Could a Barbarossa-like operation done as an anti-Stalin revolution succeed?

One thing I noticed is some people said it would have to be non-Nazis but since the OP states that was already conceded. In any case I think it is doable particularly if the goal were to make the Ukraine a German-Polish Protectorate. Ally with the Poles and then make a deal where the Ukraine is largely autonomous but has to provide troops and tax money for protection.

Poland would indeed make a good ally for an anti-Bolshevism crusade. Almost too good of an ally, since if they win, Poland has destroyed a major threat on the eastern border and created a bunch of satellite states which would include at least Ukraine and Belarus and probably Crimea and a Cossack Nation/"Cossackia" (no need to strengthen Ukraine too much). If they get far enough, they can sever the southern Caucasus off from the USSR, which Poland had great interest in. Not sure what territorial concessions Poland might grab.

So the question becomes--what does Germany get out of this? Can they get Poland to give back the desired German lands in exchange for all this help (maybe involving a population exchange/ethnic cleansing where ethnic Poles are resettled in non-Polish areas in the east and Ukrainians expelled)? If not, then it would be a hard sell to the German people and leadership.
 
First toss Hitler and the Nazis in the dustbin of history that never was. Next back into the Great War and keep Imperial Germany yet have the USSR born. Fast forward the rise of Stalin and his monstrous regime. When I did this I found no solid reason for Imperial Germany to be as friendly as the Weimar was but I think trade is conducted. The KPD is either killed in the crib or swiftly reduced to a toothless talking circle. And now the problem. Personally I find it difficult to get Imperial Germany motivated enough to launch a war against the USSR and discover behind the veil a teeming mass praying for liberation. As much as some might want the Germans to be the war mongers, twenty years of peace has them clearly not Nazis and not trigger happy, the Great War has taught them the price of war. And Stalin does not appear to be poised to launch his own war either. This Germany is not the broken toy of the 1930s or led by, as Professor Fronkinsteen says it, "a Cuckoo", this is a humbled but still Great Power who Vizzini uses as an example of "do not get involved in war with the Germans!" In all seriousness, I think you need another chain of events to have a Russo-German War in 1941, not that it is ASB or even impossible, but this Barbarossa is going to take your own ATL.
 
Challenge is completable with a KAPD Germany, or an international left or right opposition KPD Germany or European section of an international, no?

Organisation.
Rationality (comparatively, and on ethnic issues more so than Notzies).
Hostility to a Stalinist Soviet Union.
All available from an Anti-Stalinist communist middle Europe.

All you need is a POD to get a non Stalinist communist Germany with a Stalinist Soviet Union in the early 1930s.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Pretending, somehow, that all other conditions under which the invasion is conducted are the same despite the Notzis: logistics choke the invasion to death short of the D'niepr. The starvation of the Soviet people via mass requisition of food was a necessity to feed the Wehrmacht keeping free the needed transport space on both trucks and trains for fuel, ammunition, and spare parts... and as we know now, even that was inadequate to make the logistics work. A secondary issue is motivation: the German people aren't going to be very willing to die in their millions against the Soviets for the sake of liberating the Slavs from communism at no material benefit to themselves.

All these added disadvantages for a policy that is gonna take awhile to work. The average Soviet's reaction to the German invasion was one of nationalist enthusiasm. Only in the territories the Soviets conquered in 1939-1941 was the reaction overwhelmingly against the USSR. People don't like getting invaded and the "rally around the flag" effect works for stable totalitarian regimes as well as it does for stable democracies.
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase what others have said here, a Germany that would be decent with the Soviet citizens isn't likely to launch Barbarossa in the first place. Every Nazi who wasn't Hitler had bad vibes about it. You basically need Hitler to launch it and then get assassinated, and then have whoever takes his place be decent with the Soviet citizens. Some important variables with the assassination:

Who carries it out? If Soviet partisans assassinate Hitler, the new guy isn't likely to be decent with the Soviet citizens. And among Germans the drive to assassinate Hitler didn't pick up momentum until Germany was losing.

OK, what about Britain's clandestine intelligence agencies? Didn't they help take out Heydrich? Heydrich's own arrogance made it easy to assassinate him. The only way Hitler would be that accessible is if he toured Britain after having somehow conquered it. Short of using Tabun gas I don't see any way this could be accomplished, and I'm probably being more generous than others about this. You would also need to take out Britain in order to dry up the Arctic convoys.

Do you take out anyone besides Hitler, and if so whom? The flamboyant Goering might stand out as a target more than the unobtrusive Bormann or Himmler. Remove Hermann, however, and his kid brother won't be stirring things up, or if he does the SS will now be able to take him out with impunity.

Is or will the U.S. get involved? Admiral Raeder was a big proponent of war with the U.S. Whether he could sell anyone other than Hitler is another story. He would have almost no chance with Himmler--he and Heydrich weren't each other's favorite people. OTOH if Germany is already at war with the U.S. there's no chance Barbarossa would succeed. Also in that instance Germany can forget about the tabun option mentioned earlier. (IOTL Germany's Tabun plant became operational about 4-6 months after the U.S. entered the war.)
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase what others have said here, a Germany that would be decent with the Soviet citizens isn't likely to launch Barbarossa in the first place. You basically need Hitler to launch it and then get assassinated, and then have whoever takes his place be decent with the Soviet citizens. Some important variables with the assassination:

Well, no. Even that wouldn't really work because the relevant orders have already been issued and the German troops have already been indoctrinated to view the Slavs as sub-humans with all the attendant behavior that entails. By the time such policies could be reversed, the damage would have already been done and the back peddling attempts would actually backfire. Historically when a previously repressive occupier tries to do an about-face, it's usually interpreted by the populace as a sign of weakness rather then an earnest effort to make amends and the response is even more violent opposition.

Our hypothetical Hitler replacement would also have to deal with the hard fact that Germany doesn't have the logistics to be able to afford to treat Soviet citizens, or most of occupied Europe for that matter, with decency. The Germans were only able to sustain their historical war effort by shuffling as much of the suffering onto the occupied territories as possible. Had they attempted to treat the occupied people humanely, they would have collapsed years before hand. The brutality of the Nazi policies often hides the threadbare shoestring Germany waged WWII on. As Adam Tooze points out, the Nazis drew a terrible strength from their hatred.
 
Last edited:
Well, no. Even that wouldn't really work because the relevant orders have already been issued and the German troops have already been indoctrinated to view the Slavs as sub-humans with all the attendant behavior that entails. By the time such policies could be reversed, the damage would have already been done and the back peddling attempts would actually backfire. Historically when a previously repressive occupier tries to do an about-face, it's usually interpreted by the populace as a sign of weakness rather then an earnest effort to make amends and the response is even more violent opposition.

Our hypothetical Hitler replacement would also have to deal with the hard fact that Germany doesn't have the logistics to be able to afford to treat Soviet citizens, or most of occupied Europe for that matter, with decency. The Germans were only able to sustain their historical war effort by shuffling as much of the suffering onto the occupied territories as possible. Had they attempted to treat the occupied people humanely, they would have collapsed years before hand. The brutality of the Nazi policies often hides the threadbare shoestring Germany waged WWII on. As Adam Tooze points out, the Nazis drew a terrible strength from their hatred.

I agree at that point it's too late but an earlier POD changes things. One POD could be that the US is significantly less protectionist after WWI. Maybe the tariffs are 20-30% less. The US buys more stuff from Europe and Europe borrows considerably less for US imports than OTL. As a result the European economy, including Germany , is considerably larger than OTL. The rearmament of Germany is more spread out, higher at the beginning and slower at the end, resulting in a larger economy. It allies with Poland, with the German Army taking the northern USSR while Poland goes south. GB and France jump in, quite likely joined by the Southeast Europe such as Romania and Hungry, both to get a piece of the pie and to make sure Poland and Germany don't get too strong by taking it. With that the USSR is in deep trouble.
 
Top