Germany reaches Armistice with Britain and France, full concentration in East

[LestWeForget]

How would the Eastern Front have been affected if Germany was able to concentrate her Western and African forces there as well?

Is there any hope for the USSR or is German victory assured early?

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Lots of hope. In fact, the question you should be asking is "Is there any hope for Germany?"

An oft-quoted statistic is that 80% of Germany's land forces were concentrated on the Eastern Front, against the Soviet Union rather than the Americans, British, French et cetera. If Germany can spare the planes with which it fought the Battle of Britain IOTL, it can do better than it did IOTL against the Soviets… but given the immense industry of the USSR, the poor logistics of the German Wehrmacht (they were still using lots of horses because they didn't have enough cars and trucks!) and the ease of getting over-extended when your leader has absolute power and is convinced (wrongly) that he's a military genius, it's almost impossible for Germany to win in the long run.

 

[LestWeForget]

I agree on the long term viewpoint, in that it doesn't look good if it's a protracted conflict, but my thought here is with all of those additional forces EARLY in the war, does Germany succeed in accomplishing it's early goals in taking all of the key areas for the Soviet Union's ability to wage war? IE Moscow, the Caucasus, Leningrad etc.?

Certainly they wouldn't have had to choose whether to advance on Moscow or go towards the oilfields of the South, they could have pursued both simultaneously not giving the Soviets the chance to fortify Moscow.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Hitler " The Russian is finished!"

Halder " I must admit, it looks like it"

ehhehehehe

 

[Kou Gakei]

You need to make your premise a bit more solid here.

When was the armistice signed? What were the conditions? What is the US position on this?

For all the propaganda on the Soviets having more industry than Germany, it was the opposite: Germany outproduced the Soviets in the basic resources of steel and iron, and it was only Lend Lease that allowed the Soviets to focus fully on weapon production that resulted in the high output.

If you somehow manage to get the Western Front over with before the invasion to the east and also have the US not help the Soviets, then you have the chance to at least ensure a stalemate which results in Germany having most of Eastern Europe outside of Russia Proper under its control/influence.

 

[LestWeForget]

You need to make your premise a bit more solid here.

When was the armistice signed? What were the conditions? What is the US position on this?

For all the propaganda on the Soviets having more industry than Germany, it was the opposite: Germany outproduced the Soviets in the basic resources of steel and iron, and it was only Lend Lease that allowed the Soviets to focus fully on weapon production that resulted in the high output.

If you somehow manage to get the Western Front over with before the invasion to the east and also have the US not help the Soviets, then you have the chance to at least ensure a stalemate which results in Germany having most of Eastern Europe outside of Russia Proper under its control/influence.

Well, from what I've read Hitler's intention wasn't to destroy Britain, he just didn't want it's interference and was inclined to offer favorable terms, so let's assume things go badly enough for the UK that it(and subsequently France) agree to let the Germans do what they will with Poland for the time being, and the Germans withdraw with assurances(both verbal and substantial) that they won't/can't be attacked in the West.

Maybe Britain and France agree in order to buy time to work on alternatives with the US, but Germany does get a reprieve in the West for the time being in any case.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

First of all, I question the premise that an armistice on the Western Front would free up significantly more troops for the Eastern Front. IOTL Hitler was triumphant in Western Europe, but he still needed to keep forces there because he couldn't leave it undefended for fear that the British and the Free French would invade it.

For the armistice, an easy chain of events would be the following: the Miracle at Dunkirk doesn't happen and Churchill has died in a car crash a few years earlier. The people who enter power (perhaps Lord Halifax) are convinced that challenging Germany on the Continent was a bad idea, and with the United Kingdom demoralised and the Battle of Britain unlikely to happen to restore British morale, there's a tacit Anglo-German agreement of German hegemony in Western and Central Europe, maybe a ceasefire and maybe a de jure surrender.

But even then, the leaders of the United Kingdom are people like Lord Halifax (who merely thought that challenging Germany in Europe was hopeless), not like Oswald Mosley (who was actually sympathetic to Hitler). Mosley's British Union of Fascists had precisely zero seats in Parliament; they were never going to get power. So the UK will maintain its armed forces at great strength for fear of German invasion, unwilling to trust Hitler when he's broken his word so many times before. So what can Hitler do? Threaten the UK to give up? Any invasion of Great Britain would have failed catastrophically; the people insane enough to try Operation Barbarossa never even attempted Operation Sealion. No, he'll still have to maintain lots of troops in the west, for fear of the British betraying him the moment his back is turned (which is very likely).

But let's presume, for the sake of argument, that somehow all of this doesn't happen and Hitler does muster up a major source of extra troops for the Eastern Front.

[snip]

The Second World War can't be viewed as a simple exercise where the Third Reich puts in more effort to a certain theatre, its enemies do nothing to counter it and it consequently triumphs. If the Third Reich had focused more on the Eastern Front and the situation had been going terribly for the Soviets, the USA would have given more aid to the Soviets (which it could have done practically indefinitely, given how vastly superior the American economy was to the German economy) and the Germans would have lost anyway. Thanks to the United States the Soviet Union had a constant supply of materiel. Add that to the aforementioned logistical difficulties (the Nazis were fighting far away from their homeland, unlike the Soviets, and their logistics were awful) and the Nazis never could have won.

Even if the Nazis concentrated their forces in one theatre, so what if they took Moscow? It would have been a harsh blow to Soviet morale, but the Soviets wouldn't have surrendered when they were fighting an enemy whose goal was the extermination of them all. They had the choice of fighting on and submitting to genocide. The Soviet Union would have just kept fighting until the Third Reich was dead and gone, no matter what the cost. In OTL the Soviets even had plans for what to do if the entirety of European Russia were seized by the Nazis (which never even came close to happening), and they didn't involve any surrenders.

We also can't overlook the fact that this is Nazi Germany, with Hitler in charge, and therefore automatically includes a degree of incompetence. Quixotic, stupid and pointless actions are the order of the day; just look at what he did in OTL in Stalingrad and Kursk. Sooner or later, Hitler will push beyond what his supply lines can sustain, get cut off and be defeated as Napoleon was defeated; there is no point where the Nazis will simply stop and consolidate their hold, except perhaps the Urals, and the Nazis will never reach that far. The Soviets aren't the only enemy of the Wehrmacht; the other such enemy is their own dictator. That's why the Allies stopped trying to assassinate Hitler in OTL: they feared that if he died someone competent might take charge.

One cannot model the Second World War as a case of the Nazi economy against the Soviet one, either. It was the Nazis, Italians and Japanese against the Soviet Union and the United States (plus less important powers, like the British and the Free French), all at the same time. Against either the Soviets or the Americans, the Germans would have been defeated. To attack both was so insane that only a regime as ideologically blinded as the Nazis would have done it.

 

[Kou Gakei]

Even if the Nazis concentrated their forces in one theatre, so what if they took Moscow?

It's not a "so what". Moscow was the linchpin to the entire Soviet logistics system, with Stalin saying he's staying in Moscow even if he has to go down with it. Capturing Moscow means everything west of the Volga is now completely at the mercy of the Germans (assuming Moscow is held, that is).

 

[The Red]

Without the British I'd actually wager the Soviets are likely to do a little better, as Stalin is far less likely to ignore a German build-up when he's obviously now Germany's only target.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

How would the Eastern Front have been affected if Germany was able to concentrate her Western and African forces there as well?

Is there any hope for the USSR or is German victory assured early?

If Germany is not engaged on any other front, then it is highly improbable that Stalin will refuse to believe that Germany is not going to attack the USSR, or insist that evidence of Germany's intention is a provocation to embroil the USSR in war with Germany.

In which case, the Soviet army will be on full alert and readiness when the Axis attacks. OTL, the Soviet forces were (at Stalin's insistence) in pure peacetime status. This resulted in much of them being destroyed immediately. These losses fatally compromised the entire Soviet defense position in the west, allowing German forces to outflank, surround, or overrun large additional Soviet forces (which while not as helpless as those tactically surprised in the first hours were still very badly positioned). Then, after the initial surprise effects had passed, the Soviet forces were still disrupted by the losses, making desperate efforts to stem the German advance, and continuing to suffer heavy losses. The Soviet army had to rush new troops into action with minimal training to fill the gaps, compounding the damage. It's been suggested that the Soviet army hadn't entirely recovered from the initial damage even at the end of the war.

If that doesn't happen, the entire dynamic of the Eastern Front changes. It's probable that the Axis forces still defeat the Soviets in a "battle of the frontiers". The Germans would be veterans of two years of mobile combat, and German troops in general performed well throughout the war, whereas the Soviet officer corps was depleted from the Great Purge and Soviet troops didn't look very good in the Winter War. But after that initial success the Germans would bog down.

On the other hand, the Germans would have several advantages compared to OTL. They would be able to concentrate some additional troops in the East, and much more of the Luftwaffe. They would not be under air attack in Germany; a problem which disrupted their industry and transport, and consumed much of their war effort. (It's been estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of all German ammunition production was fired up. Also, 5,000 88mm AA guns, which could have been excellent anti-tank weapons, were stationed in Germany.)

And the Soviets would get no outside aid (probably). Especially in the latter stages of the war, when the Soviets were actually winning, Lend-Lease aid was a very substantial part of their resources. One account noted that Lend-Lease provided the Soviets with 1/3 of all explosives, over half of aviation fuel, all new locomotives, half or more of all trucks... (Nearly all of the famous "Katyusha" rocket batteries were transported in Studebaker trucks, for instance.) Lend-Lease supplies of combat aircraft and tanks were not trivial. The Soviets equipped Guards Armored formations with Shermans for deep breakthrough operations, because of their superior reliability; the number two and three Soviet air aces got nearly all their kills flying P-39 Airacobras.

So it's not likely that the USSR could just brush off the German attack and roll to Berlin.

In terms of population, the USSR has an edge; but Germany's allies make up part of that, and much of the "Soviet" population was hostile to the Soviet regime.

IMHO, the war would be a brutal slogging match. I don't know that either side could win.

 

[Kou Gakei]

IMHO, the war would be a brutal slogging match. I don't know that either side could win.

I have to agree with this. At that point only Lend Lease would tip the scale one way or another.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Red Army actually preparing for the oncoming German onslaught, while it would still lose the battle of the frontiers, would cut their 1941 losses in half and significantly slow up the German advance. That is a huge boost for the Soviet military over IOTL in both the short and long term.

On Soviet/German Industrial Capacity: if one looks at the two economies war making potential in 1939, their pretty much neck and neck. The thing is, the Soviets lost a quarter of their industrial base*, half their coal and iron deposits, and all of their aluminum deposits during the 1941 German attack. If the Germans attack a prepared Red Army, the territory in question (which are east of the D'nepr-D'vina river line) won't fall. This gives the Soviets a lot more resources, industry, and manpower then IOTL for 1942 which they will use, as per IOTL, more efficiently then the Germans.

Lend-Lease did not start making a noticeable contribution to Soviet warfighting capability until late-42.

It should also be noted that the Germans were only able to muster up the logistics base for their advance by looting occupied Western Europe of trucks. A armistice with France that doesn't degrade them would preclude that.

*And were forced to evacuate another quarter.

 

[Mookie]

Soviets would be screwed. Without Allied bombing for 4 years USSR would be nowhere close to challenging Germany

 

[jmc247]

Soviets would be screwed. Without Allied bombing for 4 years USSR would be nowhere close to challenging Germany

Only if Leningrad falls in 1941 are the Soviets 'screwed' with the Western Allies out. Which would be possible, but not easy. Otherwise, the two totalitarianisms bleed each other white even with the Western Allies on the side lines Iran/Iraq war style.

 

[Mookie]

Only if Leningrad falls in 1941 are the Soviets 'screwed' with the Western Allies out. Which would be possible, but not easy. Otherwise, the two totalitarianisms bleed each other white even with the Western Allies on the side lines Iran/Iraq war style.

Soviets received aid from allies all the war, and impact of strategic bombing and destruction of German industry is much more important and made larger impact than all the soviet victories. Without that, no victories would be made.
I just doubt that Germans would go over Ural mountains. And I dont know what would hapen if they dont.

 

[Julian]

I've been reading a couple books on the economics of Occupied Europe, and one thing that strikes me is how much Germany exploited Western Europe for labor, materials, equipment, and production. If Germany were to not occupy and exploit the West as it did IOTL due to a sustained armistice, this would prove to be very damaging in the long run. The economic Grossraum created gave it a significant boost in its war effort against the Soviet Union, the loss of which will prove a significant obstacle. In particular the inability to loot equipment and production to the degree achieved IOTL will hamper the Heer's expansion in preparation for Barbarossa.

Germany was I believe faced with the choice in 1940 of either exploiting Western Europe and occupying it for a long period of time, crippling the possibility of peace with Britain, or limiting its exploitation in exchange for peace, which would shoot Barbarossa in the foot. Either way its war effort is screwed.

 

[Kou Gakei]

Lend-Lease did not start making a noticeable contribution to Soviet warfighting capability until late-42.

That's a blatant false statement. Contrary to the propaganda, Lend Lease was fundamental due to the resources and food it brought, not the weapons. The Soviets were able to concentrate almost exclusively on war production because Lend Lease was supplying everything else.

 

[Julian]

That's a blatant false statement. Contrary to the propaganda, Lend Lease was fundamental due to the resources and food it brought, not the weapons. The Soviets were able to concentrate almost exclusively on war production because Lend Lease was supplying everything else.

Most material lend lease arrived in 43-44, and these resources were by no means necessary. Useful certainly in speeding up the Red Army's victory, but not decisive. Soviet grain production numbered in the hundreds of millions of tons, while lend lease provided around 10 million. Clothing and rolling stock was a similarly small fraction of total Soviet production or prewar equipment in the case of rolling stock. According to Mark Harrison about 6-10% of the Soviet war effort was provided for by lend lease. If lend lease was not available the Soviet Union would have found less efficient and lower quality alternatives which would have certainly prolonged the war but wouldn't have prevented eventual Soviet victory. The best conclusion that can be drawn about lend lease is that it wasn't useless or critical for the Soviet war effort; it fell somewhere in the middle.

And keep in mind that ITTL it's doubtful that the Ostheer would penetrate beyond the Dvina-Dnieper line, thus leaving much of the Soviet Union's industrial, manpower, and agricultural capacity intact.

 

[Kou Gakei]

Most material lend lease arrived in 43-44, and these resources were by no means necessary. Useful certainly in speeding up the Red Army's victory, but not decisive. Soviet grain production numbered in the hundreds of millions of tons, while lend lease provided around 10 million. Clothing and rolling stock was a similarly small fraction of total Soviet production or prewar equipment in the case of rolling stock. According to Mark Harrison about 6-10% of the Soviet war effort was provided for by lend lease. If lend lease was not available the Soviet Union would have found less efficient and lower quality alternatives which would have certainly prolonged the war but wouldn't have prevented eventual Soviet victory. The best conclusion that can be drawn about lend lease is that it wasn't useless or critical for the Soviet war effort; it fell somewhere in the middle.

And keep in mind that ITTL it's doubtful that the Ostheer would penetrate beyond the Dvina-Dnieper line, thus leaving much of the Soviet Union's industrial, manpower, and agricultural capacity intact.

Again, that's ignoring the actual contribution of Lend Lease. Although lend-lease grain was less than 3% of the grain consumed, aid provided 50% of the sugar and vegetables, 20% of the meat, most of the fat, and over 50% of the calories. American food was sufficient to feed 6 million troops one pound of quality food each day for the entire war. The U.S. rations allowed the Red Army to be fed better than the Germans and gave the Soviets combat flexibility because they were no longer tied to the company soup kitchen. It wasn't the pure tonnage that was fundamental, it was what kind of food arrived that was important.


Furthermore, you realize that the Soviets produced just over 8 million tons of steel in 1943, while Germany Proper (as in within Germany and by Germans) produced 30 million tons? Most of the German production had to go into building defenses in the west against a Western Allies invasion, thus making total use of steel for arms only 5 million tons, which was the same amount as the Soviets. In spite of the waste Germany did have better overall industrial capacity which if the Soviets had no Lend Lease would have at least completely equalized the field and thus made Soviet victory impossible.


Lend Lease was why the Soviets won. Without it it would never have been able to defeat Germany.

 

[Julian]

Again, that's ignoring the actual contribution of Lend Lease. Although lend-lease grain was less than 3% of the grain consumed, aid provided 50% of the sugar and vegetables, 20% of the meat, most of the fat, and over 50% of the calories. American food was sufficient to feed 6 million troops one pound of quality food each day for the entire war. The U.S. rations allowed the Red Army to be fed better than the Germans and gave the Soviets combat flexibility because they were no longer tied to the company soup kitchen. It wasn't the pure tonnage that was fundamental, it was what kind of food arrived that was important.

Furthermore, you realize that the Soviets produced just over 8 million tons of steel in 1943, while Germany Proper (as in within Germany and by Germans) produced 30 million tons? Most of the German production had to go into building defenses in the west against a Western Allies invasion, thus making total use of steel for arms only 5 million tons, which was the same amount as the Soviets. In spite of the waste Germany did have better overall industrial capacity which if the Soviets had no Lend Lease would have at least completely equalized the field and thus made Soviet victory impossible.

Lend Lease was why the Soviets won. Without it it would never have been able to defeat Germany.

Can you provide references for these claims? The steel one I can already refute, but I'd like to know where you're getting your numbers for food production from.