Hitler invades the Soviet Union in 1940

Most importantly if the Russians and Germans are fighting each other what is the rush? Let the Communists and the Nazis smash each other to pieces and when things either start to turn or start getting dangerous looking go in then.

I have to agree with this...

Also, don't forget in 1940 the Panzer arm isn't what it would be in 1941. Lots of Panzer III's armed with 37mm cannons backed up by Panzer I's and II's. They're going to have trouble against T-26's, but at least there will be few T-34's and KV-1's to face...
 
I have to agree with this...

Also, don't forget in 1940 the Panzer arm isn't what it would be in 1941. Lots of Panzer III's armed with 37mm cannons backed up by Panzer I's and II's. They're going to have trouble against T-26's, but at least there will be few T-34's and KV-1's to face...

T-26s were not a problem in Spain, even to the Panzer II. The Red Army knows that they had a problem, just finishing the Winter War, but no time to fix, so Commissars will still be in the command loop and all the rest.

A real problem is most of the Stalin Line would be intact, and not gutted to create the Molotov Line at this point, and won't have the resources of a conquered France at call.
 
For that, you would need a far more aggressive Stalin, which would require a different Stalin.

Could this maybe work if Trotsky is in power? I know that he was a very big proponent of international Communism.
Not sure Trotsky could have waited so long to start a war. Though, he probably wouldn't have done the same kind of economic policies that caused so much harm, and likely no purge either.
 
T-26s were not a problem in Spain, even to the Panzer II. The Red Army knows that they had a problem, just finishing the Winter War, but no time to fix, so Commissars will still be in the command loop and all the rest.

A real problem is most of the Stalin Line would be intact, and not gutted to create the Molotov Line at this point, and won't have the resources of a conquered France at call.

There were no Panzer II's in Spain, just the Panzer I and the Italian L3/33 tankette - both only armed with MG's. The Nationalists put out a bounty for intact T-26's and used as many as they could. When the BT-5's arrived they too were a shock. There's going to be a LOT more Soviet than German tanks, albeit badly led and with few if any radios. But it's not going to be any pushover like it would in 1941 with later 50mm armed Panzer III's and the Panzer IV special with the L/43 75mm gun.
 
The study entirely focuses on how the Red Army changed in 1940-41 while completely ignoring how the Heer changed in 1940-41. While it is true that in absolute terms the Soviets were weaker in 1940... so were the Germans. In relative terms, the Germans were weaker compared to the Soviets in 1940 then they were in 1941. The short-term windfall in resources from the swift and relatively painless conquest of Western Europe was crucial for the German performance in 1941. To just single out one example: the looting of Western Europe provided fully half of the motor pool used for Barbarossa. Without those trucks, it would have been impossible for the Germans to even make it to the P'skov-D'niepr line, much less the gates of Moscow. When placed in that context, things like this statement...



... become downright hilarious. How does invading the USSR when Germany has less resources to try and overcome the above challenges make an invasion more logical?

Really? The Wehrmacht was composed of the same number of divisions for the invasion of France just as it was the invasion of the USSR. Not only that, but the German Army was fresh from the Polish campaign, while the Red Army suffered an embarrassing campaign from Finland. The Germans also had nearly twice as many planes in the invasion of France rather than in the invasion of Russia. Glantz even states how they had fewer than 200 bombers in the spring 1941 than in the spring of 1940. Considering that Germany had been dealing with many headaches from the British due to the Battle of Britain, the Blitz and the North African campaign(which Italy lost many troops. planes and tanks from could have have been useful for the operation against Russia in terms of attack and supply/logistics), in this case the Germans have no shortage of trucks due to them being wasted or manned in France, Norway and North Africa. The Soviets meanwhile were preparing and building up for a defense against Germany. By having less planes and tanks to deal with, they can attack more infantry and are able to advance much faster. Considering how they had to deal with bombardments from Britain, manning troops in Norway and France, and dealing with the British in North Africa, they would have saved many resources which could then be used against Barbarossa. The Soviets had fifteen months to prepare building armaments, train troops, and reform the leadership. They of course were not ready, but they were in a much better position in June 1941 than in May 1940, the invasion of France. It is possible to see Germany defeating the Soviet Union in three-four months, considering they have less tanks and planes to deal with and can focus on attacking infantry more. Logistics then becomes less of a problem as they will face less intense fighting than before. If they were 15 miles to Moscow, while being stretched out in France, Norway and North Africa alongside with fighting the British in the Atlantic, then a campaign lasting three-four months with the capture of Moscow(an important communications hub and leading railways to Leningrad and the Baku oil fields), then an invasion in France May 1940 can see the fall of the USSR in August or September 1940. France and Britain may prepare and be stronger but by then Germany will have the resources it needs for a long war and will eliminate France and Norway in months rather than in weeks.

They may have less resources but will have enough resources to fight a short campaign with the USSR.
 
Last edited:
Really? The Wehrmacht was composed of the same number of divisions for the invasion of France just as it was the invasion of the USSR.

Yes, really. They would have half the number of Panzer divisions (and half the number of tanks to boot), less then half the number of trucks, fewer support weapons, the quality of their own personnel and organization would be lower... the list is literally endless.

in this case the Germans have no shortage of trucks due to them being wasted or manned in France, Norway and North Africa.

No, their shortage is vastly greater, as they don't have the huge masses of trucks they stripped out of Western Europe. The looting of France far outstripped the expenditures of all of those campaigns put together. Without it, the non-Panzer components of the Heer would have been completely demotorized and motorizing the non-divisional logistics, which was vital for sustaining the army away from their railheads, would have been impossible.

(which Italy lost many troops. planes and tanks from could have have been useful for the operation against Russia in terms of attack and supply/logistics)

Italy did not join the war until France was collapsing. It will be sitting out ITTL so whatever contribution they can make is irrellevant. You can also strike all the rest of the Axis minors, save for Slovakia, as they only wound-up hooking with the Germans because of the Fall of France.

The Soviets meanwhile were preparing and building up for a defense against Germany.

Which is nothing new. The Soviets had been preparing for a war pretty much since it's foundation.

The Soviets had fifteen months to prepare building armaments, train troops, and reform the leadership.

None of which would bore fruit nor would have until 1942, had Barbarossa not occurred.

They of course were not ready, but they were in a much better position in June 1941 than in May 1940, the invasion of France.

Actually, its deployments in May 1940 are even better suited to stopping the German invasion then in June 1941 as the bulk of it's army is not piled up directly against the border but instead back along the Stalin line. At that distance, and given their vastly lowered resources, the German logistics tether would be stretched to snapping simply through the act of moving eastward.

By having less planes and tanks to deal with, they can attack more infantry and are able to advance much faster.

I don't know what bizzarro universe you are living in, but in 1940, as in 1941, the Soviet Union still disposed of the largest stock of tanks and aircraft in the world. In addition, without the redeployment towards 1941 frontier the Soviets would not have suffered the logistical dislocation they did OTL which badly compromised their ability to support their army along the frontier 1941 until they could rebuild the logistical net. The inadequate Soviet transportation infrastructure in this region worked both ways. That means not only do the Germans exhaust themselves just getting to the bulk of the Red Army over the horrendous roads and rails of eastern Poland/western Belarus with vastly fewer logistical, but they find a Red Army with even more operational tanks and planes then they had OTL.

The Soviet forces at the border OTL 1941 were at the end of an extremely tenuous logistics trail 800km long or more. They were in fact too far from their own logistic bases to be properly supported. This left them low on fuel and ammunition when the war began, with much of their equipment poorly maintained or inoperable. This was a significant factor in the Whermacht's easy destruction of so many Soviet armies. Forming the main defenses further east would considerably ease the strain on the rear services, and consequently would greatly increase the combat power of the supported formations, as well as allowing a larger number of them to fight effectively.

They may have less resources but will have enough resources to fight a short campaign with the USSR.

Fight it, sure. Win it? No. Do as well as they did OTL? No.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental problem with this scenario (ignoring any technical issues about the strength of German forces and so on) is that it only makes sense with hindsight. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of the time.

With hindsight on WW2, we see the USSR was Germany's main enemy/front. With hindsight on WW2, we see France was a relative push-over. With hindsight on WW2, we see the USSR was virtually undefeatable/unconquerable.

At the time, back in 1940: France was perceived to be Germany's main enemy/front (compare WW1).. Likewise, at the time, the French army was believed to be the strongest in Europe (compare WW1). Likewise, at the time, the USSR was perceived to be unstable and weak that would collapse if seriously attacked (think WW1 experience, the purges, the poor performance in the Winter War, the German assessment that the USSR would collapse in some unspecificied way if attacked hard-enough, the British & American assessment that the USSR would last 10 weeks, etc.)

Indeed, the military justification for Barbarossa, with its absurd geographical objectives (in retrospect), and its tacit assumption that the USSR would just collapse in some unspecified way after a few weeks, was the experience of the French campaign. The Germans had conquered their main enemy, with what was thought to be the toughest army, relatively easily, and now thought they were virtually invincible especially against a supposedly 2nd rate enemy such as Russia.
 
In April 1940, Germany invades the USSR. Finland signs an alliance and German troops attack Leningrad from Finland. The UK and France build up their forces and attack Germany in May 1941. The Germans use unrestricted submarine warfare in attempt to starve the British and French. The US declares war in September 1941. In August 1942, the AEF arrives in France. In February 1943, the WAllies take Berlin and Germany surrenders.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It'd be like A Blunted Sickle.

Except better for the Wallies, as the damage and disruption to Paris etc wouldnt have happened, as rather than the Heer being encircled in Paris etc, they'd be in eastern Poland and western Belarus finding out - again - just how slow it is to move artillery shells from rail depots to the front by horse is.
 
In April 1940, Germany invades the USSR.

If the Germans are dumb enough to attack in April then they deserve all the headaches which comes with attacking the Soviet Union at the height of the Spring Raputitsa. They would be so exhausted by the time they reach the Stalin line just moving eastward that they wouldn't even be able to penetrate it like they did in the scenario I painted last page.

Finland signs an alliance and German troops attack Leningrad from Finland.

At best (for the Germans), Finland's contribution is like OTL: mostly Finnish troops making limited advances that terminates at the pre-Winter War border. Then the Finns sue for peace as the war turns against the Germans and the Soviets obtain enough military power to crush them on the side and lose it all again, plus additional reparations.

At worse, the Finns remain completely neutral.

If Germany couldn't mount a major army through Finnish territory IOTL 1941, then they sure as hell can't ITTL 1940.

In August 1942, the AEF arrives in France. In February 1943, the WAllies take Berlin and Germany surrenders.

A hopelessly optimistic view, given that how badly the Germans are shooting themselves in the foot (the sudden and premature cessation of Soviet imports is going to hurt... how do you say "out of oil by next spring" in German?) and how much less damage they are going to be doing to the Sovs. The Germans are liable to be crumbling by the summer of '41 and it'll basically come down to a race between Anglo-French troops on the one hand and Soviet troops on the other. At the latest, Berlin falls to one or the other by the spring of '42.

as rather than the Heer being encircled in Paris etc, they'd be in eastern Poland and western Belarus finding out - again - just how slow it is to move artillery shells from rail depots to the front by horse is.

It's even worse then that, since the distances are much greater and the attendant infrastructure and terrain are much worse then what they found in Western Europe. So they get to find out how much extra time gets added to that by things like, for example, the wagon getting almost completely consumed by mud because a brief summer rainstorm turned the goat track your supply wagon had to go over into a temporary river.
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
A hopelessly optimistic view, given that how badly the Germans are shooting themselves in the foot (the sudden and premature cessation of Soviet imports is going to hurt... how do you say "out of oil by next spring" in German?) and how much less damage they are going to be doing to the Sovs. The Germans are liable to be crumbling by the summer of '41 and it'll basically come down to a race between Anglo-French troops on the one hand and Soviet troops on the other. At the latest, Berlin falls to one or the other by the spring of '42.

Rumanian oil exports to Germany listed here. Lets average it as 150 000 tons of oil a month.

http://www.ijssh.org/papers/255-S00048.pdf

Soviet exports of oil to Germany were approximately 150 000 tons a month.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

Thats very very bad.
 
Soviet exports of oil to Germany were approximately 150 000 tons a month.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

Thats very very bad.

Seems my memory is faulty: the Germans don't run out of oil until October 1941. They apparently run out of food by Spring of '41 though. Gonna have to genocide a whole lotta of people to keep the German homefront from starving. Although without the ability to coerce the Romanians into selling them oil at dirt cheap prices, that source is liable to be cut-off pretty rapidly too...

Running out of rubber and Manganese in '41 will also be positively murderous on their industrial production. Even as it was, Germany was teetering in 1940 and was only saved by the massive Soviet imports (that they never had to fully pay for) and the fall of France. Here they get neither.
 
Last edited:
Yes, really. They would have half the number of Panzer divisions (and half the number of tanks to boot), less then half the number of trucks, fewer support weapons, the quality of their own personnel and organization would be lower... the list is literally endless.

Actually not really. They don't have half the number of panzer divisions they have as you claim. In the invasion of France, they had 2,445 tanks which would include hundreds of more Italian tanks as they don't go to North Africa in this alternate scenario, compared to 3,350 tanks in Barbarossa. So while having less would be true, it is not as low as the number you suggest it to be. They had 7,378 guns in the invasion of France while they had 7,200 guns in the invasion of Barbarossa. So they didn't have as much support weapons either. The invasion of France started with 3.3 million troops while Barbarossa involved 3.8 million troops, so while they have less troops this will be greatly offset by the much higher amount of logistics they will be able to focus, such as not having condors for merchant shipping and being able to fuel more planes for Barbarossa. The quality of their personnel would not that much of a difference, as they had recovered for eight months from the victory of the Polish campaign, while the Soviets were still yearning from the Winter war and had still not reformed their leadership command in May 1940. Organization would be better considering they didn't have troops stretched across all of Europe and they have been able to improve their Siegfried line which would intimidate France even more and be able to focus their defenses would be of benefit to the Germans. Also my final point is that in the invasion of France they had 5,638 aircraft while in Barbarossa they had 2,770 aircraft. Considering they will have more bombers to disrupt infantry divisions and softening any defensive posts along with the hundreds other aircraft that will play a tactical role in reconnaissance. During Barbarossa, sometimes maps were not adequate to display the geography. This wasn't a strategic error but a series of tactical errors that may enabled them to have favorable battles. I would like for you elaborate on this endless list of issues they had before France.


ObssesedNuker said:
No, their shortage is vastly greater, as they don't have the huge masses of trucks they stripped out of Western Europe. The looting of France far outstripped the expenditures of all of those campaigns put together. Without it, the non-Panzer components of the Heer would have been completely demotorized and motorizing the non-divisional logistics, which was vital for sustaining the army away from their railheads, would have been impossible.

Hitler should have negotiations with Italy to help produce trucks for Barbarossa, with trucks stationed in Italy and Libya and Ethiopia with no involvement for soldiers. Germany can also focus on producing trucks and have more aircraft focused on transport role besides the bomber and recon roles, so considering that it will be a short campaign with an unprepared, embarrassed enemy. The Germans will be fresh and not have any huge losses they sustained from France, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.
So while they may have not as trucks as they would, they can have a higher emphasis on transport by ship and airplane and so this improve will their logistics better than before.



ObssesedNuker said:
Italy did not join the war until France was collapsing. It will be sitting out ITTL so whatever contribution they can make is irrellevant. You can also strike all the rest of the Axis minors, save for Slovakia, as they only wound-up hooking with the Germans because of the Fall of France.

Germany and Italy did have have been military allies since 1935. Also Mussolini himself wanted to avoid a war, so he can avoid any troops to be involved but he can supply the Germans. The Spanish sent soldiers of their own Blue Division, which numbered close to 50,000 troops, so why can't Italy focus on sending supplies for the Germans? I don't mind for the other axis states as they were mostly supplied with weapons by the Germans.



ObssesedNuker said:
Which is nothing new. The Soviets had been preparing for a war pretty much since it's foundation.


I am well aware of that, they had moved their factories to Urals in 1930's, but facing an enemy that is less prepared and not as competent will be less of a difficult task.



ObssesedNuker said:
None of which would bore fruit nor would have until 1942, had Barbarossa not occurred.

It did bear some fruit as they would have less resources to focus on destroying tanks and planes, will then be focused on having more to supply the Germans for any upcoming battles.

ObssesedNuker said:
Actually, its deployments in May 1940 are even better suited to stopping the German invasion then in June 1941 as the bulk of it's army is not piled up directly against the border but instead back along the Stalin line. At that distance, and given their vastly lowered resources, the German logistics tether would be stretched to snapping simply through the act of moving eastward.

If the Germans could stop the Maginot Line which had superior defenses and commanders compared the Stalin Line and it's militarily incompetent commanders, then there will not be any difference with the Stalin Line considering that it will consist of more obsolete fortifications and equipment which the Germans can encircle and destroy. The bulk of the armies defending against Germany will be hampered by the 200 plus bomber available and the higher amount of recon planes that the Germans will be to use to their advantage to plan for more efficient attacks against the Red Army.



ObssesedNuker said:
I don't know what bizzarro universe you are living in, but in 1940, as in 1941, the Soviet Union still disposed of the largest stock of tanks and aircraft in the world. In addition, without the redeployment towards 1941 frontier the Soviets would not have suffered the logistical dislocation they did OTL which badly compromised their ability to support their army along the frontier 1941 until they could rebuild the logistical net. The inadequate Soviet transportation infrastructure in this region worked both ways. That means not only do the Germans exhaust themselves just getting to the bulk of the Red Army over the horrendous roads and rails of eastern Poland/western Belarus with vastly fewer logistical, but they find a Red Army with even more operational tanks and planes then they had OTL.

The Soviet forces at the border OTL 1941 were at the end of an extremely tenuous logistics trail 800km long or more. They were in fact too far from their own logistic bases to be properly supported. This left them low on fuel and ammunition when the war began, with much of their equipment poorly maintained or inoperable. This was a significant factor in the Whermacht's easy destruction of so many Soviet armies. Forming the main defenses further east would considerably ease the strain on the rear services, and consequently would greatly increase the combat power of the supported formations, as well as allowing a larger number of them to fight effectively.

I guess the thousands of more number of tanks and planes don't seem to matter. The Germans will not have an issue with logistics as they will have higher numbers of planes and trucks to support them, considering supplies from Italy. Yes the Red Army may have more operational, but fewer tanks, in service. Meanwhile the Wehrmacht will have more operational bombers and recon planes to aid in this situation so there is a great benefit to the Germans.



ObssesedNuker said:
Fight it, sure. Win it? No. Do as well as they did OTL? No.

Considering that they were at the gates of Moscow in around five months, faced horrible rainfall which severely slowed their advance and winter which caused many horses to freeze to death and many vehicles and weapons inoperable, all while occupying France, Norway and facing battles against the British in North Africa all which took away soldiers, oil and steel for military vehicles that could have been used against Russia, than a quick victory in around four months with the capture of Moscow, would seem likely.
 
Garbage plan sees the Germans dying in droves in the mud in Russia, shortly followed by an invasion from the Western Allies. Hitler is shot in the face by his generals who try to negotiate their way out of the mess they've created.
 
Top