Battle of Britain as a feint


That's not a war-winning blow, though. Yeah, I acknowledge they could cause some extra damage to the Soviets, but it would take something really, really big to change the strategic realities. And it would have to be on the ground, not in the air.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's not a war-winning blow, though. Yeah, I acknowledge they could cause some extra damage to the Soviets, but it would take something really, really big to change the strategic realities. And it would have to be on the ground, not in the air.
Depends. Losing Leningrad and altering Barbarossa enough could well change the outcome if it also resulted in the fall of Moscow. If the Soviets drop out of the war, it may well change the outcome of the whole thing if the Wallies think it would cost a LOT more than it actually would to win. Remember the Wallies thought fighting through France would take a minimum of 12 months in 1944 and were shocked that in less than 3 they were at the German border.
 
Depends. Losing Leningrad and altering Barbarossa enough could well change the outcome if it also resulted in the fall of Moscow. If the Soviets drop out of the war, it may well change the outcome of the whole thing if the Wallies think it would cost a LOT more than it actually would to win. Remember the Wallies thought fighting through France would take a minimum of 12 months in 1944 and were shocked that in less than 3 they were at the German border.

The WAllies IIRC actually believed it was likely that the USSR would collapse in 1941-1942 and kept on trucking.

The problem is that the Germans didn't want to take Leningrad because they didn't want to be responsible for the food supply, they wanted to isolate it and starve/bombard it into submission. So it would go as IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

The WAllies IIRC actually believed it was likely that the USSR would collapse in 1941-1942 and kept on trucking.

The problem is that the Germans didn't want to take Leningrad because they didn't want to be responsible for the food supply, they wanted to isolate it and starve/bombard it into submission. So it would go as IOTL.
In terms of their willingness to fight after the USSR collapsed, it is a function of what they think it will actually cost to win and the unconditional surrender demand is not going to be issued in 1943. IOTL 1941 they thought the USSR would collapse at first, then thought they'd survive, then again feared that the Soviets would make peace in 1942 unless the Wallies acted quickly and launch a 2nd front. Everything the Wallies did was predicated on knowing the Soviets would stay in so long as they made an effort to support them.

Hitler only decided not to take Leningrad in September because he though it would be too costly to do so and wanted to preserve his forces, thinking that the blockade would starve out the city over winter; until then he was convinced it could be stormed and wanted it to be. So if the Germans are able to attack it directly in July or August the order stood that they should, IOTL it only changed because by the time they were in a position to storm it directly that would interfere with Operation Typhoon and he wanted to pull the Panzer divisions out for that. The siege was a compromise to make sure his mobile forces were intact for Typhoon.
 

I think people in general overestimate the likelihood that the WAllies would ever negotiate with Hitler. By this point, every person on Earth had reached the conclusion that his regime was flat-out too aggressive to trust. They'd torn up every treaty they'd ever signed and comitted acts of unspeakable evil. The allies had reached the conclusion that the world wasn't big enough for them and the Reich together, and if it took France in WWI level casualties and then some to get rid of it then they would do that.

Yeah, but will that then strengthen his position? Even if Leningrad falls before he can realize it, the Reich now is responsible for administering Leningrad, which wasn't that important to the Soviet war effort anyway outside of being a propaganda symbol.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think people in general overestimate the likelihood that the WAllies would ever negotiate with Hitler.
I think that people underplay exactly how much of OTL's intransigence on negotiations were based around the Allies have the whip hand by 1943. They assumed they'd be in a position to win completely without negotiating, so preferring to fight it out; however is they thought that there was a really good chance they couldn't win outright or that the cost would mostly fall on the Wallies in terms of lives, not the Soviets, they'd rethink that at some point. However the Hitler part would have to change, so likely they'd let the Germans know via Dulles in Switzerland that Hitler would have to go to get negotiations under way.

By this point, every person on Earth had reached the conclusion that his regime was flat-out too aggressive to trust. They'd torn up every treaty they'd ever signed and comitted acts of unspeakable evil. The allies had reached the conclusion that the world wasn't big enough for them and the Reich together, and if it took France in WWI level casualties and then some to get rid of it then they would do that.
Sure, but IOTL by 1943 it was clear the Germans were going to lose, it was just a question of when. If the Soviets collapsed in 1942 and the Wallies would have to fight it to the better end themselves...they'd likely focus on regime change via back channels and try to negotiate with his replacement. And the thing is they'd likely have assumed that it would take MORE than French WW1 level casualties to win total victory.

Yeah, but will that then strengthen his position? Even if Leningrad falls before he can realize it, the Reich now is responsible for administering Leningrad, which wasn't that important to the Soviet war effort anyway outside of being a propaganda symbol.
IOTL they planned on murdering everyone anyway so why would they care about doing it directly? The whole 'just starve it out' was window dressing to his realization that he couldn't take it by storm in September without compromising Typhoon. And Leningrad was very important as a production facility and tied down huge Axis resources while also denying them use of the port for getting supplies to AG-North, while keeping the Soviet Baltic fleet alive and a threat, with their subs raiding German convoys to Sweden.
 
I think that people underplay exactly how much of OTL's intransigence on negotiations were based around the Allies have the whip hand by 1943. They assumed they'd be in a position to win completely without negotiating, so preferring to fight it out; however is they thought that there was a really good chance they couldn't win outright or that the cost would mostly fall on the Wallies in terms of lives, not the Soviets, they'd rethink that at some point. However the Hitler part would have to change, so likely they'd let the Germans know via Dulles in Switzerland that Hitler would have to go to get negotiations under way.


Sure, but IOTL by 1943 it was clear the Germans were going to lose, it was just a question of when. If the Soviets collapsed in 1942 and the Wallies would have to fight it to the better end themselves...they'd likely focus on regime change via back channels and try to negotiate with his replacement. And the thing is they'd likely have assumed that it would take MORE than French WW1 level casualties to win total victory.


IOTL they planned on murdering everyone anyway so why would they care about doing it directly? The whole 'just starve it out' was window dressing to his realization that he couldn't take it by storm in September without compromising Typhoon. And Leningrad was very important as a production facility and tied down huge Axis resources while also denying them use of the port for getting supplies to AG-North, while keeping the Soviet Baltic fleet alive and a threat, with their subs raiding German convoys to Sweden.

I think we just have different interpretations of the level to which the allies wanted Hitler gone.

I'm not a Generalplan Ost denier, but during the actual war, did the Nazis murder everyone in Kiev, Minsk, etc. when they took them?

Maybe there's something I'm not aware of but I don't see how it could have been that important as a production facility when it was under siege and couldn't get raw materials in or finished products out.

It did tie down axis resources but if the Nazis took enormous casualties from street-to-street fighting in the city (if they had actually tried to take it that would have been inevitable) and then had to administer it, that would cancel out at least part of the gains from not having to keep a siege force around it.

I recall reading that the Soviet subs had a lot less success during the siege when the Finns and Germans held both sides of the Gulf of Finland. IIRC their major successes came in the beginning of the war and towards the end.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think we just have different interpretations of the level to which the allies wanted Hitler gone.
It is a what if, so there is clearly room for interpretation.

I'm not a Generalplan Ost denier, but during the actual war, did the Nazis murder everyone in Kiev, Minsk, etc. when they took them?
No, but they weren't Leningrad, the home of the Communist Revolution. Razing the city and at very least relocating the population was an ideological move for Hitler.

Maybe there's something I'm not aware of but I don't see how it could have been that important as a production facility when it was under siege and couldn't get raw materials in or finished products out.
Apparently it was able to get an increasing flow of supplies from 1942 on, including scrounging from resources in the area (they were able to remove naval guns and fashion carriages for them to use as artillery) and used the weapons within the area. Plus too starting in July there was a flow of machinery out, including during the siege, which enabled production elsewhere.

It did tie down axis resources but if the Nazis took enormous casualties from street-to-street fighting in the city (if they had actually tried to take it that would have been inevitable) and then had to administer it, that would cancel out at least part of the gains from not having to keep a siege force around it.
Likely they wouldn't rush the city proper, rather than surround it from the open ground to the east of it if the city were defended; if they get there early enough before defenses are set up they could rush the city and take it quickly and at low cost like Kharkov the first time. Even then the 3rd battle of Kharkov wasn't that costly to take it back street by street. The losses there were substantially less than the troops tied down around Leningrad, plus of course the heavy weapons like artillery that would have been very useful elsewhere. Even a Sevastopol level cost was still lower than maintaining the siege. They were burning up tens of thousands of tons of artillery shells conducting the siege.

I recall reading that the Soviet subs had a lot less success during the siege when the Finns and Germans held both sides of the Gulf of Finland. IIRC their major successes came in the beginning of the war and towards the end.
The fighting was ongoing from 1942 on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea_campaigns_(1939–45)#Operations_in_1942
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asp
Top