If The Soviets Flinched, What Then?

Let's say that the German advance makes the Soviets brown their pants so severely, that they beg for peace. That they're desperate enough to sign anything so long as they can continue existing . . . Even if it means they have to give up everything up to the Urals.

It can be any number of reasons. A Barbarossa that's somehow even more successful than it already was . . . Or I dunno . . . Stalin trips and bashes his skull open on a table or something, dying and causing political chaos.

It's an early knockout. Late 41, maybe Early 42. The point is, the Nazis were able to make the Soviets give up hope somehow.

---------------

How does the rest of the war play out?

Would the British at this point be even remotely likely to sign a peace treaty?

Would the Axis steamroll North Africa and the Middle East if the British keep going?

Or is this inevitably going to lead to Normandy: Atomic Edition?

So yeah. This is all just me wondering what happens if the Soviets get knocked out of the war early.
 
How does the rest of the war play out?

Would the British at this point be even remotely likely to sign a peace treaty?

Would the Axis steamroll North Africa and the Middle East if the British keep going?

Or is this inevitably going to lead to Normandy: Atomic Edition?

So yeah. This is all just me wondering what happens if the Soviets get knocked out of the war early.

Assuming that this happens (not even thinking about how) then that still leaves Germany at war with the United States and Britain.

North Africa will swing more and be of a different length, but the Germans still cannot supply their soldiers.

The Normandy front is another story. America will not invade in 1944. That is too early with the Soviets gone and thus no major second front. So, it all depends on how much Germany puts into the Luftwaffe. If enough fighters are produced the war will drag on for years, if not then America begins obliteration of Germany one city at a time in 1946 or so (not 1945 since the U.S. would want multiple bombs for this first attack.)
 
North Africa will swing more and be of a different length, but the Germans still cannot supply their soldiers.
There is the possibility that the Germans might push into the Middle East in an effort to support/broaden the North African front. With the USSR knocked out, it does seem reasonably likely that Turkey would reluctantly give in to any German ultimatum for free passage of troops and supplies.
 
Sort of overlooked this, but whatever . . . Maybe Spain might come in on the Axis' side?

Or even Vichy France goes for full blown participant?

-----------

I mean, if the Germans were able to swiftly knock out the Soviets that combined with their swift defeat of France . . . The Germans would surely look damn near invincible?

I imagine some people would align with the Axis if only because they think it's the winning team. Or like in that Turkey mention, they don't want the Axis kicking their teeth in.
 
The Sovs may be out for the moment licking their wounds but are the Germans going to be confident enough that the Sovs are out for good rather than just long enough to recover?

If so, then either the allies will face a much harder fight if they push into Europe proper (the Axis cannot put many more forces into Africa due to logistics issues and pushing down through Turkey will also have serious logicstical issues...) or the Nazis get a nasty suprise when the Sovs jump 'em from behind.
 
So no one thinks knocking the Soviets out early would lead to to some kind of Peace in Europe with Axis dominance, no matter how reluctantly, being acknowledged?

At least if the Axis pulls this off Pre-Pearl Harbor.
 
Assuming it happens (Luftwaffe catches Stalin unaware, Nazis take Moscow, fronts on verge of collapse, Molotov sues for peace etc) then its going to dramatically affect strategic thought

I still think Hitler is going to declare war on the USA...PROVIDED that Japan still attacks the USA. Its possible that a Soviet collapse, or the imminent likelihood of a Soviet collapse would lead them to re-evalue their options

I certainly see an expanded Axis, and there is probably gain in getting France to join, tho this is up to Hitler who vetoed the idea in OTL. Spain and Turkey are certainly likely signatories

A lot of the Wehrmacht is still going to be swallowed up occupying and pacifying the East but good fighting formations can be rotated out so there are significant reinforcements for the Western Desert

There are also less reasons for Britain to have hope, since they aren't helping the Soviets now and relying on what the Americans do. Without the USSR FDR's posiition of unconditional support for Britain's position might waver, especially if Japan appears willing to deal on the back of the Nazi victory

There is, IMHO something like a 25% chance of a general peace here

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think this would change U.S. strategic calculations tremendously. Assuming Hitler still declares war on the U.S. in this timeline(I think this questionable if he was just coming off his major victory of the war in Eastern Europe, and therefore NOT necessarily looking at a long war where he'd need Japan as an ally) there'd be no second front to take pressure off Anglo-American operations.

I'm not sure if the U.S. even bothers with a "Europe First" strategy since they'd probably regard the European War as being all but over with the Nazis victorious. They might decide to focus on Japan leaving Britain to make a negotiated peace with Germany.

Then after the U.S. defeats Japan, I see a potential Cold War developing between Nazi Germany and the U.S.
 
So no one thinks knocking the Soviets out early would lead to to some kind of Peace in Europe with Axis dominance, no matter how reluctantly, being acknowledged?

At least if the Axis pulls this off Pre-Pearl Harbor.
Well you'd think what's left of Europe would be ready to fight to the death once the Nazis continue the total genocide in Eastern Europe, especially in what used to be Russia. Hell, it's not like the Nazis could sent a whole lot of soldiers from the eastern front to the west, considering how many they need to hold Russia down and do their dirty work. Personally, I'd think the US would still enter the war and put even more attention to Europe.
 
In order to achieve peace in the east without conquest (I'd say conquest is ASB; Moscow is near the WESTERN edge of the USSR and the Germans barely got there IOTL), you need the following:

The USSR to offer to surrender. This won't happen with Stalin alive.
The Germans to accept the surrender. This won't happen with Hitler alive; he'd just take it as a sign of weakness and keep pushing.

IMO it would be barely possible for Germany to achieve a stalemate in the east without a peace treaty (perhaps a 10% chance). In this scenario the front would be fairly stable, much like a good chunk of WWI, for years. The Germans would develop the infrastructure to bring supplies to the front. Leningrad and Moscow would be in German hands; note that this makes the Baltic a Nazi lake on which supplies can easily be moved at will and virtually without escort, AND the only true rail hub in the USSR is in German hands.

I'd say the North Africa campaign never happens (Germany needs those resources to get into that 10% chance window). With active conflict ongoing in Russia Churchill remains PM in the UK, and the Pacific war goes pretty much as OTL. Since the bulk of Germany's forces are tied up in the east and there's no Africa campaign, I'd guess you'd see a southern Europe invasion in 1943, possibly a northern Europe invasion in 1945. Atomic weapons will probably be split between Germany and Japan.

The Warsaw Pact, as we know it, will never be formed; all of Europe will be in the western camp. The USSR will probably regain its 1938 borders and no more. No Soviet intervention in the Pacific means no divided Korea and no Korean war. The weaker Soviet diplomatic position might lead to them not being a permanent member of the UN security council. Without a need to counter the Soviets there is no real Cold War, which means a lot more minor brush wars but without 1st world backing.

My $0.01.
 

Markus

Banned
There is a problem. As long as Hitler thinks he is winning he will not offer any terms as he wanted to destroy the USSR, not just weaken it. And once the soviet leadership -I deliberatedly don´t say "Stalin"- realizes the USSR can survive, they will not offer any terms.
 
Well the Germans would need to offer a peace that allows the U.S.S.R to retain it's core Russian lands. Otherwise the Soviets have nothing to lose.
 

Thande

Donor
Stalin did offer Hitler very generous terms three times, including Brest-Litovsk borders, but Hitler was ideologically committed to the total annihilation of the USSR. I get annoyed myself sometimes when people exaggerate how ideologically driven the Nazis were - they were fully capable of being pragmatic and realpoliticky at times - but it was certainly true in this case.
 
Stalin did offer Hitler very generous terms three times, including Brest-Litovsk borders, but Hitler was ideologically committed to the total annihilation of the USSR. I get annoyed myself sometimes when people exaggerate how ideologically driven the Nazis were - they were fully capable of being pragmatic and realpoliticky at times - but it was certainly true in this case.

Is there any evidence this was more than a tactical probe to gauge the German commitment? He offered the B-L borders only once, when the Germans were about ten miles from Moscow. Any peace-feelers after that don’t strike me as genuine offers.

If nothing else the Nazi’s were totally discredited as far diplomatic assurances were concerned. So any deal with them would never extend beyond a momentary expedient to allow the Red Army to stabilize a troublesome situation.

I'm sure Stalin would enjoy backstabbing Hitler through...:D
 
Top