axis victories at stalingrad, el alamien, and midway

The anti-Hitler resistance might then get the assurances from the West about Germany getting a negotiated peace if they topple Hitler and overthrow the Nazis, which could well trigger a successful coup.

483ef0911f5e27073a015b45aee7a288b9c8d3bfa104f8bfe6625572f97cfa52.jpg


If Hitler gets that lucky and, for the POD to work, he does not botch Operation Blue, there won't be a coup. He'd be seen as a god and military genius.

Unlike some, I do not find a negotiated peace impossible in this situation as you lay out. Vichy France was already considering more active support of the Axis, offer them their old colonies in the Middle East in exchange for the use of air bases in Algeria. It makes Britain wonder why keep fighting, they just keep losing.

As for the Russians, the Lend Lease will be starting to come in, but without any victories on land and any hope of the Wallies opening a real second front for at least a year, they might sue for a temporary peace.

However, Hitler probably is an arrogant nut and thinks he can have total victory. So this means he needs to get to Baku by 1943 to get his oil. By then, he kept the war going too long which means the Wallied strategic bombing campaign is starting to have an effect and the Torch landings will go down. The war then will go long enough to let Germany be A-Bombed.

Really, Germany's only hope is Britain goes:

a251beb450c4396772febf13fb8798a997df0e7d8fb641d03c33719bffea1d25.jpg


Honestly, with the Blitz in the past, I do not see any chance of this, even if Churchill is ousted. The Nazis have lost all credibility when it comes to peace. As long as the US is in the war, Britain will fight. And I don't see the US dropping out even after all these defeats...they would look like weaklings. So the US continues, and that means Britain continues. And Russia will continue as long as they can by default because Hitler won't let there be a peace.

So, Axis still loses...hard.
 
I think Midway has the least potential to cause any drastic changes. The US isn't going to surrender or agree to any peace offer Japan would offer. The US will build up Hawaii's defenses and work on building up their new fleets and eventually they will have a larger Navy than Japan. World War II probably lasts longer in this scenario as the US push in the pacific will be delayed and initially resources would be diverted from Europe to beef up the defenses in the Pacific. Maybe the war ends in the fall of 1945 when the US begins using nukes on both Germany and Japan.


El Alamein would only have a huge impact if it creates a domino effect in the Middle East, if Rommel is able to follow up the victory by heading to Alexandria and Egypt revolts against the British they could wind up taking the Suez. If Iraq and Iran are also revolting the UK will need to divert a lot of resources to secure the area. I don't see Hitler and Churchill agreeing to a peace treaty, Hitler has had nothing but success up to this point so his terms would be greedy and Churchill isn't going to agree to a Nazi dominated Europe since the UK itself is still safe from invasion and US forces are continuously building up to support the UK. In this scenario WWII also will last longer and it will take longer to knock Italy out of the war.

Stalingrad won't mean defeat from a pure military perspective. If the USSR continues to fight they will eventually reach a turning point as the German's logistics were already stretched to the limit. The Soviet advance will be delayed, but would still happen. Stalin doing something stupid would be the only thing that could give Germany a victory in the east. If he freaks out and starts purging everyone the confusion and leadership voids could help the Germans out. Or perhaps the potential purgees decide to act first and Stalin has an "accident". If the USSR then descends into civil war maybe the factions agree to a harsh peace with Germany to try to concentrate on consolidating their hold of whatever is left of the USSR.
 

Deleted member 1487

El Alamein would only have a huge impact if it creates a domino effect in the Middle East, if Rommel is able to follow up the victory by heading to Alexandria and Egypt revolts against the British they could wind up taking the Suez. If Iraq and Iran are also revolting the UK will need to divert a lot of resources to secure the area. I don't see Hitler and Churchill agreeing to a peace treaty, Hitler has had nothing but success up to this point so his terms would be greedy and Churchill isn't going to agree to a Nazi dominated Europe since the UK itself is still safe from invasion and US forces are continuously building up to support the UK. In this scenario WWII also will last longer and it will take longer to knock Italy out of the war.
That's the thing, if Egypt falls then Churchill will lose a vote of no confidence; IOTL he faced one for losing Tobruk.
http://ww2today.com/2nd-july-1942-churchill-wins-another-vote-of-confidence-in-the-commons
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Those regions had uprisings OTL, the British crushed them with minimal trouble and no impact on the frontlines. Having to fall back a few dozen kilometers in Egypt isn't going to prompt another uprising when the 1941 one was smashed so decisively and India was too stuffed with military forces to get beyond "vague irritation" levels with the Japanese posing a threat and all.
Actually, the British had a lot of trouble in the Middle East. With a little more German support (via Vichy Syria) the Iraqi uprising could have been a disaster for Britain. Try reading 'First Victory:The Forgotten Struggle for the Middle East 1941'
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, the British had a lot of trouble in the Middle East. With a little more German support (via Vichy Syria) the Iraqi uprising could have been a disaster for Britain. Try reading 'First Victory:The Forgotten Struggle for the Middle East 1941'
The read I've gotten on the Iraq issue was that the Germans couldn't get enough support in quickly enough to the Iraqis and the bungled Iraqi uprising then fell apart as the British brought in reinforcements.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
At the siege of RAF Habbaniyah more accurate Iraqi artillery fire, and one Jagdgrupppe of Bf 109s as air support could have wiped the place out. Also, the Iraqis held Baghdad with 20,000 men, but the British surrounded it and persuaded them to surrender with just 1,450. With what the Germans called 'spine-stiffening of the Iraqis' it could easily have gone the other way.
 

Deleted member 1487

At the siege of RAF Habbaniyah more accurate Iraqi artillery fire, and one Jagdgrupppe of Bf 109s as air support could have wiped the place out. Also, the Iraqis held Baghdad with 20,000 men, but the British surrounded it and persuaded them to surrender with just 1,450. With what the Germans called 'spine-stiffening of the Iraqis' it could easily have gone the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War#Axis_intervention
 
Japan winning Midway just delays the U.S. a few months. Japan has no way to damage our industrial capabilities enough to stop us from producing more carriers and ships. By end of '42 the U.S. will have enough to destroy the Japanese carriers. Russia losing Stalingrad is different. Nazis end up with control of the the oil fields and after Stalin's best general is defeated Stalin probably asks for a truce which dooms the Allied war effort. El Alemain still does not change Italy's fate by the '40's their military was not up to fight a war anyways.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
The read I've gotten on the Iraq issue was that the Germans couldn't get enough support in quickly enough to the Iraqis and the bungled Iraqi uprising then fell apart as the British brought in reinforcements.
It's ALTERNATE history. It could have happened, and the loss of Iraq would mean no Battle of El Alamein at all.
 

Deleted member 1487

Japan winning Midway just delays the U.S. a few months. Japan has no way to damage our industrial capabilities enough to stop us from producing more carriers and ships. By end of '42 the U.S. will have enough to destroy the Japanese carriers. Russia losing Stalingrad is different. Nazis end up with control of the the oil fields and after Stalin's best general is defeated Stalin probably asks for a truce which dooms the Allied war effort. El Alemain still does not change Italy's fate by the '40's their military was not up to fight a war anyways.
Right, but the issue isn't so much the material at Midway, but the morale and political impact of the US carriers being wiped out to no loss to the Japanese. IOTL it was a critical morale boost in the US and bolstered FDR going into the mid-term elections and provided cover to allow for a Europe-first strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway#Impact

Stalingrad really depends on the circumstance of victory. Russia still had enough oil without the Caucasus, but Zhukov might well end up fired if both Uranus and Mars fail. Stalingrad falling off the march in July 1942 would also be a big blow to the prestige of Stalin and the Soviet military.

As to El Alamein, losing that and perhaps then triggering an Egyptian uprising that results in Egypt being lost has MASSIVE implications to the British war effort, as it cuts off supply to the Eastern Mediterranean and could result in further Arab uprisings all over the Middle East. It also means the British have to reinforce the area at a bad time given Japanese victories in the Pacific and would almost certainly end Churchill's political career. It would keep Italy in the war for much longer, which while they didn't seem to contribute much, took a large burden off of Germany in the area. When IOTL the Italians surrendered in 1943 they left Germany holding a very large bag and hastened their defeat by several months. With Egypt lost Operation Torch is going to be much more difficult, not least of which because Malta can no longer interdict Axis shipping well on its own and probably falls in August due to no support from Egypt and the Axis being able to concentrate their logistics interdiction on the West Mediterranean against shipments from Gibraltar.

So then the Allies are left either doing an Operation Torch or trying to attack from the Middle East, but they cannot support both. Then the Axis can concentrate forces against either one and not have logistical interdiction that crushed their ability to fight back IOTL. Politically its very bad news for the British and probably the US to a degree, while the Soviet alliance is not in a good place given Stalingrad not working out and Stalin demanding a 2nd front immediately. Perhaps if things get desperate enough the Allies might well risk a 1943 landing in France?
 

Deleted member 1487

It's ALTERNATE history. It could have happened, and the loss of Iraq would mean no Battle of El Alamein at all.
The issue is that its after the POD set up by the OP. What you're suggesting would require a different thread. Also just because its called Alternate History doesn't mean anything is possible given logistical constraints. Remember at the same time as the Anglo-Iraq war the Germans were too busy preparing for Barbarossa and invading Crete, which sucked up all their resources. They had the Vichy French in Syria give the Iraqis weapons, but that just triggered the Allies to invade Syria and Lebanon in June once Iraq was finished.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Sorry about being in the wrong thread, but the British had their own logistical problems too, so a pro-Axis Middle East isn't that implausible.
Do you know about any threads which cover this scenario?
 

Deleted member 1487

Sorry about being in the wrong thread, but the British had their own logistical problems too, so a pro-Axis Middle East isn't that implausible.
Do you know about any threads which cover this scenario?
Do a search. I don't know of any. I don't think its impossible to get a Arab Revolt supporting the Axis that undermines British rule, but given the situation around the Iraqi Coup its pretty damn hard to pull off with out epic British incompetence.
 
For "stripping the front", they sure did not appreciably weaken their defenses elsewhere and were able to maintain strong operational and even strategic reserves all along it.

Even in the aftermath of Kursk, though, the reserves elsewhere along the front proved insufficient to break through German lines except where they'd been most weakened by the failed summer offensive.

Ultimately the Germans didn't lose at Kursk because they lacked surprise (the Germans knew they didn't have that) or numbers (they had proved able to overcome worse odds in the past). The Germans lost at Kursk because the Red Army had developed to the point of effective combined arms warfare.
Problem is, both Model and Manstein doubted the wisdom of a midsummer offensive in 1943 for those reasons, but were committed to the offensive by Hitler and the OKH. They wanted to build up their own defensive positions, conduct limited withdrawals, and counterattack, much as the Soviets planned for Kursk. Victory in 42 gives them more room to retreat, and thus greater liberty to defend the best ground and attack overextended Soviet formations, which would be comparatively much weaker for losses of experienced men and materiel in a failed Stalingrad campaign.

Oh, that was happening in 1942 as well and would happen ITTL as well. Even without losing the entirety 6th Army, the Germans are still going to take hundreds of thousands of irrecoverable losses during the winter of '42-'43. Our Kursk analogue may have slightly more forces behind it, but that matters little when the Soviets so handily defeated what the Germans threw at them IOTL.

The Romanians and Hungarians are likely to get decimated ITTL anyways and the 6th Army will still suffer severe losses in the Soviet winter counter-offensive.
Even if they take heavy losses in Winter 42, it's still not comparable to being overrun/encircled. 3rd and 4th Armies (Romanian) were shattered almost at a stroke in Operation Uranus, and the desperate relief attempt against a tide of Soviet strategic offensives more or less neutralized the armies of Germany's other allies in the East.

Uh... the Soviets were able to get oil up from the Caucausus all throughout the Battle of Stalingrad just fine via shipping across the Caspian Sea to Astrakhan and later on via a rail line constructed along the shore of the Caspian. Furthermore, there is practically no way for the Germans to successfully hold their positions on the Volga and in the Caucasus: the front line is simply too large. At minimum, their going to have to make the choice in the winter of 1942-43 to either withdraw behind the Don (at minimum) or suffer an encirclement. That would also serve as vindication of Soviet operational art.
Considering how 4th Panzer Army, massively understrength after the debacle at Stalingrad and the failed relief effort, was able to backhand Central Front so severely at 3rd Khakov, healthier German forces conducting mobile defense against gravely weakened Soviets (even more than OTL, if Stalingrad is an Axis Victory) likely won't look like a victory for the Soviets. With dozens of divisions wiped out in encirclements between the Volga and Don, German counteroffensives in the region are going to sting. Soviet troops facing the Axis offensive in 1943 are going to be considerably weaker for having lost decisive battles on top of attrition, and facing opponents who are much stronger than OTL for not having lost a decisive battle, with four armies having been wiped out over the winter.
 
Even in the aftermath of Kursk, though, the reserves elsewhere along the front proved insufficient to break through German lines except where they'd been most weakened by the failed summer offensive.

Breakthrough? No. Steadily make progress and wear the Germans down? Yes.

Problem is, both Model and Manstein doubted the wisdom of a midsummer offensive in 1943 for those reasons, but were committed to the offensive by Hitler and the OKH.

Model did consistently, Manstein kept flip-flopping between support for the offensive and his own doubts.

They wanted to build up their own defensive positions, conduct limited withdrawals, and counterattack, much as the Soviets planned for Kursk.

Unlike the Soviets, the Germans don't have the resources to rapidly replenish their losses in either defensive or offensive actions.

Victory in 42 gives them more room to retreat, and thus greater liberty to defend the best ground and attack overextended Soviet formations, which would be comparatively much weaker for losses of experienced men and materiel in a failed Stalingrad campaign.

In a fantasy world where Hitler isn't an overbearing megalomaniac whose perception of victory at Stalingrad would reinforce his own ego and make him more prone to interference.

Even if they take heavy losses in Winter 42, it's still not comparable to being overrun/encircled. 3rd and 4th Armies (Romanian) were shattered almost at a stroke in Operation Uranus, and the desperate relief attempt against a tide of Soviet strategic offensives more or less neutralized the armies of Germany's other allies in the East.

3rd and 4th Romanian can still be expected to get shattered.

Considering how 4th Panzer Army, massively understrength after the debacle at Stalingrad and the failed relief effort, was able to backhand Central Front so severely at 3rd Khakov,

Which the Soviets responded too by reinforcing the Central Front so massively that, had the German offensive not been frozen by the Spring Raputitsa, they would have broken upon Soviet defensive lines after taking Belgorod.

healthier German forces conducting mobile defense against gravely weakened Soviets (even more than OTL, if Stalingrad is an Axis Victory) likely won't look like a victory for the Soviets.

The Soviets won't be that much weakened and the Germans won't be that much healther. We're still going to be looking at 6.5 million Soviets versus 2.5-3 million Germans come summer 1943. It will take the Soviets six months instead of 2-3 to smash the Germans offensive firepower, but a war of attrition favors the Soviets regardless of how well the Germans do.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Wiking, I searched the Middle East/Iraq idea and saw some of your posts in the 'Larger Middle East Front AHC' Are you interested in discussing this there. If not its fine.
 
Top