Could Hitler had defeated Soviet Union without Britain
- Thread starter G-6
- Start date
The Soviets might be able to prevent the Germans from advancing that far (German progress was mostly limited by logistics, not distractions in the West), but I can't imagine how you think the Soviet Union survives if they do get that far. Unless you're imagining a scenario where the Germans advance much further in the north than in the south (and I don't see how that could happen), the kind of advance you suggest would leave the Germans in control of oil that both sides need badly. Which means the Soviets lose and the Germans retain the ability to mount effective offensives and counter-attacks.
IMO yes. Though the Germans were never great logisticians, they're not so incompetent that they couldn't take advantage of unhindered sea trade and lack of enemy air offensives. They can probably buy fuel overseas too, and I suppose if they force the British into peace they at least get some oil out of that deal.
It doubt the Soviets would give up the Baku fields without totally wrecking them. The oil there wouldn’t be useful to anyone for quite a long time.
But I would also question how much extra steel and other resources the Germans would have to work with to improve their logistical situation in the East if they didn’t have to waste it on replacing/building more U-boats, replacing Panzer losses in Africa, Ju-52’s lost in Crete, building planes shot down in the extended BoB, etc.
The second POD means IMO also that France doesn't declare war. This means no conquering of West Europe. This means less mechanization (in OTL in the Russian campaign loads of French trucks were used), less experience with mobilized warfare and Stalin will expect them coming. I'm not sure if this is a big advantage to OTL, it might be somewhat of an advantage, but might just as well be a disadvantage.
In the second POD the UK will happily sell loads of atuff to the USSR, whch will go unhindered to Murmansk, unless attacked, which will bring the UK back into the war. And again: in this scenario Stalin will expect Germany to attack.
Actually I keep getting this image of the British PM sitting in his London Club knocking back Gin and Tonics while celebrating British industry making stupendous profits from supplying both sides simultaneously. Trucks and Oil to keep the Panzers mobile, food, radios, railway equipment to the Soviets...
"Here's to unemployment levels dropping while the Reds and Jerry have at each other!" Ok Winston Churchill would not be Prime Minister in this situation, but it's still his face I see.
History Learner
Banned
Yes, the Balkan Diversion in early 1941 was a major factor in the failure to collapse the USSR in 1941.
If Britain isn't trying to fight this means:
1) the British aren't trying to bomb Germany, which means one less distraction.
2) possibly Mussolini doesn't attempt to invade Greece (he still has African colonies/occupied territory, both to keep him busy and with no potential loss of prestige which may have resulted from the original timeline fighting in Africa.)
3) no British attempt to blockade German trade at sea.
Possibly offsetting this is if:
4) without the British trying to fight, Stalin might be a lot more wary and figure 'I'm going to be next' if German deception operations fail to assuage him. This might affect the readiness of Russian troops, and where exactly (if anywhere) they are dug in.
Edit:
Also up for consideration:
5) what the heck does Hitler try to do with the Jews if the sea-lanes are open?
I think denying the oil fields to the Soviets would nonetheless be critical. If the Soviets are pushed back "past the Urals," they're not going to be making up the difference by importing oil through Murmansk; surely that's been cut off, if not taken by the Germans (or Finns), in this scenario. So how do they import needed supplies? Vladivostok? Trans-Siberian railway is going to be pretty badly strained! And how do the Soviets pay for these imports? Unless the Japanese screw everything up by dragging the U.S. into the war and dragging Britain back into the war, I doubt they would get nearly enough from generosity based on British or American anti-Nazi sentiment alone. Though, admittedly, the Japanese screwing everything up is a pretty plausible thing to have happen.
If Britain capitulated shortly after the Fall of France, then, yes, Hitler could have defeated the Soviets. It was a near run thing as it was and if the Germans could add in the 2,000 aircraft and air crews they lost in the Battle of Britain along with a few dozen divisions they wouldn't need in the west or North Africa to Barbarossa then Moscow could fall in 1941 and the USSR could be finished off in 1942.
No. It was a minor concurrent factor at most.
The delay? Was going to happen anyway, because of the weather and, frankly, because of incomplete preparations.
The allocation of troops? Well, this allows us to consider the downside of having, say, the 2. and 5. Panzerdivisionen participating in Barbarossa from day one, not mention the other two that were in Africa. Fine, I read in posts above, more strength available, bad news for the Soviets.
Now, does anybody remember why the Germans stopped and twiddled their thumbs every now and then in 1941? Was it because of a shortage of tanks?
No, it was because of a shortage of supplies.
More tanks = more fuel needed.
Having four more Panzerdivisionen means hitting that wall earlier on.
Which they won't do. They might negotiate a peace, but they won't surrender at that time.
The oil would come up through Persia instead. Considering in this scenario, the British have already lost hundreds of thousands dead to the Germans, I think their anti-Nazi sentiment would be pretty strong.
And yes, I do think that Japan would inevitably drag the Americans and British into a war, thoughthat doesn’t necessarily mean war is back on with the Germans.
So through Turkmenistan and that general area? Is there any appropriate infrastructure there in this period? And with Britain out before 1941, there's no Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Maybe the Soviets go it alone, though they have enough problems in this hypothetical without more distractions. So this really doesn't look especially practical.
I don’t think that the Western Allies played a significant role in the fight against Germany until 1943 At the earliest. At least not compared to the Soviet Union. By that point, Germany had already been broken and it was only a matter of time before they were forced to surrender. The Germans would have probably still lost.
Once the full might of the Soviet Union was in play, you'd be right.
But we're looking at here is the decisive moment of the fall of 1941. At that moment, the point is not the obvious long-term staying power of the Soviets; the Germans might just achieve a first-round KO victory. And you'll have to admit that in 1941, the Germans had had their share of Western and Southern distractions.
It's been pointed out but it is worth mentioning again, without the RN blockade, Germany can buy supplies from abroad.
This could massively impact the supply shortages that ultimately stopped the 1941 offensive from achieveing its goals.
This could massively impact the supply shortages that ultimately stopped the 1941 offensive from achieveing its goals.
thaddeus
Donor
what are we assuming the other Axis powers are doing? Italy is always disparaged but they could have replaced the poorly armed Romania/Hungary forces here for a massive improvement and Japan might enter also?
Definitely.
I'm thinking, Oil, Supply Trucks and food as priorities, since all were in not just in a state of state short supply, but war effort crippling state of short supply.
I believe occupied Europe was in deficit to the tune of 100,000 tons of oil a year, even WITH purchases from the USSR. Also apparently there was a strike in Belgium over food shortages sometime before Barbarossa. Things would have to be desperate for people to do that under Nazi occupation. Forces in Russia were under orders to forage for their own food - at least for the Stalingrad campaign - because none could be sent to them.