You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
In 1940, Germany drew up two different plans for Operation Barbarossa. One was a strike north, above the Pripet marshes, to secure Belarussia and threaten Leningrad and Moscow (the OTL plan), with a secondary strike below the Pripet marshes to threaten the Ukraine, while the other was a strike south of the Pripet marshes to secure the Ukraine and threaten the Caucasus and Moscow with a secondary strike north of the marshes to threaten Leningrad (the ATL plan). The "strike south" was the plan that the German generals initially intended to use, as it was believed (correctly) that the bulk of the Red Army was concentrated in the south, and could thus be destroyed more easily, and also that the plains of the region were far more suited to Blitzkrieg-style armored warfare than the north of Russia (also correct). The plan was also much easier on logistics due to the proximity of the main offensive strike to the source of German oil in Romania. The industry and resources of the region would have been of greater value to Germany, and it would have set them up well for a secondary offensive towards Baku. However, due to mistaken intelligence indicating that the bulk of the Soviet army was north of the Pripet marshes, Hitler ordered the plan changed from "strike south" to the secondary "strike north" plan. What if the far superior "strike south" plan had been utilized by the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa? How much better (if at all) would Germany have done? One interesting thing to consider: if Germany strikes south, Finland is unlikely to join in the initial invasion (notice the Finnish attacks are only indicated on the "strike north" map.