Leningrad Fall 1941, effects on Eastern Front?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 1487

What happens if Leningrad is captured by mid-September 1941? What effects would it have on the wider war? Let's assume that after capturing it AGN isn't in a position to do more other than hold the outside the city and occupy it. The Finns contribute some to the occupation of the city, while freeing up several divisions for use against Murmansk/the railway out of the city. Logistically the city is open for business, though some mines need to be cleared, and Germany mostly captures shipping intact in the city. How quickly could it be made a major link in the supply chain after capture and how do the Soviet react to its loss?

I assume there is no thrust at Tikhvin later in 1941, due to Leningrad falling, so AGN sits tight after occupying the city for the rest of the year. I don't think that enough would change quickly enough to affect the push on Moscow, so that goes the same, but probably by September there is winter clothing flowing through Leningrad's port to supply AGN and AGC. Does this mean Murmansk falls in 1941 or 42? Can the Soviets take back the city by 1944?
 
I think in time it could have tremendous consequences. Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg is a historic and soviet hartland of the USSR. And also a transportation hub. So Stalin could be "forced" to retake it. And in late 41 early 42 the Red Army was less able to push the Wehrmacht back.
So if Stalin gets boged down in repeated assaults towards Leningrad, the whole curse of the Eastern War could change. As the Germans could theoreticaly push supplies through and hold the city.

And the rest are butterflies!
 
I think in time it could have tremendous consequences. Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg is a historic and soviet hartland of the USSR. And also a transportation hub. So Stalin could be "forced" to retake it. And in late 41 early 42 the Red Army was less able to push the Wehrmacht back.
So if Stalin gets boged down in repeated assaults towards Leningrad, the whole curse of the Eastern War could change. As the Germans could theoreticaly push supplies through and hold the city.

And the rest are butterflies!

then would the 2nd Shock Army just get thrown at the Germans near Lennigrad, like OTL?
 
1) I am thinking that this all has to help 16th army hold around Demaynsk in the January 1942, maybe butterflying away the airlift.

2) Also thinking that the sea lanes whould be hard to open very early, the Soviets might not evacuate Hanko (where would they go) and Kronstadt might not fall for a while after Leningrad, things would be iced up in the winter.

3) This would have to free up Finnish forces and political will to at least attack and cut the Murmansk railway in 1942, unsure if that means Murmansk falls since the Soviets might try to supply it some by sea or across ice or the west might try to supply it. But anyway considerable butterflies means no Battle of the Barents sea and no scrap the fleet order, Raeder still in charge, etc...

4) OTL the Soviets reinforced the Volkov front some in late 41-early 42 trying to break the ring around the city, keep the ice road open. There would be no need to do that here. Such reinforcements could go into stopping Typhoon and the winter counterattack.

5) Its a considerable prestige objective the Germans have captured, lots of Neutral consulates in the city, which has to have some effect on Sweden especially, and among the German clients like Vichy France. Conversly the suffering of its population would be well noted by the neutral consulates.
 

Goatseman

Banned
Didn't the US pressure the Finns not to attack the Soviet railway or something? How strong would that political pressure be now? (The 'political will' the other guy mentioned)

Also, if Leningrad Falls, the Soviet Union gets angrier and prolly more of Germany and maybe all of Finland because the Finns were complicit in the 'rape of Leningrad'
 
It is unlikely that the Finns would take part in the occupation of Leningrad - ITTL, as well as IOTL, Mannerheim will have no part in what the Germans do to the city. The old Marshal would resign before he orders Finnish troops into the city - something the government can't afford, even for reasons of national morale. And of course the British and the Americans would take a very dim view on active Finnish participation in taking of the city - an American DOW on Finland might well be in the cards just because of this move.

There is a very concrete reason for Finns not to take part, too: by moving in they would assume a responsibility of a part of the inhabitants of the city. Finland can't afford that, as it can not feed or look after the Soviet citizens, and the Finnish government has a pretty clear understanding about what the Germans will do to the Soviets on their side.

It is true that with the Germans in control of Leningrad, Finnish troops are freed up from the Karelian isthmus. But in 1941 Finland was indeed wary of going against the Murmansk railway, because any overt action in this direction was also expected to cause problems with the Western Allies - in mid-November the Finnish HQ in fact (unofficially) ordered all attacks towards the railway stopped, apparently because of Allied political pressure.

Still the southern part of the railway was controlled by the Finns in 1941-44 - it didn't stop the Soviets using the railway, though, because another branch was completed in the fall of 1941 to go around that bit. And several sabotage operations were mounted by small Finnish units against the more northern parts of the railway, in cooperation with the Germans - the line was drawn into actually trying to permanently cut it.

Most of the Finnish troops freed on the Isthmus would be most likely sent to Eastern Karelia north of the Ladoga, to take part in the last offensive operations in October-December 1941, and then to bolster the defensive lines there, or demobbed to help with the labor shortage on the home front and to save precious resources.

Some Finnish troops could be sent to help in a renewed operation towards Murmansk in 1942 (it would be too late to do that in what remains of 1941), though the problems up north would be the same as in 1941 - as Lapland had been agreed to be in the German purview, the Germans would have to supply most of the troops and resources, and Unternehmen Silberfuchs had failed due to the German inability to mount a successful attack in the sub-Arctic conditions. Even having more troops to use might not help, as the conditions put a distinct cap on how big a force can be supplied adequately in this mostly unpassable, roadless wilderness where the defender has a pronounced advantage even with limited troops.
 
Last edited:
If Leningrad falls early, it is likely that the Demyansk Pocket will be relieved earlier than it was IOTL. The extra troops available who would have been otherwise occupied blockading Leningrad could have been used to allow the trapped German troops to breakout earlier, possibly negating the need for a major aerial re-supply effort.

The long term effects of such an outcome would be mixed for both sides. On the one hand the Soviets might not expend so many men and aircraft attempting in a futile attempt to capture a German army. On the other hand, an attack further south may have had even less success, and adding a few more divisions to attack the Rzhev salient will probably not not effect the outcome of that battle in 1942.

For the Germans, the Luftwaffe may not get a chance to "prove" that an army can be resupplied by air. This will also avoid losing several hundred aircraft that were downed during the re-supply effort IOTL.

As for Leningrad itself, if the Germans manage to repair the rail lines in a timely manner, they would be able to more quickly supply Army Group North, perhaps allowing for another offensive. Were there any serious German plans drawn up for a 1942 offensive directed towards the Northern, rather than the Southern Front?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

For the Germans, the Luftwaffe may not get a chance to "prove" that an army can be resupplied by air. This will also avoid losing several hundred aircraft that were downed during the re-supply effort IOTL.
There is still the Kholm pocket.
Edit:
That would be butterflied away too...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_um_Cholm

As for Leningrad itself, if the Germans manage to repair the rail lines in a timely manner, they would be able to more quickly supply Army Group North, perhaps allowing for another offensive. Were there any serious German plans drawn up for a 1942 offensive directed towards the Northern, rather than the Southern Front?
Not that I'm aware of. A 1942 offensive though would have the benefit of the 11th army, won't be sent to AGN.
 

Rubicon

Banned
You can actually up the fall of Leningrad to late July/early August -41 without much difficulty.

1. Change commander of HG Nord from Wilhelm von Leeb to for instance Günther von Kluge. More aggressive and with a much better understanding of mechanised warfare.

2. No DAK. 5. Leichte and 15. Panzer-Divisions (with attached units) form a 3rd Panzer-Korps for 4. Panzer-Gruppe.

3. Ambhibious landings at Ösel and Dagö, followed by a landing at Talinn early to cut of the retreat of Red Army forces and to ensure an better supply line. Perhaps supported by the brand-spanking-new battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen instead of sending them on a useless trip around the British isles.
 
If Soviet Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, Commander of the Leningrad Front at the NorthWestern Direction starts his planned demolitions of Leningrad's fortifications and demonish military installations on Sept 8th ,1941 and he receives no countermand orders from either Stalin or Zhukov, whom was ordered to relieve Voroshilov and defend Leningrad and instead his plane is either delayed or shot down by the Luftwaffe....

Then Marshal Voroshilov might continue with the destruction of all of Leningrad's infrastructure to deny them to Army Group North's thrust into his city and possibly that cause the civilians and elements of his military forces to start leaving the city either via the lake or a rush toward the last narrow corridor East of Leningrad and maybe start the rout of the Southern Defense points and Von Leeb's panzers can start their rush into the Suburbs of the city....

meh...
 
Demyansk might actually end up worse than OTL. If German troops holding Leningrad go to Moscow (Very likely, I believe) than immediate reserves will be lacking. And the Red Army deployed multple new armies to Leningrad during this period which could have been used for Toropets-Kholm and reducing the pocket. IOTL the Red Army lacked the strength to do so, but add in an extra army or two and it likely surrenders en masse. So on one hand the Red Army losses thousands of men and people along with a major city (Not much important industry), but wins an even larger victory against 16th Army/Toropets-Kholm and doesn't spend the next year trying to reduce the pocket.
 
Typhoon

Typhoon would be different if Leningrad was captured mid-Sept. With Leningrad as a rail hub receiving at least some supplies by sea, 4th PzG would not be moved by rail starting 18 Sep but instead would proceed down the Leningrad-Moscow railway going through Vishniy Volochek. That in turn would mean 3rd PzG would be deployed differently.

Don't see this being enough for the Germans to win at Moscow but it would create large butterflies so that the early 1942 pockets will probably be in different places.
 
Typhoon would be different if Leningrad was captured mid-Sept. With Leningrad as a rail hub receiving at least some supplies by sea, 4th PzG would not be moved by rail starting 18 Sep but instead would proceed down the Leningrad-Moscow railway going through Vishniy Volochek.

How does capturing Leningrad suddenly make the Soviet rail net usable for the Germans? Did you forget that the Soviets and the Germans used completely different rail gauges? The German rail repair crews were pretty much moving as fast as they could IOTL and never were able to really switch things over to fully meet their needs...
 

katchen

Banned
Would taking Leningrad free up German troops to advance from Rzhev to Kalinin (Tver), Yaroslav, and circling to the east of Moscow, take Vladimir and or Oreknov and or Zuyevo or possibly even all the way to Gorkiy along the upper Volga, leaving Moscow and it's defenders in a pocket in danger of encirclement as Kiev was?
If this can be done, there's a lot of Russian industry in this central area between Moscow and Gorkiy that can either be put out of commission or forced to relocate to Siberia too.
 
One possibility could be replacing von Leeb as commander of AGN, or having him not halt the 4th Panzer Group outside Riga. AGN gets a Kesselschlacht (which it did not IOTL), and will likely run into little resistance on the Luga River (the Luga defense line held AGN for about a month, as the troops that escaped encirclement at Riga were able to fall back in an orderly fashion).

ITTL, the Germans advance to the approaches of Leningrad, Hanko falls, Kliment Voroshilov likely carries out demolitions and abandons the city. Kronstadt will likely remain in Soviet hands, but I can't see it remaining that way for more than a few months. The Finns and the Germans now have larger forces with which to attack the soviets in the Karelia region. The Finns (along with German support), will probably take Murmansk, but IDK for sure; the Soviets were able to defend it well IOTL, and the Germans were woefully unprepared for Winter/Mountain Warfare. Instead of advancing on Tikvin as IOTL, the Germans will probably hug the shore of Lake Ladoga, advancing up to the Svir River, thus linking the Finnish and German Frontlines.

To the south, 3rd panzer group and the 16th army advance north of AGC, and with the 18th army not tied down by Leningrad, the 16th army could come closer to reaching its' goal of the Valdai Hills, putting it in a much better position that IOTL for the Winter Counteroffensive, which will take place with somewhat more forces (not tied down attacking the Germans at Leningrad), but at the same time, the offensive will have a much wider scope, which could be a good thing or a bad thing.

If the Germans and the Finns can take Murmansk, they sever one of the most important links to Lend-Lease supplies (which were VERY important to the Red Army in the wake of Barbarossa). If they can sever the land connections between the Red Army in the Karelia, and the Kola peninsula, then they have the potential to threaten Archangelsk.

This opens up the potential for joint German-Finnish operations in Northern Russia, potentially into 1942-43, which would likely affect operations in the south, as the soviets will have to devote more troops to this sector. Besides delaying the fighting on the Eastern Front, the result of Leningrad falling could also be that the Allies (ESPECIALLY the Soviets), are much harsher on the Finns after the war, than IOTL.

Of course, this scenario involves a copious amount of "Ifs", and if there's one thing Robbie Burns had taught me, it's that "the best laid plans of mice and men, often go awry".
 
If the Germans and the Finns can take Murmansk, they sever one of the most important links to Lend-Lease supplies (which were VERY important to the Red Army in the wake of Barbarossa). If they can sever the land connections between the Red Army in the Karelia, and the Kola peninsula, then they have the potential to threaten Archangelsk.

This opens up the potential for joint German-Finnish operations in Northern Russia, potentially into 1942-43, which would likely affect operations in the south, as the soviets will have to devote more troops to this sector.

As I pointed out above, the problem with this line of reasoning regarding Finland is, exactly as you say:

Besides delaying the fighting on the Eastern Front, the result of Leningrad falling could also be that the Allies (ESPECIALLY the Soviets), are much harsher on the Finns after the war, than IOTL.

IOTL, the Finns avoided going too far in their support to the Germans to avoid the wrath of the Allies. ITTL, they will subscribe to this policy as well, as long as it seems that there is a realistic chance of the USSR rebounding. Remember that the Germans IOTL had some pretty impressive victories in the beginning of Barbarossa - and the Finns still didn't go against Leningrad, at all, or even the Murmansk railway or Murmansk itself with serious forces, because of a political decision between the government and Mannerheim to hold back. ITTL, the fact that Leningrad fell would not in itself reverse this policy, being just another of these early German victories, even if the most significant of them.

So I believe the basic setup after late 1941 would be, as IOTL, the Germans pushing the Finns to support them more openly, and the Finns opposing this by various pretexts, while holding on to the argument that they have already kept their side of the bargain by conquering the agreed part of Karelia and supporting the Germans in the north. Lappland, the Finns would point out, had been agreed to be a German show, Eastern Karelia the Finnish responsibility. In any attacks against Murmansk the Finns would take part in just a supporting role.

As long as the USSR seems to stay in the fight, even with much diminished capacity, and as long as the US and the British remain steadfastly against the Nazis, the one of the few things that could make the Finns commit more to the German war effort would be if Hitler decides to blackmail the Finns into it, especially by witholding vital supplies from Finland.

IOTL the Nazis were apparently not ready to do this, as Finland even as a reluctant ally seemed a better deal than a Finland that rebels and attempts to change sides. This might be the same ITTL. But if Hitler, bolstered by his successes in the USSR, decides to turn up the heat ITTL, the Finns could still try various ways of stalling, to "prove their commitment to the common cause" and to avoid doing something that the Allies would see as particularly hostile. One easy way would be to enlarge the Finnish volunteer SS battalion to a full regiment as was suggested by the Germans IOTL, say. The Finnish leadership might also consider earlier "personal guarantees" like the OTL so-called Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement to try and keep the Germans placated.

Unless the Nazis are very successful, either in making it look like the USSR is collapsing in truth in weeks, or in blackmailing the Finns, or both, it is IMO most realistic to expect that Finnish troops would not be available to occupy any areas where Finns did not advance IOTL, or for further attacks towards the Murmansk railway or Murmansk itself in anything approaching major numbers. Thus is it unlikely that the Finnish participation would free up additional German troops in significant ways in the north. Rolling back the Soviets in these areas would be a job left for the Germans and possibly other Axis troops. Of course the Finnish logistics network could be used for supplies and reinforcements, etc, as could the Finnish maritime assets in the Gulf of Finland, but they too have their limitations.
 
You've got to woder - what would become of the people of Leningrad, where would there food come from? In OTL they were almost starved via the siege, but if the city was captured what rations would they be allowed!? This is in the North not many food sources in the surrounding areas, after all.
 

Deleted member 1487

You've got to woder - what would become of the people of Leningrad, where would there food come from? In OTL they were almost starved via the siege, but if the city was captured what rations would they be allowed!? This is in the North not many food sources in the surrounding areas, after all.

Was there a Red Cross deal to feed civilians in WW2? I know they did it in WW1 for the Belgians captured by the Germans.
 

mowque

Banned
You've got to woder - what would become of the people of Leningrad, where would there food come from? In OTL they were almost starved via the siege, but if the city was captured what rations would they be allowed!? This is in the North not many food sources in the surrounding areas, after all.

The Nazis would want to starve them, of course. But that sort of thign is always eaiser said then done, even to the Nazis. Other then the mass deaths assioicated with a city falling in war, the civilians might be slightly better off?
 
The Nazis would want to starve them, of course. But that sort of thign is always eaiser said then done, even to the Nazis. Other then the mass deaths assioicated with a city falling in war, the civilians might be slightly better off?

The city would probably be abandoned by many of its inhabitants, but fewer of them would be likely to end up dead. If I recall, around 500K starved and 500K died attempting to escape during the siege.

If Minsk served as a template, the Germans would probably go about creating a ghetto, and attempt to impress the civilian population into aiding the war effort. You would likely see a large number of civilians uprooted and moved West to work in German factories, with the remaining civilians being allocated insufficient rations. The presence of many foreign consulates, mentioned above, would make it more likely that the city would receive Red Cross aid, as would its proximity to Sweden, but that would depend on the German military administrators of the city.

If the Germans are forced to fall back in 1944-45, the garrison Leningrad could easily be pocketed, as its defenders could make use of the old fortifications, and could be resupplied by sea as long as the Germans continue to hold a port on the Baltic. If the Soviets elected to assault the city, up to 90% of the city might be in ruins by the end of the war if Smolensk is any guide.

By the end of the war, the city may end up equally ruined, but probably 500-750K more Leningrad residents who would have otherwise perished would still be alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top