is this ASB territory?








.

 

[King Augeas]

Is this ASB territory?

'Fraid so, I think.

1. Fine.

2. Tricky. Impossible to do without some core of the BEF escaping and providing the necessary intel, and would involve serious attrition of German forces.

3. This is kind of what they did - the Channel battles. But they never stuck to any one plan because they had no idea of how to defeat the RAF, and knew that they didn't know how to. The problem with altering Germany strategy in the BoB is that essentially they didn't have a strategy - they just tried different things at various stages to see what happened. Since they had no way of determining the true damage being caused to Fighter Command by any particular strategy, the apparent failure of each strategy just caused them to flip-flop around, wasting their forces in pointless attrition.

4. This is also kinda what happened. But the winter 1940 success of the U-boats was brought to a bit of a halt in spring 1941 when the three leading U-boat aces were sunk in about two weeks. Ultimately, the U-boats can't sink shipping quickly enough to scare the UK before US support is assured.

5-6. No comment, I don't know enough.

7. Fairly sure this is politically and logistically impossible.

8. This is politically very difficult.

9. Militarily absurd from Japan's POV, it will just allow the US to build an impregnable fortress across her LOCs.

10. It's impossible for Italy to drive the UK out of Egypt alone, they don't have the logistics or military. I also suspect that it's politically impossible to get German troops in North Africa without Italy having being routed in an operation like Compass - why would Mussolini want what he deems to be unnecessary German interference in the New Roman Empire? This is a particular problem if the BEF is mostly captured, as it means that the forces sent to Egypt from the UK at the height of the BoB (including IIRC half the UK's armoured forces) are very likely to be retained for home defence instead. Hence no Compass, and no crushing Italian defeat that shows Mussolini that he does need German support...

IMO North Africa is a strategic trap for Germany. All it does is suck valuable lorries away from the decisive Eastern front, while benefiting only Japan and Italy.

11. Gibraltar is hugely over-rated. If you want to close the Med, you do it at the Sicilian Narrows - just as happened OTL.

12. I'm no expert, but I don't think this is possible without first neutralising Stalingrad.

 

[AdA]

I think an Axis Victory could be achieved but POD would have to be about April 1940.

Some steps the Axis could've taken:

1. Control of Denmark and Norway is vital for the battle of the Atlantic and for the critical imports from Sweden.
2. Allowing the BEF to evacuate Dunkirk was the most economical way of removing them from the French campaign. Unconscious Sun Tzu at work.

3. They couldn't blockade Malta, so how would they blocked the whole of UK?
4. Requires building a submarine force that only hindsight on te fall of France justifies
5. The problem with Barbarossa is not having enough forces not timing.

6. As in 5
7. After 1939 it would require a suicidal devotion to the German cause to lead the IJA to invade an ideal tank warfare zone without tanks. A few KV1 with good crews would have given the IJA a preview of the role the JSDF would later play on the Godzilla movies.

8. Your sugestion that the Holocaust should have started after the war is militarily irrelevant and IMO in bad taste.

9. The USA were deliberatedly pushing the Japanese to war. They were not about to allow competition on their ocean.

10. The axis could hold the Med, the British would still control the Atlantic. Since they were gettin their supplies from the US and using the cape route anyway, its no a decisive factor

11. Malta would be easier. Spain would be one more country to defend against an allied attack

12. Two words Exposed Flank

Is this ASB territory?
No, just wrong.