Consequences of the Fall of Leningrad in July 1941?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Supposing that Leningrad fell during the initial rush toward the city in July 1941, what are the long term consequences for the Eastern Front? Does Murmansk fall or get cut off by land? How long can Kronstadt hold out? Will it enable the supply situation for the Axis to overcomes of its historical issues? When can the Soviets finally take it back and how will the Germans react in December 1941 at far as the Tikhvin offensive (does it even happen)? How about Demyansk?
 

Daffy Duck

Banned
Comment

Interesting question....

There's been a lot of debate on this board about the consequences of Leningrad falling in 1941.

Best case scenario for the Axis:
The Germans would have been left in pretty good shape if they had taken Leningrad without a costly urban assault. -This would have required that the Finns helped surround Leningrad and participate in the seige..the Germans were just stretched way too thin all along the front.

-After taking Leningrad, the Germans would need to straighten their lines and prepare for the Russian winter (particularly brutal that year) The Axis is in much better shape the next Spring to cut off Archangelsk, Murmansk and then Blitzkrieg their way East.

In OTL, the Finns were not willing to push that much farther past the territory that they wanted to reclaim from the USSR as a result of the Winter War.

The Axis forces in Finland and Norway pushing to Murmansk (Operation Silver Fox) failed miserably because of extremely long supply lines, British/Soviet naval bombardment, inferior numbers and, most importantly, very poor intelligence about the force they were facing. I don't see this changing much unless the forces used to take Leningrad are, in part or in whole, dedicated to conquering Murmansk and Archangelsk. At THAT specific time in the war, a lot of material from Lend Lease was indeed coming through those two ports. Siberia and Persia were not main points of supply for Lend Lease until later.
 
Supposing that Leningrad fell during the initial rush toward the city in July 1941, what are the long term consequences for the Eastern Front? Does Murmansk fall or get cut off by land? How long can Kronstadt hold out? Will it enable the supply situation for the Axis to overcomes of its historical issues? When can the Soviets finally take it back and how will the Germans react in December 1941 at far as the Tikhvin offensive (does it even happen)? How about Demyansk?

I doubt the Germans would go on the offensive across the Volkhov if Leningrad fell, as the general purpose of OTL's offensive was to cut off any other supply routes to the city.
 
When can the Soviets finally take it back?

There wouldn't be much left to take back. Hitler demanded Leningrad leveled and everyone in it executed, and that any plea or offer of surrender be ignored. It'd be another atrocity to add to the already bleak laundry list of Nazi crimes.
 
wonder the effect on Soviet leadership? might another purge even be started? SOMETHING would happen on that front.

German military thought (correctly IMO) that the country would have greater influence over Scandinavia once Leningrad had been captured, does that mean Sweden joins the Axis? probably a reach.

Finland would be interesting, Mannerheim threaded the needle pretty adroitly OTL but seems likely there would be a younger generation of officers and politicians pressuring to join the Axis, gain more territory, etc.?

once captured Leningrad (area even if the city was leveled) stays under German control until the end of the war.
 

Daffy Duck

Banned
Comment

Just my 2 cents worth...

Had Mannerheim and the Finns gone all-in and helped the Axis take Leningrad AND Murmansk at the same time, this would have had a noticable effect at a critical time in the war. They would have probably been able to capture a crap-load of supplies and more than likely pound the hell out of Archangelsk, effectively putting the port out of commission.

This would have cut off Lend-Lease at a critical time. That being said, the Soviets would have recovered eventually, just taken more time.

End result is the same and Stalin probably incorporates a communist Finland into the Warsaw Pact.
 
There wouldn't be much left to take back. Hitler demanded Leningrad leveled and everyone in it executed, and that any plea or offer of surrender be ignored. It'd be another atrocity to add to the already bleak laundry list of Nazi crimes.

Hitler was big on leveling the city after they failed to take it. If they took it his attention would have gone elsewhere to Moscow or Stalingrad.

Taking Leningrad frees up a heck of a lot of troops and equipment for operations in late 1941 to 1942.
 
would a victory at Leningrad be enough to bring the Japanese into the operation?

at least to attack Vladivostok?
 
would a victory at Leningrad be enough to bring the Japanese into the operation?

at least to attack Vladivostok?

No. Their eyes already lay elsewhere. Japan's warlords had a serious "eyes bigger than their belly" problem, but even they wouldn't attempt to take on the British Empire, the USA, AND the USSR while their army was mostly tied up in China.
 
Just my 2 cents worth...

Had Mannerheim and the Finns gone all-in and helped the Axis take Leningrad AND Murmansk at the same time, this would have had a noticable effect at a critical time in the war. They would have probably been able to capture a crap-load of supplies and more than likely pound the hell out of Archangelsk, effectively putting the port out of commission.

This would have cut off Lend-Lease at a critical time. That being said, the Soviets would have recovered eventually, just taken more time.

End result is the same and Stalin probably incorporates a communist Finland into the Warsaw Pact.
Hmm, Archangelsk would still be pretty far from the front lines in that case. Potentially in range of air attack, if the weather be willing (I would defintely not want to be the poor guys assigned on that flight). May need constructions of entirely new air bases though. Maybe some token naval bombardments. It would make the Arctic convoy's pretty difficult, if not impossible.

Murmansk itself is a pretty tough nut to crack before we start talking about Archangelsk though. Leningrad is maybe doable if the German's manage to do it quickly before the siege. But Murmansk would be fighting in a frozen hell, for both sides.
 
would a victory at Leningrad be enough to bring the Japanese into the operation?

at least to attack Vladivostok?

No. Their eyes already lay elsewhere. Japan's warlords had a serious "eyes bigger than their belly" problem, but even they wouldn't attempt to take on the British Empire, the USA, AND the USSR while their army was mostly tied up in China.

this is PRIOR to Pearl Harbor, was questioning whether the Japanese might think they could join in eliminating the Soviets from the war?

might think a rump state Russia would sell them oil and ship via the TSSR?
 
Hmm, Archangelsk would still be pretty far from the front lines in that case. Potentially in range of air attack, if the weather be willing (I would defintely not want to be the poor guys assigned on that flight). May need constructions of entirely new air bases though. Maybe some token naval bombardments. It would make the Arctic convoy's pretty difficult, if not impossible.

Murmansk itself is a pretty tough nut to crack before we start talking about Archangelsk though. Leningrad is maybe doable if the German's manage to do it quickly before the siege. But Murmansk would be fighting in a frozen hell, for both sides.

Murmansk had two supply lines (rails of course). One from Leningrad, which would be cut off if the city were lost. The other leading from Archangel and points south to Moscow. The Germans/Finns OTOH would have impossible logistics. "Arctic swamp" may sound like an oxymoron, but that was what you faced up there. It was a short distance from Finland to Murmansk, but it might as well have been the Moon for what any potential invader faced.

A horrendous winter for most of the year, and when the snows receded, a sea of impassable mud as the permafrost melted. It was a region where you really didn't HAVE any practical "fair weather season" for campaigning. And tanks are out, except for the Soviets fighting hull down in defense.:mad:

IOW, Unspeakable Seamammal Eastern Front Variant.:rolleyes:

OTOH, taking Leningrad simplifies LOCs and logistics for the Axis enormously. For all intents and purposes, Army Group North shuts down for the rest of the war, save as a defensive force, as there are few attainable strategic objectives anywhere nearby worth the effort.

More forces sent for Operation: Typhoon maybe, though they would make no difference whatsoever. Typhoon failed not due to lack of troops so much, as due to distances, LOCs, logistics, supplies, the weather, and above all, the differences in European versus Russian rail gauges. That reduced by 80% the advancement time of German railheads compared to elsewhere in the days of WWII blitzkrieg.

IDK though? Would having Army Group North HQed in (the remains of) Leningrad cause more of it to be cut off? Or would it allow the Germans to evacuate more easily? Nevermind. Hitler.

this is PRIOR to Pearl Harbor, was questioning whether the Japanese might think they could join in eliminating the Soviets from the war?

might think a rump state Russia would sell them oil and ship via the TSSR?

By the time of 7/22/1941, the Japanese Southern Strategy had already been decided upon AIUI. One city's loss, even a big one, on the other side of the world, wasn't going to reorientate the strategic focus of an island nation desperately looking for resources it needed for its war machine. Resources that were no where near eastern or even central Siberia.

In fact, a "Northern Strategy" was by this time most emphatically rejected by not just the IJN but the IJA as well. Except for a few hotheads sitting in Manchuria, no one had forgotten the pastings the IJA had taken attacking the USSR in the late 1930s. In many ways, of all the "first ranked" armies of WWII, there was none less capable of engaging the Soviet Army in open field warfare than the Imperial Japanese Army. The Soviets kept a strong force in the Far East throughout all of WWII, only denuding it temporarily down to a "mere" forty divisions during the Soviet counter-attacks at Moscow and Stalingrad.

Getting the information to Stalin telling him Japan was NOT going to attack the USSR cost Richard Sorge his life. But at least for once, Stalin believed one of his spies.:cool:
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

More forces sent for Operation: Typhoon maybe, though they would make no difference whatsoever. Typhoon failed failed not due to lack of troops so much, as due to distances, LOCs, logistics, supplies, the weather, and above all, the differences in European versus Russian rail gauges. That reduced by 80% the advancement time of German railheads compared to elsewhere in the days of WWII blitzkrieg.
I doubt they could reinforce the Moscow offensive due to the lack of roads to advance on and the ability to supply more than they could. They had to disperse AG-Center due to the lack of ability to supply a concentrated force on the best highways the Soviets had. Also there is the issue of the fortress Kronstadt north of Leningrad that needs to be invested, which would probably keep the port of Leningrad closed and AG-North busy for the rest of 1941 (that and holding the front line outside the city).

Cutting the Murmansk rail line would actually be doable ITTL without Leningrad, even if Murmansk doesn't fall; instead it will just have to be supplied via Arctic convoy; the line was cut a couple of times IOTL and was pretty close to being cut IOTL permanently but for lack of troops that were tied up guarding Leningrad from the north. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaatio_Platinakettu
Continuation_War_1942_and_Soviet_assaults_English.jpg



The Finns could demobilize a large number of men for their economy after Leningrad falls and Murmansk rail line is cut.

IDK though? Would having Army Group North HQed in (the remains of) Leningrad cause more of it to be cut off? Or would it allow the Germans to evacuate more easily? Nevermind. Hitler.
Well, without a Soviet fleet on the Baltic anymore once Leningrad/Kronstadt falls the city could be pretty much held indefinitely with Baltic Sea supply much like Kourland was or Memel, Königsberg, etc. IOTL those cities suffered from Soviet submarines, but once the Soviets lose their bases their ships are gone so even if they liberate coast line they can't interdict sea lanes as they did IOTL in 1941-45. In fact assuming 1944 plays out the same way as OTL, which is a massive IF, then Leningrad pretty much locks down at least 1 Soviet front and protects the Finns from the Soviets for a long time, as they can fall back north on Finland, which would supply German forces cut off even if Leningrad falls. Using various switch lines and rivers they can drag out a retreat for over a year once Leningrad is gone, thanks to Kronstadt as a potential port for supply and a line to hold on, while eventually using the rebuilt Mannerheim line for a while.

Continuation-War-defensive-lines.png


Losing the Svir line in East Karleia isn't going to knock Finland out of the war, nor is there major room for exploitation; the Finns were pushed back there IOTL, but still held most of the pre-war border; they were broken by the push up from Leningrad IOTL, but if part of AG-North is covering that, it can hold well into 1945 if needed and Finland can still get out cheaply later on if needed; losing Leningrad and taking it back is going to be very costly for the Soviets and will change how 1944 plays out in a big way; Bagration might well be butterflied away totally.

Final lines in September 1944 to highlight Karliea:
Continuation_War_September_1944_English.jpg
 
The Finns could demobilize a large number of men for their economy after Leningrad falls and Murmansk rail line is cut.

There is also the question of what happens to the (nearly) three million civilians in Leningrad and how that affects Finnish manpower- and resource requirements. IOTL Finland kept out of anything to do with Leningrad to avoid dealing with the local Soviet population in the area that rivaled that of Finland itself. If the Finnish army takes part in the fighting for Leningrad, it will be partly responsible for the city's occupation and population. As the Finns can't feed those people and the Nazis are intent on erasing them off the face of the Earth, the Finns will have both a lot of men and resources tied up with the mess that Leningrad and surroundings will be, as well as a lot of blood on their hands after what ever grim fate then befalls the local population. In general, for the Finnish army, state and society this would probably be a lot heavier ordeal than the OTL occupation of Soviet areas was.

We can also expect that after the war, when and if the USSR finally prevails over the invader, Stalin would want to punish Finland much more thoroughly than IOTL. So probably no easy exit from the war for the Finns - this time it is personal.
 
As others have said, if Leningrad is totally destroyed and its people murdered, its to be a Soviet Socialist Republic of Finland.:mad:
 
There would still be frequent, maybe more, cases of cannibalism in Leningrad because the Soviet management machine in the city would have broken down. The German management could not possibly take hold of city timely in the disorder and chaos of war, the refugees and citizens would have to resort to solve their starvation on their own. Given all the dead bodies in the rumble of the fallen city, corpse eating would seem the quick but immoral solution.... still sad.:teary::(:'(. However, given that the city fell in the summer, people could rush out the city before the cases of cannibalism became unbearable.
 
Top