Is Nazi Victory ASB?

Wolf1965

Donor
The Nazis rule the world scenario is totally ASB agreed. But something close to Hitlers goals could be achived with a numer of not-so-ASB POD`s:

- Poland decides that if you cannot beat them you join them: Given that they see the Soviet Union as the biggest enemy, had their last war with them and see the USSR as occupying some of their history territory.
Also the gouvernment of Poland was not so far from authoritarian itself.
Hitler sees this as a chance to get his war for Lebensraum without angering the Western Powers any more so he agrees (and of course plans to gobble up Poland when the time is right)
This is not any more ASB then the non-agression act Germany had with the USSR.

- without the occupation of the Baltic states there is no Finland war and the Red Army does not find out how very much it sucks

- The Designer of the T-34 falls prey to the politics which nearly claimed him in OTL and the T-34 is redesigned with a 107mm Cannon,making a great all-round tank slow and unwieldy without a better ability to kill German tanks

- Mussolini has a stroke, so the war with Greece and Albania does not happen

So, in 1941 the Wehrmacht together with their Polish, Hungarian and Rumanian allies attack Russia at a time of their choosing.

The Red army perform at the level they did in Finland 1940 OT, which is to say extremly badly.

As the campaign starts 6 weeks earlier than OT Winter for real only sets in when Moskwa is under Siege, cutting the rail lines between many theaters of war, also killing morale on Soviet Side badly

The Western Allies see all of this as a favourable developement as they view Stalin at least as badly as Hitler. No Bombing of German cities, no lend-lease.

A lucky shot by a "Gamma-Geraet" (42cm Howitzer) hits Stalins bunker and kills him-as his sucession is not entirely clear infighting between the KWD and the Army decreases Soviet defence abilities further.

The Japanese decide that instead of waking the sleeping Giant they can kick the guy on the ground and attack a depleted Siberian army. While they bog down after a while they bind tropps that could be used elsewhere.

End result: Germany manages to occpy large parts of the USSR. Hitler is totally absorbed trying to implement the policies he dreamt so much about, but it is a morass-any gains are bought at terrible costs, both casualties and money.
His empire crumbles a few years after his death.

All of the above is unlikely, maybe a little more then OT. It is also not desirable-but not ASB
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Depends on the extent of the victory, for me the following are certainly not ASB.

Somebody else other than Winston Churchill being British Prime Minister, would have meant Britain would have decided make a settlement with Nazi Germany. Britain would have kept her empire, while recognizing German superiority over European continent.

Combine that with a better strategy in Operation Barbarossa, Germany conquerors all the way to the Urals. Stalin's regime would have very likely fallen apart, if say Moscow had been captured.

If that is not a Nazi victory, I don't know what is.
 
The Nazis rule the world scenario is totally ASB agreed. But something close to Hitlers goals could be achived with a numer of not-so-ASB POD`s:

- Poland decides that if you cannot beat them you join them: Given that they see the Soviet Union as the biggest enemy, had their last war with them and see the USSR as occupying some of their history territory.
Also the gouvernment of Poland was not so far from authoritarian itself.
Hitler sees this as a chance to get his war for Lebensraum without angering the Western Powers any more so he agrees (and of course plans to gobble up Poland when the time is right)

This is not any more ASB then the non-agression act Germany had with the USSR.

Except that Hitler wants Poland now, and doesn't think that angering the western powers is an issue, and that being authoritarian doesn't mean pro-Nazi.

And making a nonaggression pact with the strong USSR is not the same as making one with weak Poland.

- without the occupation of the Baltic states there is no Finland war and the Red Army does not find out how very much it sucks

Why is there no such occupation again?

- The Designer of the T-34 falls prey to the politics which nearly claimed him in OTL and the T-34 is redesigned with a 107mm Cannon,making a great all-round tank slow and unwieldy without a better ability to kill German tanks

Why would it be redesigned with a 107mm cannon this timeline? It's not impossible, but it's not a given.

- Mussolini has a stroke, so the war with Greece and Albania does not happen

Why does him having a stroke mean that it doesn't happen?

So, in 1941 the Wehrmacht together with their Polish, Hungarian and Rumanian allies attack Russia at a time of their choosing.

So this scenario, which has failed to address the basis for why Poland would join the Axis, continues to stumble along with the USSR and the rest of the world being told that it will hold the idiot ball and it will like it.

The Red army perform at the level they did in Finland 1940 OT, which is to say extremly badly.

Despite conditions being different than in Finland in 1940 OTL.

As the campaign starts 6 weeks earlier than OT Winter for real only sets in when Moskwa is under Siege, cutting the rail lines between many theaters of war, also killing morale on Soviet Side badly

Wait, why is it starting earlier? Why is it cutting rail lines? Why is it killing morale on the Soviet side?

None of this makes sense.

The Western Allies see all of this as a favourable developement as they view Stalin at least as badly as Hitler. No Bombing of German cities, no lend-lease.

Not a given.

A lucky shot by a "Gamma-Geraet" (42cm Howitzer) hits Stalins bunker and kills him-as his sucession is not entirely clear infighting between the KWD and the Army decreases Soviet defence abilities further.

Is Stalin's bunker in range of a 42cm howitzer?

The Japanese decide that instead of waking the sleeping Giant they can kick the guy on the ground and attack a depleted Siberian army. While they bog down after a while they bind tropps that could be used elsewhere.

What depleted Siberian army? As others have noted, the troops that went west were from Central Asia, not near Japan.

And why are they fighting in Russia when their objectives lay elsewhere?

End result: Germany manages to occpy large parts of the USSR. Hitler is totally absorbed trying to implement the policies he dreamt so much about, but it is a morass-any gains are bought at terrible costs, both casualties and money.
His empire crumbles a few years after his death.

All of the above is unlikely, maybe a little more then OT. It is also not desirable-but not ASB

Unlikely would be any one of those, at best. All of those together is beyond unlikely.


Teejay:

1) Why would no one other than Churchill oppose Hitler again?

2) How again is capturing Moscow going to make the USSR fall apart, if the Wehrmacht is even capable of that?
 
A lucky shot by a "Gamma-Geraet" (42cm Howitzer) hits Stalins bunker and kills him-as his sucession is not entirely clear infighting between the KWD and the Army decreases Soviet defence abilities further.
Note that when he actually DID die, there was an unclear succession as well, and yet the USSR did not crumble.

The Japanese decide that instead of waking the sleeping Giant they can kick the guy on the ground and attack a depleted Siberian army. While they bog down after a while they bind tropps that could be used elsewhere.

Elfwine has already pointed out that they had no objective there and that the USSR's forces in Siberia were NOT depleted. To this I will add that those forces were far superior to the Japanese army in China. The Japanese would have gone into a scenario for which "meat grinder" is too small of a word. Have you ever seen a video of a bird being sucked through a jet engine?
 
And that's assuming that the Germans can get thing things to go where they want them to go, be nice to fire the dozen rounds you have to hand and still miss because you forgot to calculate for wind speed, and took so long reloading that he was out by the time the seconds shot was on its way.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Teejay:

1) Why would no one other than Churchill oppose Hitler again?

2) How again is capturing Moscow going to make the USSR fall apart, if the Wehrmacht is even capable of that?

Firstly,
Winston Churchill was wild eyed romantic with a tendency for ideas which often turned out to be terrible. For example; in World War One as First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill was a primer mover behind the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, which damaged his careers, not to mention lead 140,000 Allied casualties.

In 1940 to people who weren't Winston Church, the whole idea of Britain standing up alone to the Germans was seen as insane. So more "sensible" people thought that Britain could make a settlement with Nazi Germany. Also the Nazis would be happy to agree to such a settlement so long as their domination of the European Continent was recognized.

In that TL, it is unlikely Pearl Harbour would have never happened, which forced America to enter World War 2. There might have been a latter war between the USA and Nazi Europe, prehaps.

Secondly, Instead of advancing a certain extent, pausing to reinforce supply lines and then advancing again. That alone would have helped the Germans immensely, once the Soviets managed to seriously try turning back the German advance.

Mind you if Operation Barbarossa had started in May as scheduled instead of June, the Nazis could have conquered all the way to the Ural Mountains before winter set in. That was because Soviet Resistance initially was extremely weak and not to mention a lot of people initially welcomed the Nazis as Liberators!. The Nazis capturing Moscow could have triggered a collapse of the Soviet regime quite easily.
 
Mind you if Operation Barbarossa had started in May as scheduled instead of June, the Nazis could have conquered all the way to the Ural Mountains before winter set in. That was because Soviet Resistance initially was extremely weak and not to mention a lot of people initially welcomed the Nazis as Liberators!. The Nazis capturing Moscow could have triggered a collapse of the Soviet regime quite easily.

Operation Barbarossa couldn't have started in May because the roads were still muddy. IIRC the Rasputitsa in 1941 lasted a bit longer than usual.

Secondly, to reach Moscow, the Germans went way beyond what their logistics capacity allowed for. Capturing Moscow, unless Soviets left it undefended (fat chance), is simply not within their physical capability. Even starting in May, autumn rain will still probably stall their advance well before Moscow anyway. Barbarossa is ruled by logistics and it failed on logistics.

Nazi will never be welcomed as liberators for very long. The way Barbarossa was planned, any German pretense to be liberators will end soon. They had no way to feed their forces (literally feed, as in providing food) unless they robbed local populations almost entirely. Even without SS atrocities, the the image of 'liberators' will wane pretty quickly.

Slower and more deliberate Barbarossa only leads to leaving the Soviets more time to reorganize and regroup. Relentless blows coming one after the other was what hammered the Red Army back to Moscow. Initial victories led Germans (from top to bottom) to believe that one more hard blow will be decisive. Since the catastrophes of the summer 1941 didn't cause the Soviets to collapse all together, nothing else could.
 
Last edited:
Firstly,
Winston Churchill was wild eyed romantic with a tendency for ideas which often turned out to be terrible. For example; in World War One as First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill was a primer mover behind the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, which damaged his careers, not to mention lead 140,000 Allied casualties.

In 1940 to people who weren't Winston Church, the whole idea of Britain standing up alone to the Germans was seen as insane. So more "sensible" people thought that Britain could make a settlement with Nazi Germany. Also the Nazis would be happy to agree to such a settlement so long as their domination of the European Continent was recognized.

That's a wild exaggeration. Had the opposition to continuing been as great as you suggest Churchill would have been forced out and replaced by one of those 'sensible' people. And as to those sensible people they may have imagined that they could make a deal with Hitler but they would have run into one insurmountable roadblock; that is that Hitler had broken every promise he had made to the British, how would they have sold parliament on it being different this time?

The notion of some sort of acceptable deal with the Nazi's was a fantasy and most of the political class and ordinary citizens knew it. Britain fought on because there was no alternative, not because of a few stirring speeches.
 
Mind you if Operation Barbarossa had started in May as scheduled instead of June, the Nazis could have conquered all the way to the Ural Mountains before winter set in. That was because Soviet Resistance initially was extremely weak and not to mention a lot of people initially welcomed the Nazis as Liberators!. The Nazis capturing Moscow could have triggered a collapse of the Soviet regime quite easily.

Okay now:

Moscow to say, Perm (a big center in the *Urals), or Ufa (if you want the Steppe route) is about the same as Moscow to Warsaw. Which by itself is farther away than Berlin to Paris.

Think about what you're proposing there in a space of 2 more months.

(and for the fans of "Japan attacks during Barbarossa" - Harbin to Irkutsk is about the same as Warsaw to Perm. With only one railway connecting. So think on that.)
 
Last edited:
Mind you if Operation Barbarossa had started in May as scheduled instead of June, the Nazis could have conquered all the way to the Ural Mountains before winter set in.
No, it would have gone worse than OTL because:

1) Spring mud.
2) Red Army more prepared.
 
Top