If Britain surrenders before Hitler starts Operation Barbarossa, does it succeed? Let's say as a POD Germany moves into Dunkirk and massacres all soldiers, allowing for a very big public opinion shift on war in the UK. The UK makes a white peace with Germany. If this scenario is unlikely, then choose any other possible TL in which Britain surrenders to the Nazis prior to Barbarossa. Now, on to the question, does Operation Barbarossa succeed, and do the Axis Powers win WW2 if the Nazis and Soviet Union are fighting only each other? Does Japan still bomb Pearl Harbor? How does the war turn out if there is no British Empire to oppose the Nazis?
Does Barbarossa succeed if there are no western allies?
- Thread starter victhemag
- Start date
-
- Tags
- axis powers barbarossa
Without the UK in the war the Germans divert no resources to North Africa, they don't need to invade Yugoslavia, and don't get involved in any Italian mess in Greece. Depending upon when the armistice in the west is, lets agree sometime before fall, 1940, the Germans can now devote their industrial effort to building what is needed for BARBAROSSA, not so many U-boats etc. They, of course, have more men and equipment not lost elsewhere as well as returned POWS (especially nice for aircrew). OTOH the Russians will not be getting any supplies from the UK or USA - if the USA does send anything it will be cash and carry not Lend-Lease.
No Yugoslavia and North Africa means the invasion can kick off sooner in the spring than OTL which helps some. If Stalin proceeds as OTL with no changes the early disasters are even worse. If Stalin makes better preparations, then it won't be the disaster it could be but they will be beaten back. Even with Stalin being more sensible the losses will be as bad as OTL in 1941, if he does not plan better the Germans have an excellent shot at Moscow. With all of German efforts concentrated in the east, as well as being open to trade and able to buy all sorts of key stuff on the open market, the Germans can put the effort in to fixing the Russian rail system to improve their logistics in a big way. The Luftwaffe does not have to put much effort in to home defense or other theaters, so the war in the air is much worse for the Russians. If the British are out the Finns may be less constrained, and between that and the better German situation Leningrad probably falls.
You can argue about LL but the reality is every meter of rail that came via LL was a meter that did not have to be made in the USSR and that steel could be used for something else. Same for trucks, radios, and on and on. Any and all food via LL could not be replaced by Russian food, similarly leather for boots, high octane avgas, and many other things. Even if all the factories that were moved OTl are moved here, you haven't added capacity which is what LL did functionally. Absent that, the Soviets will have a hard time preventing the Germans from getting to the A-A line.
Now ITTL this will NOT be kick the door in and the whole rotten structure falls but a bloody hard fought event. Saying that it is realistic to say that Russia alone against Germany, no LL, means they lose.
No Yugoslavia and North Africa means the invasion can kick off sooner in the spring than OTL which helps some. If Stalin proceeds as OTL with no changes the early disasters are even worse. If Stalin makes better preparations, then it won't be the disaster it could be but they will be beaten back. Even with Stalin being more sensible the losses will be as bad as OTL in 1941, if he does not plan better the Germans have an excellent shot at Moscow. With all of German efforts concentrated in the east, as well as being open to trade and able to buy all sorts of key stuff on the open market, the Germans can put the effort in to fixing the Russian rail system to improve their logistics in a big way. The Luftwaffe does not have to put much effort in to home defense or other theaters, so the war in the air is much worse for the Russians. If the British are out the Finns may be less constrained, and between that and the better German situation Leningrad probably falls.
You can argue about LL but the reality is every meter of rail that came via LL was a meter that did not have to be made in the USSR and that steel could be used for something else. Same for trucks, radios, and on and on. Any and all food via LL could not be replaced by Russian food, similarly leather for boots, high octane avgas, and many other things. Even if all the factories that were moved OTl are moved here, you haven't added capacity which is what LL did functionally. Absent that, the Soviets will have a hard time preventing the Germans from getting to the A-A line.
Now ITTL this will NOT be kick the door in and the whole rotten structure falls but a bloody hard fought event. Saying that it is realistic to say that Russia alone against Germany, no LL, means they lose.
Interesting. How does Japanese expansion play out? Will they still make a catastrophic mistake in bombing Pearl Harbor? Or ITTL will they not do so since they can trade with Germany and will likely have sufficient resources to continue their war in China? Could we also see a Japanese Invasion of the Soviet Union in order to assist Germany?
It may be over as soon as 1941-1942 if Moscow can be neutralized with freed up resources.
Britain surrenders: Operation Barbarossa does not occur until 1943.
British capitulation leaves Hitler (Mussolini and Franco) with de facto control of Europe; he spends time basking in his success an reordering the European states into his Third Reich. (He continues to trade with Stalin for raw materials.) He sees a completion of his (fascism) conquest in Yugoslavia, Greece, and Albania and gives full assistance to the Italians. He occupies most of North Africa making The Mediterranean a fascist pond. Hitler then absorbs Turkey as a client state and begins to look towards the Caucasus. His eventual assault on the USSR (Barbarossa) comes after some minor naval conflicts in the Black Sea escalate, sometime around 1943. (Crimea may be the first place Nazi and Soviet troops clash.)
British capitulation leaves Hitler (Mussolini and Franco) with de facto control of Europe; he spends time basking in his success an reordering the European states into his Third Reich. (He continues to trade with Stalin for raw materials.) He sees a completion of his (fascism) conquest in Yugoslavia, Greece, and Albania and gives full assistance to the Italians. He occupies most of North Africa making The Mediterranean a fascist pond. Hitler then absorbs Turkey as a client state and begins to look towards the Caucasus. His eventual assault on the USSR (Barbarossa) comes after some minor naval conflicts in the Black Sea escalate, sometime around 1943. (Crimea may be the first place Nazi and Soviet troops clash.)
With Britain out of the war the blockade preventing imports is also out of the way. Even with imports from the USSR Germany and occupied Europe had a deficit of 100,000 tons of oil a year, as well as food shortages, strategic metals shortages etc. APDS ammunition requires tunste-carbide, they didn't have enough of that to 'waste' shooting it at T-34's. Ok that was later in the war but the point is that shortages of all kinds, from 101 Octane - Luftwaffe aircraft only had 87 Octane - to trucks, will not be happening ITTL. The money to buy everthing they want might be short, and Roosvelt will not be mad with joy at the idea, but the crippling shortages of things the Nazi's needed will not be happening.
A fully motorised German army, with enough supply trucks and fuel to run them on would be a somewhat different beast from the one they had. This might also reduce the clash between Hitler and the OKH in planning Barbarossa. Hitler's emphasis was on the southern areas, to capture the food and oil his economy needed to continue the war. Halder etc wanted to go after Moscow. Both were actually needed, effort split between the two meant neither was achieved. With enough oil they don't HAVE to capture the oil fields or never have enough.
I'm rambling again aren't I? Hitler will still want to attack the USSR because a) he was obsessed with the idea and b) Stalin was a scarry dude he was going to have a fight to the death with sooner or later. Means will change in this scenario, ends not so much.
Details of how Britain left the war will be important to whether they are required to let Japan get violent in the Pacific, or if they are free to focus all their efforts on the empire as long as they let Hitler alone in Europe.
Yes that would mean Hitler throwing an allie to the wolves. If you think that would slow him down we have very different images of the man. Imperial Japan facing the USA with its expanding military suddenly devoid of a possible war in Europe to employ it and Great Britain looking for someone to stomp to make up for the humiliation of losing in France would probably be discouraged from attacking.
Maybe.
I'd say it's hugely dependent on the logistical changes that occur as a result. Like Slorek said, the end of the western war means Germany is capable of focusing their entire industrial effort on facing off with the USSR. They would ultimately do this because while Hitler may consider consolidating his position in Europe there isn't actually that much to consolidate, Yugoslavia may be a challenge but he only invaded in OTL because he was forced to and he had to delay Barbarossa as a result (which was intended to start in May, not June). Combined with access to a relatively free and open market, a lack of effective naval blockade by the British and a reduced presence in the west as occupations will no longer be needed honestly I'd say they would have a very good shot.
They would certainly get to Moscow in my view, it has been hypothesized that they would have even if they had just started in May rather than June. They may be able to secure their position by winter if they effectively restore the soviet rail systems, but I expect they would be forced to halt in winter of '41 before perhaps advancing into the caucuses in '42. Either way, I think it vastly improves their chances, but obviously that is no guarantee they come out on top. The western allies for example may just prop up the Soviets even more than irl.
They would certainly get to Moscow in my view, it has been hypothesized that they would have even if they had just started in May rather than June. They may be able to secure their position by winter if they effectively restore the soviet rail systems, but I expect they would be forced to halt in winter of '41 before perhaps advancing into the caucuses in '42. Either way, I think it vastly improves their chances, but obviously that is no guarantee they come out on top. The western allies for example may just prop up the Soviets even more than irl.
There is also the bigger and more concerning question for Germany of "what if the allies invade in the west during the war". The outcome being a very democratic Europe.
Barbarossa was always going to fail, far too much of a gap between the goals of the operation and the Axis' means to actually accomplish them. It was fundamentally a bad plan, possibly somewhat forgivable given that something of that scale had never been attempted but bad nonetheless.
Last edited:
Max Sinister
Banned
I dunno... even IOTL the Wehrmacht almost made all the way to Moscow, it was close, the balance might tip the other way.
About Japan: If Britain has thrown in the sponge, there is not much incentive for them to join the USA in the total oil embargo in summer 1941 - OTL this was part of the price of continuing/ramping up US support for their ongoing war with Germany & Italy. As far as the Netherlands go, Holland is now occupied by Germany with no hope of "rescue" from Britain. How does the DEI respond - the Germans can squeeze anyone with family back in Holland, and the collaborationist government in the Netherlands can send out folks (with German advisors) to take over the colony. Unless the US Navy gets involved there is nothing to stop a couple of German warships escorting a few transports bringing German soldiers to the DEI to be in charge. As pointed out Germany needs to import oil, and getting some from the DEI (for free as "reparations" perhaps) is useful.
If Japan has oil and other strategic supplies like rice from French Indochina, tin and rubber from Malaya, and more while the US embargo and financial pressures are painful they do not put Japan in the crisis mode they were in by summer of 1941 so PH and war with the USA is not necessary. If the Nazis are doing better in Russia, and in this scenario no way they are not, the Japanese may decide that "going north" and seizing the Pacific coast of the USSR as well as expanding in Manchuria is the way to go. Germany would be happy to see this, stretching Soviet resources even thinner, and this would cut the supply line from the USA to Vladivostok - at a minimum the Japanese could cut of Soviet flagged merchant traffic, and I doubt the USA will bend the rules to have "neutral" US flagged ships try and make the run. The Japanese could totally play by cruiser rules and close blockade, all of which would be perfectly legal.
If Japan has oil and other strategic supplies like rice from French Indochina, tin and rubber from Malaya, and more while the US embargo and financial pressures are painful they do not put Japan in the crisis mode they were in by summer of 1941 so PH and war with the USA is not necessary. If the Nazis are doing better in Russia, and in this scenario no way they are not, the Japanese may decide that "going north" and seizing the Pacific coast of the USSR as well as expanding in Manchuria is the way to go. Germany would be happy to see this, stretching Soviet resources even thinner, and this would cut the supply line from the USA to Vladivostok - at a minimum the Japanese could cut of Soviet flagged merchant traffic, and I doubt the USA will bend the rules to have "neutral" US flagged ships try and make the run. The Japanese could totally play by cruiser rules and close blockade, all of which would be perfectly legal.
ATL Scenario:
Germans fix Torpedo issues, In October 1939 sink Nelson with Churchill on board. Due to the lack of Churchill and increased naval attrition due to torpedo fix, Britain asks for an armistice same time as France (as a package deal).
June 15th 1941: Germany attacks Soviet Union
Advantages Germany:
a) Much larger Luftwaffe, including larger Ju52 fleet.
b) Parachute division intact
c) No Balkan diversion
d) No North African diversion (large number of trucks now available)
e) No particular need to hold back or build up panzer divisions in France, could be in Russia right away.
f) No economic losses due to river barge fleet being sent to channel in preparation for sea lion
g) Germany can trade with the world.
h) German fleet could be more aggressive in the Baltic.
i) No diversion of aircraft to the med in November 1941.
Advantages Soviet:
a) Will absolutely except a German attack.
b) OTL the Soviets made a number of bad decisions, here the Soviets may guess better German attack intentions (the Soviets did OTL 1941 about as bad as possible).
c) An actual peace treaty with Britain and France might mean the German can loot Western Europe less, might not be able to German station forces in Northern Norway.
d) The Soviets might insist on real payments for the stuff their shipping to Germany in 40 and early 41.
The tricky part:
a) Logistics are still a pain, there is a limit to the amount of strength the Germans can bring forward in 1941.
b) But there is no real need for the Germans do do things quick. They could easily just not do Typhoon or at least skip the second phase and be in much better shape in 1942.
I expect 1941 to be about the same, perhaps Leningrad falls in this time line. But I expect the Soviet Winter counter attack to be less strong (perhaps the Soviets have to commit more reserves early). Leaving the Germans in a much better position in 1942.
Germans fix Torpedo issues, In October 1939 sink Nelson with Churchill on board. Due to the lack of Churchill and increased naval attrition due to torpedo fix, Britain asks for an armistice same time as France (as a package deal).
June 15th 1941: Germany attacks Soviet Union
Advantages Germany:
a) Much larger Luftwaffe, including larger Ju52 fleet.
b) Parachute division intact
c) No Balkan diversion
d) No North African diversion (large number of trucks now available)
e) No particular need to hold back or build up panzer divisions in France, could be in Russia right away.
f) No economic losses due to river barge fleet being sent to channel in preparation for sea lion
g) Germany can trade with the world.
h) German fleet could be more aggressive in the Baltic.
i) No diversion of aircraft to the med in November 1941.
Advantages Soviet:
a) Will absolutely except a German attack.
b) OTL the Soviets made a number of bad decisions, here the Soviets may guess better German attack intentions (the Soviets did OTL 1941 about as bad as possible).
c) An actual peace treaty with Britain and France might mean the German can loot Western Europe less, might not be able to German station forces in Northern Norway.
d) The Soviets might insist on real payments for the stuff their shipping to Germany in 40 and early 41.
The tricky part:
a) Logistics are still a pain, there is a limit to the amount of strength the Germans can bring forward in 1941.
b) But there is no real need for the Germans do do things quick. They could easily just not do Typhoon or at least skip the second phase and be in much better shape in 1942.
I expect 1941 to be about the same, perhaps Leningrad falls in this time line. But I expect the Soviet Winter counter attack to be less strong (perhaps the Soviets have to commit more reserves early). Leaving the Germans in a much better position in 1942.
I'd say success in Barbarossa is more likely than OTL but still not a sure thing. The Nazis are still invading without bringing winter uniforms, and as mentioned above the Soviets will be more likely to be on alert for an attack. Also Germany will have to leave at least a token force in the West still, in case the UK restarts hostilities. And the UK and possibly the US will be sending whatever lend-lease they can get away with to the USSR (it's a bit Napoleonic really with the UK funding a continental power to prevent another power from dominating Europe entirely).
IOTL I'd say Barbarossa had like a 5% chance of success. ITTL I'd give it a 33% chance or so - more likely but still probably a failure.
IOTL I'd say Barbarossa had like a 5% chance of success. ITTL I'd give it a 33% chance or so - more likely but still probably a failure.
Lend Lease is a bit vague in this TL. With Britain at peace, it may have never particularly got off the ground, and there are less tensions between Germany and the USA. The USA would probably get around to that but it might take longer.
Britain could ship aid, but a Conservative non Churchill government is in place, would want some assurance the Soviets would actually hold out, not make a Brest March 1918 style peace, which is more likely scenario here.
Stalin is still a bit of a world outcast after Poland and Finland.
Likely the Soviets have to make do in 1941 and 1942 without much aid. Probably by 1943 I can see the USA/Britain funding what looks like a winner.
I'll give you that Hitler will still be foolish enough to think that Barbarossa will be quick and not bring winter clothing, but I think ITTl Barbarossa has a much higher chance of success than 33%; I'd place it at 80-90%. The Russian Winter will not be as disastrous to the Germans as in OTL because Barbarossa will start earlier, at its initial start date, as Germany will not have to invade Yugoslavia and Italy will not invade Greece. This leads to the Battle of Moscow occuring earlier than in OTL and in all likelihood a German Victory. Leningrad will also likely fall in this TL. Germany would likely take both Moscow and Leningrad and be able to try and reconstruct Soviet railways. Add on to the fact that Japan is far more likely to invade Siberia due to the greater German successes, and I'd place the chances of a successful Barbarossa higher.
I don't remember the details, but I've read there was another problem with starting Barbarossa in May besides the Balkan distraction - the mud season was late in 1941 went on into early June, IIRC?
Also, I give you that Yugoslavia probably wouldn't join the war, but why wouldn't Italy invade Greece? With Britain out of the war that seems even more tempting for Mussolini.
Also, I give you that Yugoslavia probably wouldn't join the war, but why wouldn't Italy invade Greece? With Britain out of the war that seems even more tempting for Mussolini.
Yep
I doubt these events delayed much at all, it was the weather that set the date of the invasion.
I cannot see the German moving faster, there is little in Leningrad for Germany. If Germany really wanted it, they could have taken it. What really would help Germany here is more airforce, more supplies and above all more troops. In 1942/3 what would really hurt Russia is less lend-lease
Too late as Japan already decided to attack South, there is little in Siberia Japan needs.
Japan and what she does in such a time line as this is vague. She might not attack south.
Here the Dutch government has had to make their peace with Germany meaning the may sell oil to the Japanese. And so the Japan/China war could just plod along with no expansion of the conflict.
A France that has made a general peace with Germany in July 1940 might be able to resist Japanese incursions into IndoChina. Britain might keep the Burma road open instead of the temporary closure as in OTL.
Here the Dutch government has had to make their peace with Germany meaning the may sell oil to the Japanese. And so the Japan/China war could just plod along with no expansion of the conflict.
A France that has made a general peace with Germany in July 1940 might be able to resist Japanese incursions into IndoChina. Britain might keep the Burma road open instead of the temporary closure as in OTL.
When all is said and done the decision to strike south was cemented by the complete oil embargo. With no war for GB, they really don't need to poke the hornet's nest in the east to ensure continuing American support against Germany. Not closing the Burma Road annoys the Japanese, but is not enough to have them take on the USA and the undistracted British. As mentioned, the Dutch are going to have no choice but to sell the oil if the Germans tell them to. Absent the petroleum crisis, and with Germany looting the continent and open trade with Germany (and Germany instructing France to sell products from colonies to Japan) the war in China can continue - which is all the Army cared about.
True, there is nothing in Siberia/Eastern Russia that the Japanese need (that anyone knows about) other than timber and some odds and ends. What taking the Pacific coast and perhaps part of Siberia does for Japan is remove the threat to Manchuria, making the northern border of their Chinese holdings more secure. It also removes any direct connection between the USSR and Japan, which is seen as hurting the domestic communists (as few as there are). Naturally the Germans will do everything they can to encourage this sort of move - any distraction causing forces to be directed away from fighting them is a good thing, and they could care less if Japan grabs that part of the USSR as they certainly had no plans even in the most fevered dreams of going there. To the extent that LL or cash and carry goods are going to the USSR they are going through Vladivostok and sent west on the Trans-Siberian RR, cutting that supply line is something both Germany and Japan would profit by.
Unless and until the war against the USSR is ended, I don't see Germany withdrawing from the occupied countries of Western Europe. Forces will be drawn down, but will still remain. You'll see German bases which will be expected to be permanent establishments in many cases like naval and air bases in France and the Low Countries, and some bases in Northern Norway (which will ensure no traffic to Murmansk). Germany will have to decide on the terms of more permanent peace treaties to include the expected annexations, trade relations, armament restrictions, permanent basing, any issues involving overseas territories, and importantly ensuring any governments that exist in nations no longer formally occupied are the "right sort". None of this will be completed while fighting is going on in the east. Some more obvious annexations may occur, but other than that it will be on hold. IMHO you'll see increased recruitment of foreigners for foreign SS units, as well as continued use of POWs for labor and labor levies. Naturally the industries of the occupied countries will be cranking out war material for the Germans, and ensuring things like agricultural products are headed to Germany.
True, there is nothing in Siberia/Eastern Russia that the Japanese need (that anyone knows about) other than timber and some odds and ends. What taking the Pacific coast and perhaps part of Siberia does for Japan is remove the threat to Manchuria, making the northern border of their Chinese holdings more secure. It also removes any direct connection between the USSR and Japan, which is seen as hurting the domestic communists (as few as there are). Naturally the Germans will do everything they can to encourage this sort of move - any distraction causing forces to be directed away from fighting them is a good thing, and they could care less if Japan grabs that part of the USSR as they certainly had no plans even in the most fevered dreams of going there. To the extent that LL or cash and carry goods are going to the USSR they are going through Vladivostok and sent west on the Trans-Siberian RR, cutting that supply line is something both Germany and Japan would profit by.
Unless and until the war against the USSR is ended, I don't see Germany withdrawing from the occupied countries of Western Europe. Forces will be drawn down, but will still remain. You'll see German bases which will be expected to be permanent establishments in many cases like naval and air bases in France and the Low Countries, and some bases in Northern Norway (which will ensure no traffic to Murmansk). Germany will have to decide on the terms of more permanent peace treaties to include the expected annexations, trade relations, armament restrictions, permanent basing, any issues involving overseas territories, and importantly ensuring any governments that exist in nations no longer formally occupied are the "right sort". None of this will be completed while fighting is going on in the east. Some more obvious annexations may occur, but other than that it will be on hold. IMHO you'll see increased recruitment of foreigners for foreign SS units, as well as continued use of POWs for labor and labor levies. Naturally the industries of the occupied countries will be cranking out war material for the Germans, and ensuring things like agricultural products are headed to Germany.
England sits back and waits on her little side project using up all that hydro power in Canada.
Germany rebuilds and invades USSR in 1942 or 1943. USSR has built up too and hopefully hasn’t purged more officers.
Totally different situation at this point.
Eventually conflict takes a turn when the English declare war a couple minutes before several German cities glow.
Germany rebuilds and invades USSR in 1942 or 1943. USSR has built up too and hopefully hasn’t purged more officers.
Totally different situation at this point.
Eventually conflict takes a turn when the English declare war a couple minutes before several German cities glow.