Leningrad Fall 1941, effects on Eastern Front?

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

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't it also keep Finland in the war longer? The Soviets were able to knock them out via an offensive staged from Leningrad once the siege was broken, so here, it would require the city to be liberated before Finland could seriously be threatened. If the Germans hold it and resupply via sea through 1944, steadily falling back, they are pretty much guarding the route to protect Finland from attack by the Soviets and would end up part of the Finnish defensive line once the Soviets managed to capture the city; I don't think they could flank it from the north, so the fight to liberate the city will pretty much be a frontal assault from the south, which would likely end up yielding a pile of rubble and a difficult route to staging an offensive against Finland there after.
 
Wouldn't it also keep Finland in the war longer? The Soviets were able to knock them out via an offensive staged from Leningrad once the siege was broken, so here, it would require the city to be liberated before Finland could seriously be threatened.

Finland would start planning for making a peace with the Soviets and leaving the war as soon as it starts to seem clear that the Germans will lose eventually. IOTL the Finns were looking for an "out" since 1943 at least. Looking at it from the angle of what Finland wants and needs for peace, in '44 the problem IOTL was that Germany still had so strong forces around Finland and inside the Finnish borders that making a separate peace with the Soviets was for a long a highly risky proposition because of the German ability to punish Finland for abandoning the Third Reich. The other problem for the Finns was that their expectations of a "fair peace" with the USSR were overly optimistic, like getting essentially 1939 borders, without paying indemnities, etc.

So as long as Germany controls Leningrad and surroundings and Estonia, and has troops in Lappland, it is highly unlikely Finland would be able to make a separate peace in any timeline - unless the Finnish leaders would be ready to make the nation's interior a battleground. The Soviets removing the Germans from the Finnish borders, on the other hand, will make a separate peace all the more likely, even if the Red Army would not attack Finland directly - as Finland has little reason to keep fighting if it can make a peace with its independence intact. The biggest obstacle to peace between Helsinki and Moscow in that case would be the diverging views of the two sides about on what conditions the deal is made.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.


Yes, in Greece after Germans stripped the food. Don't have link handy, but it can't be entirely ruled out. The key in the Athens relief was the Greek political community lobbying in the USA. I doubt the Russian community has enough lobby power to get this to happen, even if Hitler allows. My understanding is that Greeks are non-untermenschen unlike the people of Leningrad.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Thoughts


1) It will dramatically improve and simplify logistics after the fall of the city. It will be a phased increase in supply.

2) Finland will probably not occupy Leningrad, but this still helps the Germans. As Finnish units become less active, they will free up supplies for German or other minor allies armies. And they might at some point join the war in a more active way, if things look good enough for the Germans. The Romanians can be studied for changes in attitude on deployment deep into Russia of troops.

3) Leningrad will not receive neutral food. Hitler will evacuate most of the people to other areas where they are work camps and the like. Or put another way, the Nazis will hide the killing of civilians.

4) Six months from the fall of Leningrad, we have massive butterflies that give radically different TL. Few to none of these result in German win, but the vast majority mean Germany will hold out longer in the east.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, in Greece after Germans stripped the food. Don't have link handy, but it can't be entirely ruled out. The key in the Athens relief was the Greek political community lobbying in the USA. I doubt the Russian community has enough lobby power to get this to happen, even if Hitler allows. My understanding is that Greeks are non-untermenschen unlike the people of Leningrad.

However, as has been noted already the presence of foreign dignitaries in Leningrad would make it politically expedient to offload the food issue on the Red Cross to avoid bad publicity resulting from starving the population under occupation; plus it wouldn't hurt to keep the population from becoming restive. IOTL the Germans could at least make the argument that the starvation resulted from state of siege, but if Leningrad was under their control it would look very bad to be purposely starving the population, especially if the Swedish Red Cross would be offering to help feed the people (especially pre-US entry into the war).

One thing to note too is that it seems Hitler only ordered the destruction of the city IOTL after it became apparent that German forces would be unable to conquer it; prior to the fighting bogging down into a siege I can't find reference to Hitler wanting to destroy the city and wipe out the inhabitants. I'm not saying that he wouldn't come around to that post-war, as this was a region designated for German settlement under Hunger Plan East, but as with many of the Nazi atrocities in WW2 the OTL plan evolved based on the situation on the ground in 1941. With it falling before Hitler's OTL decision, he might not decide to wipe it out and instead opt for a Red Cross food solution to appease neutral (US) opinion in 1941 and to prevent the city from becoming a burden on the war effort, rather than going for a straight starvation solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad#Severing_lines_of_communication
The capture of Leningrad was one of three strategic goals in the German Operation Barbarossa and the main target of Army Group North. The strategy was motivated by Leningrad's political status as the former capital of Russia and the symbolic capital of the Russian Revolution, its military importance as a main base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet and its industrial strength, housing numerous arms factories.[7] By 1939 the city was responsible for 11% of all Soviet industrial output.[8] It has been reported that Adolf Hitler was so confident of capturing Leningrad that he had the invitations to the victory celebrations to be held in the city's Hotel Astoria already printed.[9] Yet, although various theories have been forwarded about Nazi Germany's ultimate plans for Leningrad, including renaming the city Adolfsburg (as claimed by Soviet journalist Lev Bezymenski) [10] and making it the capital of the new Ingermanland province of the Reich in Generalplan Ost, it is clear that Hitler's intention was to utterly destroy the city and its population. According to a directive sent to Army Group North on 29 September, "After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban center. [...] Following the city's encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population."[11] Hitler's ultimate plan was to raze Leningrad to the ground and give areas north of the River Neva to the Finns.[12][13]

.....

On 21 September, German High Command considered the options of how to destroy Leningrad. Simply occupying the city was ruled out "because it would make us responsible for food supply".[29] The resolution was to lay the city under siege and bombardment, starving its population. "Early next year we enter the city (if the Finns do it first we do not object), lead those still alive into inner Russia or into captivity, wipe Leningrad from the face of the earth through demolitions, and hand the area north of the Neva to the Finns."[30] On 7 October, Hitler sent a further directive signed by Alfred Jodl reminding Army Group North not to accept capitulation.[31]

Based on this I cannot find anything prior to September 21st that indicates the destruction of Leningrad was planned pre-invasion or even pre-September, but rather Hitler quickly shifted to destruction once his forces failed to capture the city. I'd appreciate if anyone could provide evidence to the contrary.

Also what would the effects be on the Soviets? As the link mentions it was a major industrial area and had fair amount of arms manufacturing capabilities. I could see much of the useful industry looted and brought back to Germany, but the shipping related industry would be too useful where it was; also how much shipping was there in 1941? I don't know if the Soviet Baltic Fleet would be captured intact (it wasn't very modern even if it was), but the merchant shipping would be very useful if taken. AFAIK there were at least several hundred thousand tons of shipping that were present there that would have been very helpful in 1942 in bringing supplies into the city from German ports. Would captured Soviet seamen be used for Baltic shipping duties for the Axis?
 
The biggest blow for the Soviets is the historic importance of Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg for the Soviet State. As it was there that it began.
So IMO Stalin will, more or less, be forced to counterattack. That could go both ways. But I think the Wehrmacht could recive the blow and take it.
After that it could degenerate into a kind of ongoing assault of the Soviet Red Army. And that could, in 41/42, bring the loss pendulum even more into German favor.
After that, the senseless inconclusive losses, the door is open for the butterflies to hatch.

In the end it could change the war, if Stalin, because of ongoing setbacks, repurges the military. Stupid I know and unlikely but the chance is there.
But in the end I also think that Germany will lose. Maybe not in 45 but the Two Front War will take it down.
 

Deleted member 1487

The biggest blow for the Soviets is the historic importance of Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg for the Soviet State. As it was there that it began.
So IMO Stalin will, more or less, be forced to counterattack. That could go both ways. But I think the Wehrmacht could recive the blow and take it.
After that it could degenerate into a kind of ongoing assault of the Soviet Red Army. And that could, in 41/42, bring the loss pendulum even more into German favor.
After that, the senseless inconclusive losses, the door is open for the butterflies to hatch.

In the end it could change the war, if Stalin, because of ongoing setbacks, repurges the military. Stupid I know and unlikely but the chance is there.
But in the end I also think that Germany will lose. Maybe not in 45 but the Two Front War will take it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge_of_the_Red_Army_in_1941
Well, there was an ongoing purge in 1941-42, so it could just get worse than IOTL.
 
The biggest blow for the Soviets is the historic importance of Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg for the Soviet State. As it was there that it began.
So IMO Stalin will, more or less, be forced to counterattack. That could go both ways. But I think the Wehrmacht could recive the blow and take it.
After that it could degenerate into a kind of ongoing assault of the Soviet Red Army. And that could, in 41/42, bring the loss pendulum even more into German favor.
After that, the senseless inconclusive losses, the door is open for the butterflies to hatch.

Other than Kharkov, was there any other Russian city that Stalin was fixated on re-capturing for symbolic, rather than strategic reasons?

Would this have amounted to greater focus by the Soviets on attacking Army Group North, or a more general order of "recapture Leningrad at all costs?" The former might dictate German strategy to an extent, and put more pressure on the Finns if they attempt to outflank the Germans to North.

Assuming that the Germans still lose (perhaps with the Western Allies in Madgeburg or Berlin), would the Soviets likely change their Postwar demands of Finland? Would South Karelia be an expected demand, or would the incorporation of Finland into the USSR be in the cards?'

Alternatively, would there be any scenario in which Germany loses that Finland recovers its 1938 borders?
 
Assuming that the Germans still lose (perhaps with the Western Allies in Madgeburg or Berlin), would the Soviets likely change their Postwar demands of Finland? Would South Karelia be an expected demand, or would the incorporation of Finland into the USSR be in the cards?'

Alternatively, would there be any scenario in which Germany loses that Finland recovers its 1938 borders?

What happens to Finland is entirely contingent on how the war ends, and how Stalin changes his opinion on Finland during it. If Finland is both seen by the Soviets (and the WAllies) as more guilty of taking part in German plans (and atrocities) and occupied, then Finland becoming a SSR is more likely. If the Finns manage to retain their OTL ambiguous position in the eyes of the allies and is occupied, then an ostensibly independent People's Republic is a distinct possibility. Only if Finland is not occupied, perhaps like IOTL with the Soviets deciding to go around it to pursue more important goals against Germany, can it remain an independent democracy.

The most likely possibility for Finland regaining its 1938 borders would be if it becomes a Soviet-aligned/-dominated People's Republic. The old borders could be well returned as Finland is now a "friendly nation" - the location of the border on the Karelian Isthmus is not a problem if the Soviets have troops and bases in Western Finland, anyway. A Finnish SSR might get even more territories, as a part of the USSR.:D A Finland that stays independent would most likely get something like the OTL post-1944 borders, maybe a bit less or a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Even if the Germans busted over the Neva into the city it seems like some areas of the city are going to resist for a while, the docks area, Kronstadt, the other islands, the Hanko Penisula. Based on the Russian Civil war experience Kronstadt would be difficult to assault and would have supplies for a few months.

Hard to see the Germans cleaning all that up to be usable soon.

Soviet military effects:

Other than the prestige loss the Soviets might gain a lot, it seems the population there could only be semi-productive while encircled and the Soviets expended much energy trying to break the siege. There isn't much point on sticking much on the Volkov anymore which could be useful in the Moscow counter offensive/Kharkov/Kerch etc.

On the German side:

A few Luftwaffe parachute battalions were thrown into the siege lines around December 41, these could be feed into Typhoon/stopping the winter counter offensive.

Many of the units containing Leningrad and the Oranienbaum bridgehead were static, like Luftwaffe field divisions which are only so useful other places (but perhaps on the Don flank of Stalingrad).

If the Spanish division deployed at Leningrad OTL is moved to the Don and lost at Stalingrad there might be some interesting political repercussions.

A number of Siebel ferries used in Lake Ladoga in the summer of 42, could be used elsewhere (like supplying Rommel in the med)

There were some Tiger tanks early deployed around Leningrad in 1942, it would be interesting if these were deployed in Egypt instead (using the Siebel ferries above to transport).

Of course the 11th army wouldn't have to be deployed there after Sevastopol which would be a useful reserve behind the Don in late 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

There were some Tiger tanks early deployed around Leningrad in 1942, it would be interesting if these were deployed in Egypt instead (using the Siebel ferries above to transport).

More probably in Ukraine where they would be far less vulnerable to infantry attacks and could use their long range cannon to much greater effect; its armor would be able to take anything thrown at it at that stage; far more useful there than in Africa, which required a mobility at that time that the Tiger did not possess.
 
Other than Kharkov, was there any other Russian city that Stalin was fixated on re-capturing for symbolic, rather than strategic reasons?

Would this have amounted to greater focus by the Soviets on attacking Army Group North, or a more general order of "recapture Leningrad at all costs?" The former might dictate German strategy to an extent, and put more pressure on the Finns if they attempt to outflank the Germans to North.

Assuming that the Germans still lose (perhaps with the Western Allies in Madgeburg or Berlin), would the Soviets likely change their Postwar demands of Finland? Would South Karelia be an expected demand, or would the incorporation of Finland into the USSR be in the cards?'

Alternatively, would there be any scenario in which Germany loses that Finland recovers its 1938 borders?

I'm wondering where this could leave the borders of other countries in eastern and central Europe.
 
There would still be frequent, maybe more, cases of cannibalism in Leningrad because the Soviet management machine in the city would have broken down. The German management could not possibly take hold of city timely in the disorder and chaos of war, the refugees and citizens would have to resort to solve their starvation on their own. Given all the dead bodies in the rumble of the fallen city, corpse eating would seem the quick but immoral solution.... still sad.:teary::(:'(. However, given that the city's disorder after the fall, people could rush out the city due to lack of adequate policing before the cases of cannibalism became unbearable.

On territory, would Finland take the land north of the three Isthmuses? In the OTL, that question of "to be or not to be" lay on the Leningraders; in this ATL, that lay on the Finns and Finnish governance because Soviet governance and the Red Army were going to retaliate... How could the Finnish stop that?
 
IMHO the Nazis would sort out any remaining Soviets in Leningrad in to several categories:
1. Those scheduled for liquidation such as Jews, party officials, etc.
2. Military POWs as per standards for them by the Germans.
3. Civilians useful for work in the city - grunt slave labor or factory work locally. These would be fed at levels necessary to maintain productivity more for skilled workers, less for those who will be worked to death.
4. Civilians to be transported west for slave labor from domestic servants to factory slave labor.
5. "Useless" mouths who will be left to starve
6. There will be some special cases such as young children considered "Aryan" enough for adoption by German couples or being sent to orphanages in the Reich, and others.

I expect the Germans would tell the neutrals that due to Leningrad being an active war zone, consulates would be closed, and in any case they were accredited to the now "defunct" Soviet government. Any neutrals who remain will find their movements strictly controlled due to "military necessity". As far as neutral food, exactly who could provide it? The USA is the only neutral in 1941 with the potential to prevent mass starvation in Leningrad, and by December they are no longer neutral. I expect the USSR would tell the USA not to send food to Leningrad once the US is an ally, even if there was a mechanism for that, but send that to the Soviet areas still fighting.

To the extent possible, as long as the Germans occupy Leningrad, that anything of value, such as the contents of the Hermitage, and any industrial equipment that could be better utilized back in Germany will be shipped out. Whenever the Soviets do reoccupy Leningrad they will find a destroyed wasteland, with critical infrastructure specifically destroyed (water works, sewage, as well as military targets, the port, and of course cultural icons), the inhabitants will be walking skeletons and few in number.

I can't guess what Finland will do but once they get back what they lost and perhaps some other bits they have no taste for further advances, nor do they have desire or resources to get involved with occupying any Russian town, let alone a part of Leningrad. IMHO the fall of Leningrad improves the German situation, makes the Russian worse. You could likely see the line of demarcation between the Western Allies and the Soviets somewhere in Poland, with concommitant changes in Czechoslovakia etc.
 

Redcoat

Banned
IMHO the Nazis would sort out any remaining Soviets in Leningrad in to several categories:
1. Those scheduled for liquidation such as Jews, party officials, etc.
2. Military POWs as per standards for them by the Germans.
3. Civilians useful for work in the city - grunt slave labor or factory work locally. These would be fed at levels necessary to maintain productivity more for skilled workers, less for those who will be worked to death.
4. Civilians to be transported west for slave labor from domestic servants to factory slave labor.
5. "Useless" mouths who will be left to starve
6. There will be some special cases such as young children considered "Aryan" enough for adoption by German couples or being sent to orphanages in the Reich, and others.
That'd be horrible but seeing the conditions in Leningrad I have a feeling some might see this as a relief.
 
The Baltic is secure and Germany will quickly get the port facilities in St Petersburg (Hitler would rename it pretty fast) back in function even if they have to work the entire population of the city to death.
Then the Germans have a supply base much closer to Moscow, no Russians shooting at their Baltic shipping and a lot of soldiers are freed up for other duties.
Stalin ain't happy.
 
In OTL, Von Manstein leadership captured Sevastopol. If VM stayed with AGN instead of the transfert to AGS, could the capture of Leningrad be traded with Sevastopol?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top