Could Hitler had defeated Soviet Union without Britain

[Michele]

I’ve never really believed that. Entire factories and millions of workers had been moved beyond the reach of the Heer and the Luftwaffe behind the Urals. They also had a significant manpower advantage and they managed to outproduce the Germans in key areas.

Yes, this applies to the war as a whole for its whole length. Especially if you use as a tense "had moved". The issue is what happens nearly straight away, in 1941, before the winter. That is the decisive time and the factories "had moved"? No, they had not. The manpower advantage had not yet come into being, either, nor the outproduction.

I think I specified I'm looking at the 1941, tops 1942 time frame for a decisive outcome here.

Might the Germans achieve a KO victory in the first round? Yes, I think they might, with a lot of luck, but they might. Not only that; it's the only time and the only way in which they can win, exactly because of the considerations you list - which mainly apply to the subsequent rounds.

 

[BooNZ]

Mussolini will also construe this as Hitler deciding on his own solely what's good for Germany, ignoring Italy's "rightful" claims. It's entirely possible that, in a fit of pique, he does not send one soldier to the Eastern Front, unlike in OTL.

It is my understanding anti-communism was a more prominant feature of Italian fascism than it was in the Nazi regime. On balance, I suspect it is more likely D Muss would demontrate his independence through action in the Balkans, than declining an invite to put the boot into the Soviets.

A further possibility is that he does declare, once Hitler has his hands full in the East, his own personal war against Greece (more probably) or Yugoslavia. A consolation prize based on the assumption that the Franco-British caving in means they have generally lost appetite for any confrontation. This might go better than in OTL for several reasons, but even so, it's instability on Germany's Southern flank and closer than they'd like to Ploesti. And, on the contrary, it might go almost as badly as in OTL.

Without intervention of Britain/ France/ or Turkey, the Italians are quite capable of eventually winning ugly in the Balkans. Without the fear of potential of French or British intervention, Germany would likely be content for Italy to handle matters for itself i.e. the Italian military continuing to embarass itself is not as concerning to the Germans as the OTL potential Allied airfields in the vacinity of the Balkans.

First, Lend-Lease was essential in making the RKKA more mobile and offensive-worthy. If the Soviets are in for bare survival in the long term in hopes that something will change, they don't need the OTL smashing breakthroughs and deep penetrations in the German rear. Second, even with this much worse scenario, the critical moment remains the fall of 1941. If the Soviets don't collapse then, well, they still have a chance in 1942. And in the fall of 1941, there was no Lend-Lease, and even in 1942 it was just trickling to the front lines.

In a long war the Soviets simply cannot allow the Nazis to continue occupy the vast tracts of productive Russian territory. OTL food and war materials were significant elements of the lend lease program, in part because the of the significant resources of the occupied territories no longer available to Soviet war effort. It is reasonable to assume over time the Nazis would also better exploit those occupied territories for resources.

In this scenario, the Soviets would become gradually weaker with less territory and no lend lease. Conversely, the Nazis, likely hold more Russian territory, do not have to deal with a British Blockade, do not have to execute an ongoing uboat campaign, do not have to maintain German air defence systems, and do not have to fight North African/ Italian/ Balkan campaigns (Also BoB and Crete), so it is likely to become gradually stronger. I don't see an early Soviet exit, but nor do I see any realistic prospect of Soviet survival.

 

[thaddeus]

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?

Unlikely. In 1940, Mussolini was out to make his own "parallel war", and that had to gain ground at the expense of France and Britain, not the USSR. If the Franco-British not only offer an armistice but also, rather quickly, peace terms, that Germany obviously accepts, then the Italians have gained little or nothing. A blueprint is the meager result of the armistice with France.

Mussolini will also construe this as Hitler deciding on his own solely what's good for Germany, ignoring Italy's "rightful" claims. It's entirely possible that, in a fit of pique, he does not send one soldier to the Eastern Front, unlike in OTL.

OTOH, it's possible that the Finns, seeing that they have nothing to fear from anybody else but their old Russian foe, are even more enthusiastic in this ATL.

It is my understanding anti-communism was a more prominant feature of Italian fascism than it was in the Nazi regime. On balance, I suspect it is more likely D Muss would demontrate his independence through action in the Balkans, than declining an invite to put the boot into the Soviets.

Without intervention of Britain/ France/ or Turkey, the Italians are quite capable of eventually winning ugly in the Balkans. Without the fear of potential of French or British intervention, Germany would likely be content for Italy to handle matters for itself i.e. the Italian military continuing to embarass itself is not as concerning to the Germans as the OTL potential Allied airfields in the vacinity of the Balkans.

cannot imagine Germany would stall their invasion of Yugoslavia as they did historically? but they certainly are not wanting them involved in Romania?

sorting all this out might serve as a subterfuge for Barbarossa and their troop movements, and/or loop the Soviets into attacking Turkey?

 

[vizzer]

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.

I don't know about this seeing as the Soviet Union played no part in the war, apart from supplying Germany, until 1941.

 

[Michele]

It is my understanding anti-communism was a more prominant feature of Italian fascism than it was in the Nazi regime. On balance, I suspect it is more likely D Muss would demontrate his independence through action in the Balkans, than declining an invite to put the boot into the Soviets.

It depends on who exactly we're talking about. Rank and file Nazis and Fascists may well be whole-heartedly anti-Communist, in the majority (with some weird exceptions in both cases). But I believe that what we're talking about here is the ultimate decision-makers. And for what I know of Mussolini, should he feel snubbed and mistreated by Hitler he might pass on the obvious opportunity of participating in an anti-Bolshevik crusade, just out of pique.

Without intervention of Britain/ France/ or Turkey, the Italians are quite capable of eventually winning ugly in the Balkans. Without the fear of potential of French or British intervention, Germany would likely be content for Italy to handle matters for itself i.e. the Italian military continuing to embarass itself is not as concerning to the Germans

Yes, as I mentioned things might go better than in OTL. It's not just the absence of British intervention there (and British distractions in Africa); it's also a different season of the year. And yes, if things go badly, it's not immediately a concern for Germany. But...

as the OTL potential Allied airfields in the vacinity of the Balkans.

...but the British withdrawal from a war against Germany (or against Germany and Italy, if the British don't bail out before the Italian DoW) does not necessarily mean the British meddling, having left through Europe's front door, doesn't come back in through the Aegean window. Maybe the Germans, when devising the peace treaty for the British to sign, did not think to forbid any and every British intervention in the Continent. If that is the case, the British supplying, say, armaments and possibly volunteers or even "volunteers" to the Greeks or Yugoslavians could be, technically, not in violation of the peace treaty. Yet it would be worrying for the German general strategic outlook.

 

[SpicyJuan]

The delay? Was going to happen anyway, because of the weather

The assumption that weather always plays out the same in every scenario is an assumption that needs to be revisited by the community.

 

[Michele]

The assumption that weather always plays out the same in every scenario is an assumption that needs to be revisited by the community.

Oh, I have no problem with that per se, it's just that you are now demanding two points of departure: Britain is somehow put out of the fray and the spring of 1941 is remarkably dry. Those are two PoDs also because you cannot make the latter derive from the former.
Do you also want fries with that, or Panthers maybe?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, this applies to the war as a whole for its whole length. Especially if you use as a tense "had moved". The issue is what happens nearly straight away, in 1941, before the winter. That is the decisive time and the factories "had moved"? No, they had not. The manpower advantage had not yet come into being, either, nor the outproduction.

I think I specified I'm looking at the 1941, tops 1942 time frame for a decisive outcome here.

Might the Germans achieve a KO victory in the first round? Yes, I think they might, with a lot of luck, but they might. Not only that; it's the only time and the only way in which they can win, exactly because of the considerations you list - which mainly apply to the subsequent rounds.

And yet they managed to move their factories and millions of workers in OTL. A war with Germany is a life and death struggle for the Soviets, because they were Communists, they were Slavic and Hitler wanted living space in the east. It’s not like France or the Netherlands. They can’t just surrender, be vassalized and stay relatively safe. I’d have to do some more reading, but I remember the Soviets having millions of troops in the east that they could move to Europe since the Japanese signed a non-aggression pact.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I don't know about this seeing as the Soviet Union played no part in the war, apart from supplying Germany, until 1941.

I meant from 1941 to 1943. After France surrendered and the British were pushed off the continent, the western allies mostly participated in small engagements against the Germans. They fought in North Africa and Italy, where most of troops were Italians with German reinforcements. Churchill also tried to get Turkey to join the war so that they could invade the Balkans and delay Operation Overlord (which seems to me like a disastrous idea given the topography). A major Front was only opened again in 1944 against his protestations. Aside from that, the Western allies did significant fighting against the German Navy and had a long running strategic bombing campaign. I’m a Canadian. I’m not at all trying to belittle the contributions of the Western Allies to the defeat of Hitler, but it’s pretty clear that the Soviet Union did the heavy lifting in that war.

 

[BlackDragon98]

It was Hitler's racist Nazi crap that ultimately screwed Germany over.
If he was a little nicer to the Baltic peoples and Ukraine (at least until Germany drove the Soviet beyond the Urals)and actively recruited Cossacks and any other groups that were negatively affected by Stalin's 1930s purges he would have been more popular in the USSR than OTL.
From there he could have recruited more Baltic SS divisions and SS Cossack divisions. (Both types fought well in 1944, a time when most foreign SS divisions started deserting and mutinying)
In OTL, Hitler's racism caused a lot of partisan activity which hindered German logistics and denied them the use of local guides.

 

[Michele]

And yet they managed to move their factories and millions of workers in OTL.

Nobody said they didn't.
What I said is that they did not do this in 1941, and even in 1942 they were still working at it.

If this ATL will go somewhere, it will be in accelerating things. And even in OTL, for the Germans it was win quick or never.

 

[Michele]

It was Hitler's racist Nazi crap that ultimately screwed Germany over.

No. Plenty of other very practical reasons, starting with industrial outputs, food deficit, and logistics. Harder subjects to study, I know.

If he was a little nicer to the Baltic peoples and Ukraine (at least until Germany drove the Soviet beyond the Urals)and actively recruited Cossacks and any other groups that were negatively affected by Stalin's 1930s purges he would have been more popular in the USSR than OTL.

Sigh. How often will this red herring continue to surface from the murky waters of ignorance?
You can't be "nicer" to people you have to starve in order to feed your army off the land. Or, if you are nice to the locals, as in, not starve them, you probably break down your already lousy logistics (because you are unable to send the food to the army); or, assuming you manage to overcome your logistical problem, you make your homeland's workers go hungry. Unrest in Germany, decreased production, and remember that the generals are only waiting for you to become unpopular.
No.

From there he could have recruited more Baltic SS divisions and SS Cossack divisions. (Both types fought well in 1944, a time when most foreign SS divisions started deserting and mutinying)

You are not aware that Germany lacked basics like artillery ordnance, horses to tow it, MGs and even helmets to equip German, actually reliable divisions. Even ignoring the issue of feeding those populations, they recruited as many foreigners as they could - trying to recruit more would not have meant having divisions, but barely equipped mobs of riflemen.

In OTL, Hitler's racism caused a lot of partisan activity which hindered German logistics and denied them the use of local guides.

It wasn't the main reason at all.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Nobody said they didn't.
What I said is that they did not do this in 1941, and even in 1942 they were still working at it.

If this ATL will go somewhere, it will be in accelerating things. And even in OTL, for the Germans it was win quick or never.

They didn’t finish, but they’d already moved significant amounts of workers and factories in 1941. That all that I’m saying.

 

[Catspoke]

Its easiest for the Germans to apply extra their extra strength in the Baltic states, better infrastructure than elsewhere, we had a TL on here with an extra panzer corps pushing through the area, could encircle another Soviet army and clear the region quicker. Better aircraft basing infastructure is present too. The unoccupied German navy can make a supply effort. Leningrad falls in 1941 in this TL. OTL supply issues across the dnieper, and repairs to AGC infastructure probably make it harder to push further than OTL center and south.

I can see the Germans passing on a Tuphoon phase 1 or maybe 2 in this timeline, less pressure to win now here.

The germans should have a lot more strength in 1942, a much larger Luftwaffe, and better logistics without the trucks in north Africa.

Some sort of temporary peace is possible late 42 once the Germans capture a major oil source.

 

[BooNZ]

It depends on who exactly we're talking about. Rank and file Nazis and Fascists may well be whole-heartedly anti-Communist, in the majority (with some weird exceptions in both cases). But I believe that what we're talking about here is the ultimate decision-makers. And for what I know of Mussolini, should he feel snubbed and mistreated by Hitler he might pass on the obvious opportunity of participating in an anti-Bolshevik crusade, just out of pique.

Anything is possible, but perhaps a jilted Duce may be more likely to join his date with destiny and the kicking of the Soviets, but follow its an independent Italian agenda - eg limit co-ordination with the Germans and clog up the Axis logistics with pizza ovens and expresso machines...

As an aside, Italy with a free hand (i.e. not fighting either Britain or France) may itself not be fully trusted by Germany (or even less so than OTL) - it was no secret the Italians coveted access to Romanian oil.

...but the British withdrawal from a war against Germany (or against Germany and Italy, if the British don't bail out before the Italian DoW) does not necessarily mean the British meddling, having left through Europe's front door, doesn't come back in through the Aegean window. Maybe the Germans, when devising the peace treaty for the British to sign, did not think to forbid any and every British intervention in the Continent. If that is the case, the British supplying, say, armaments and possibly volunteers or even "volunteers" to the Greeks or Yugoslavians could be, technically, not in violation of the peace treaty. Yet it would be worrying for the German general strategic outlook.

The OTL British intervention in Greece was intended to escalate the existing war, perhaps with a view to influencing opinions in the North America. Without the direct intervention of the Royal Navy and Air Force, Italy would dominate the air and seas around Greece, making any meaningful outside support for Greece highly unlikely.

Depending on the extent Britain is fixed to the sidelines, Turkey might even be 'encouraged' to allow Italian naval assets into the Black Sea.

 

[SpicyJuan]

Oh, I have no problem with that per se, it's just that you are now demanding two points of departure: Britain is somehow put out of the fray and the spring of 1941 is remarkably dry. Those are two PoDs also because you cannot make the latter derive from the former.
Do you also want fries with that, or Panthers maybe?

And your point is? Your implicit equation of shifting a high pressure a few hundred miles to the east with Barbarossa having late-war panthers is the issue. Just because there is another "change" doesn't make the scenario any less worthy or interesting to be discussed. Having slightly different weather in the spring of 1941 does not necessarily create a massive butterfly effect (such as the Germans finding and developing the Matzen oil field) as to make it a "fantasy-esque" scenario. This sort of mental straitjacketing is ultimately detrimental to this site.

 

[BlackDragon98]

No. Plenty of other very practical reasons, starting with industrial outputs, food deficit, and logistics. Harder subjects to study, I know.



Sigh. How often will this red herring continue to surface from the murky waters of ignorance?
You can't be "nicer" to people you have to starve in order to feed your army off the land. Or, if you are nice to the locals, as in, not starve them, you probably break down your already lousy logistics (because you are unable to send the food to the army); or, assuming you manage to overcome your logistical problem, you make your homeland's workers go hungry. Unrest in Germany, decreased production, and remember that the generals are only waiting for you to become unpopular.
No.



You are not aware that Germany lacked basics like artillery ordnance, horses to tow it, MGs and even helmets to equip German, actually reliable divisions. Even ignoring the issue of feeding those populations, they recruited as many foreigners as they could - trying to recruit more would not have meant having divisions, but barely equipped mobs of riflemen.



It wasn't the main reason at all.

Look up the 2 Latvian SS divisions.
In the Battle of the Tannenburg Line both units fought better than many regular Heer units.
The battle is also featured in the movie 1944.

And they could just use captured Soviet soldiers to farm the land under guard after they captured Ukraine.
Also, a more decisive Barbarossa would help.
Instead of switching the attack to Moscow halfway thru the show, Hitler should have kept up the offensive against Leningrad and the Caucasus.
Moving large formations around takes lots of time.

But ultimately, you are mostly correct, the seeds of Nazi Germany's defeat lay in its initial modernization plans in the 1930s.

 

[Woooinion]

If the Soviets were being led by a fully rational human being, then
I think it would be incredibly unlikely for them to lose.
Unfortunately for them, they were being led by Stalin.

The scenario that seems somewhat possible to me would be something like:

1. As an initial divergence, Germany decides to emphasize relations with China rather than Japan.
Many Germans were more sympathetic to the Chinese, and they already had military advisers helping the Nationalists.

2. The catalyst of war stays the same, but for one reason or another, Germany closes the noose, and captures the British and French armies at Dunkirk.

3. Japan, seeing that France utterly defeated, and Britain is on the verge of collapse, attempts to repeat WW1 on a grand-scale. They invade the French English and Dutch East Asian empires, and rapidly make progress, as they had historically.

4. Britain is desperate. Germany has taken hundreds of thousands of their troops captive. Japan is crushing them in the East, and Indian independence leaders know that the British Army is gone. This desperation lingers as the Germans begin looking for a formal surrender, and the Japanese make more progress every day.

5. Japan takes Singapore, and their officers either lose, or release control over their men. Singapore gets the Nanking treatment, and everyone finds out about it.

6. During WW2, Japan and Germany had an odd habit of having people who cared about human rights in each other's territories, but not in their own. Germany, already disliking the Japanese because of their brutality toward China, are even more hostile now. They offer a deal.

7. Generous peace with Britain. The British Army and their supplies returned, in return for a Bilateral peace treaty. Principled British politicians oppose this, they are shouted down by a drowning nation, looking for salvation.

8. The peace, is arranged, and agreed to in secret talks, while Germany and Britain gear up to strike down what their leaders consider to be the worse enemy.

9. It's 1941 mid spring. British ships sail into Channel ports, and take their army home. They continue preparation for revenge in the East, at the same time, Barbarossa begins.

10. The USSR had every reason to believe Germany was planning this IRL, but Stalin refused to believe it. The Nazis were considered an inherently proletariat movement. Additionally, the Soviets had somewhat favorable relations with the Chinese Nationalists. In a world where the Germans have still crushed France and Britain, and are aligned with China, I can't see Stalin changing his mind.

11. The war goes roughly the same as it did IRL. There's fewer distractions in the West to pacify, but the Germans didn't keep the British equipment. It evens out.

12. Japan is facing the full might of the British Empire, and is almost certainly being embargoed by the USA. If Japan attempts or has attempted Pearl Harbor, then they fair far worse than in OTL. It's difficult to predict their actions in this scenario.

13. I think that many people in important positions in FDR's government would remain sympathetic to the USSR. FDR's hostility toward Germany had little to do with his love of the British Empire. I do not think they would be able to justify nearly as much, and without Japan as an ally, Hitler doesn't have the opportunity to drag Germany into a moronic war with the US.

14. Stalin is the key to the Eastern (now only) front. His will keeps his country fighting, and his madness will hold his country back at the same time. Stalin stayed in Moscow. If for some reason Germany sieges Moscow, and something goes wrong, the USSR dies with him.
I think it's up in the air.

...

Anyway, I won't say that this scenario is particularly plausible, but it was kind of fun to think it though.
Since that's what AH is for, I figure I'll share my interpretation of this scenario.

 

[Michele]

Look up the 2 Latvian SS divisions.
In the Battle of the Tannenburg Line both units fought better than many regular Heer units.
The battle is also featured in the movie 1944.

You shouldn't use a movie as a source.

And the performance of the foreign units is neither here nor there with the problem of arming, equipping, feeding, training and paying them.

Additionally, the performance of the foreign units was uneven. You like to look at the Latvian ones, but you prefer to ignore the Albanian or Croatian ones.

And they could just use captured Soviet soldiers to farm the land under guard after they captured Ukraine.

The Germans used slave labor in OTL, you know. That included Soviet POWs.

 

[Michele]

And your point is? Your implicit equation of shifting a high pressure a few hundred miles to the east with Barbarossa having late-war panthers is the issue. Just because there is another "change" doesn't make the scenario any less worthy or interesting to be discussed. Having slightly different weather in the spring of 1941 does not necessarily create a massive butterfly effect (such as the Germans finding and developing the Matzen oil field) as to make it a "fantasy-esque" scenario. This sort of mental straitjacketing is ultimately detrimental to this site.

My point wasn't that this becomes ASB ("fantasy-esque"). My point is that giving multiple divergences all favorable to one side has a clear connotation, for which an impolite word is often used here.
And creating such scenarios is detrimental to this site, both in itself no matter what's the party thus favored, but also, and not the least, because for some reason 90% of these ATLs are about a Nazi triumph, which tends to cast the site in a certain light and to attract a certain type of users.