How would The Reich fare against USSR without Axis troops?

Finland in the axis? Since when?

Finland was never a member of the Axis, they were co-belligerent. Maybe only a minor distinction but it is an important one.

So if we go by OP, Finland still fights the USSR as they never were an axis member.

In retrospect, it can be said that the attempt to create an illusion that Finland was not an actual German ally but was rather constantly sitting on the fence, as it were, was a very successful policy during the war and in its aftermath. But we would do well to remember that it was a deliberately crafted, purpose-built argument aimed to further the goals of the Finnish wartime leadership (and the nation), to make Finland seem "almost neutral", not something borne out of neutral historical analysis.

Historiographical thought in Finland has recently been coming around to abandon the idea of "co-belligerence" or the theory of Finland fighting "a separate war" as as a political and ideological invention that was used to try and soften the negative international consequences of Finland going against the Allies, created especially for the benefit of the United States and the USSR. In 2008, 16 of 28 (57%) Finnish history professors polled agreed that there are no grounds for talking about a separate war. Only six (21%) supported the old thesis. I'd say such numbers would be even stronger for accepting the relationship with Germany as an alliance today, considering that especially the younger generations of history professionals seem to be ready to ditch the idea of a separate war, while those who hang on to the concept are older people who do it out of habit.

Finland was a minor German ally, and as such can be considered as a member of the Axis in broad terms. Even if it had a lot of leeway in its relations with Germany, in comparison to other minor German allies, it still was a combatant on the German side that was even materially dependent on Germany to keep up its war affort against the USSR, limited and mainly based on its own needs as that effort was.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not sure why they wouldn't, but assuming all else is the same as IOTL other than that Germany is at a major deficit in 1941 which could seriously alter things in Ukraine, especially if Romania doesn't allow German troops into its country. They can weight up the South Poland advance, but that is not necessarily going to counter that extra Soviet troops that can then fight them...of course assuming them don't leave those guys defending the Romanian border just in case or try and attack Romania to mess up its oil.

Obsessednuker is right for once :p
Without Axis minor help Uman might not happen, but I still think something like Kiev would. But it would be impossible to get to Rostov in 1941 and the campaign against Crimea would take longer to start and be a lot harder with fewer boots on the ground. Soviet counterattacks there will have an easier time finding gaps to probe come the winter.

1942 will be very different, there is no way the Germans are able to advance into the Caucasus due to lack of manpower; not sure how Hitler would handle that, as he said he must stop the war without Caucasian oil before the campaign started. Basically the entire war changes.
 
For comparison:

At the start of Barbarossa the composition was the following:

Army Group North: 21 ID, 3 PZ, 2 SS, 3 Security Div
Army Group Center: 32 ID, 9 PZ, 1 SS, 1CAV + IR Grossdeutschland
Army Group South: 30 ID, 5 PZ, 2 SS

In Addition AGS had
Hungarian 2 I Brig 1 Cav Brig
Slovak 1 Mobile Brig, 2 ID
Italian 2 ID 1Cav D
Romanian 14 ID 1PZ, 3Cav Brig, 3 Mountain Brig, 2 Brig Fortress Troops

The only significant contribution came from the Romanians

That's, indeed, for Barbarossa, meaning 1941. More Italian aned Hungarian troops arrived for 1942.

I'll add that I'm surprised about the claims (not posted by you) that these troops mainly did rear-area security and/or did not acquit themselves well. The idea that these non-German regular units could be efficiently replaced at the time of Stalingrad with "crack SS divisions" is particularly surprising.
 

Rubicon

Banned
In retrospect, it can be said that the attempt to create an illusion that Finland was not an actual German ally but was rather constantly sitting on the fence, as it were, was a very successful policy during the war and in its aftermath. But we would do well to remember that it was a deliberately crafted, purpose-built argument aimed to further the goals of the Finnish wartime leadership (and the nation), to make Finland seem "almost neutral", not something borne out of neutral historical analysis.

Historiographical thought in Finland has recently been coming around to abandon the idea of "co-belligerence" or the theory of Finland fighting "a separate war" as as a political and ideological invention that was used to try and soften the negative international consequences of Finland going against the Allies, created especially for the benefit of the United States and the USSR. In 2008, 16 of 28 (57%) Finnish history professors polled agreed that there are no grounds for talking about a separate war. Only six (21%) supported the old thesis. I'd say such numbers would be even stronger for accepting the relationship with Germany as an alliance today, considering that especially the younger generations of history professionals seem to be ready to ditch the idea of a separate war, while those who hang on to the concept are older people who do it out of habit.

Finland was a minor German ally, and as such can be considered as a member of the Axis in broad terms. Even if it had a lot of leeway in its relations with Germany, in comparison to other minor German allies, it still was a combatant on the German side that was even materially dependent on Germany to keep up its war affort against the USSR, limited and mainly based on its own needs as that effort was.

I'm not saying that Finland didn't fight on Germanys side, I'm arguing that Finland wasn't a de Jure ally to Germany, which means calling Finland a German ally or a member of the axis is false.

De Facto on the other hand is a completely different matter. I'm not arguing about that.
 
I'm not saying that Finland didn't fight on Germanys side, I'm arguing that Finland wasn't a de Jure ally to Germany, which means calling Finland a German ally or a member of the axis is false.

De Facto on the other hand is a completely different matter. I'm not arguing about that.

It all comes down to what do we talk about when we say "Axis"? Is it the broad meaning of "Nazi Germany and its allies, and the clients and puppets of Nazi Germany and its allies", or is it the limited meaning of "signatories of the Tripartite Pact", doesn't it?

To me it seems that on this forum it is commonplace to use "Axis" more often as according to the first meaning, as a general catch-all term of Hitler's Germany and its allies, etc. And if "Axis" is used that way, then one should say that "Finland was part of the Axis".

You are right in that, technically, Finland was not a member of the Axis if it is understood as in the latter meaning, though some might point out that in that case, Finland should be considered a de jure German ally at least between June 26th 1944 and July 31st 1944, after President Risto Ryti had personally pledged, as the President of the Republic, not to make a peace with the USSR without German acceptance, in a letter to Hitler, a pledge that Ryti, Mannerheim and the Finnish cabinet at least considered binding as long as Ryti was president - it is commonly called "the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement". And then, of course, there are those who like to disregard this "Agreement" as nothing more than a cynical ruse that was never even meant to be binding in any way, and ineffectual even in its goal to keep German weapons and material flowing to Finland through the critical days of Summer 1944...

Generally, though, when talking about Finland and Germany in WWII, I like to just talk about Germany and its allies, and avoid the word "Axis" as much as possible. Like we can see in this discussion, it only tends to make things more complicated.:)
 
Short answer: Worse.

Long answer: Romanians and Hungarians were used on the southern front to guard the flanks of Wehrmacht and W-SS forces, without those Romanian, Hungarian and to a lesser extend Slovakian forces to guard the flanks and rear of German units the OKW will have to shift german forces from either the west, Norway or somewhere else to the eastern front. Those forces don't exist. Germany was already spread thin on the eastern front and will have to resort to either recruiting more volunteers from the occupied territories (ROA/more Waffen-SS units) or extend mobilisation to older and younger people, which will harm the economy and the moral on the homefront.

To have a "Succesfull" (not worse then OTL) Barbarossa they would need a change of tactics and strategy from the planing phase of Barbarossa up to it's medium phase. Instead of trying to copy the Blitzkrieg success the Wehrmacht had in the Poland campaign, they would have to resort to WW1 tactics in the second phase of Barbarossa and plan of a at leat 4 year lasting war.

After the initial rapid advance of OTL they should advance to the frontlines of OTL September 9th and then digg in and prepare for attrition warfare similar to WW1 with defense in depth.
 
Generally, though, when talking about Finland and Germany in WWII, I like to just talk about Germany and its allies, and avoid the word "Axis" as much as possible. Like we can see in this discussion, it only tends to make things more complicated.:)

I wish people who so strongly deny the fact that Finland and Germany were firmly allied (although Finland was most unruly and unreliable ally for Hitler) would take a closer look to the way people living at that time and making the key decisions viewed things. To them, the Finno-German alliance was both obvious and logical.
 
Top