Indeed. That is arguably a major reason why the Red Army only took Warsaw months after the Warsaw Uprising ended. I believe David Glantz stated that another reason for it was that resources were reallocated further south into Hungary.
Minimal goal Barbarossa
- Thread starter Catspoke
- Start date
thaddeus
Donor
we were discussing my earlier post that it seemed unlikely for Germany to stop short of capturing Leningrad (as they were surrounding it),my point (or my attempt at a point) was it would be more likely for Germany to switch to a defensive stance if they had captured the city.
thus I was offering a hypothetical POD for this scenario, not the other way around.
as far as how the fall of Leningrad could happen? my speculation would center around the Soviet naval evacuations from Tallinn and Hanko, in which 10's of 1,000's of personnel were transported to Leningrad, tons and tons of materials salvaged, and naval guns converted to defensive use?
August 1945, same as all the other TLs that try to have Germany do better post 1943 (albeit this is a 1941 POD).
kham_coc
Banned
Prior to overrunning europe that's true - But, with all of Europe in germany's camp, it's not as automatic.
So, is there anything the Germans could have done, that they didn't, to mitigate or solve the logistics distance problem? E.g. seize Leningrad early, and/or utilise more ports on the Baltic. Make greater use of transport aircraft + using large French aircraft for the purpose - they used them when they got encircled - why not before to supply stalled spearheads?
,
I think I agree with this sentiment. If your political objective is to militarily defeat the USSR then Barbarossa is the best plan. That being said, it had a low possibly of actually succeeding.
Germany fighting the USSR is, simply put, fighting out of it's weight. It might not always lose, given a number of possible TLs, but the deck is always stacked heavily against it.
Garrison
Donor
No that was after, when it became obvious that all that european industry was rather useless when there were shortages of raw materials and food for the workers, The output of occupied Europe was apallingly bad.
kham_coc
Banned
Sure, but those are solvable problems.
You can't say that due to the underlying fundamentals the USSR will overtake GDR and Co, and then ignore the underlying fundamentals of GDR and Co.
And as for the blockade, with no eastern front, Germany has won. The UK can't win.
So those factors would be going away.
And just as a point of reminder, Russia to this day, is still nowhere near Germany in economic output, and the EU, utterly dwarfs it. -even if we would add back the baltics and the Stans.
So its not at all unreasonable to suggest GDR and Co couldn't produce an economy beating the USSR.
TDM
Kicked
Just on the resources point Germany needs things other than food (I'm not even sure I'd put food at the top of the list of things it needs).
Also this plan doesn't defeat the USSR so really what's the point?
Leaving aside Nazi ideological demands for defeating the USSR. If German invades the USSR it has to defeat the USSR or it will eventually lose. As bad and as based on faulty assumptions as the OTL Barbarossa plan was, it still acknowledged the reality that Germany has to beat the USSR quick or it loses slow.
Yes stopping at the Ukraine would be shorter line to defend (although still not a short line by any means) but the Soviets will also be in better shape than 1941/2 left them, and they can basically build up at their leisure.
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
Firstly, yes there is still a blockade unless Nazi Germany can somehow mount Sealion also its not about industrial output now, its about access to food and raw materials then and besides the USSR outproduced Nazi Germany in key metrics during the most critical part of the war. And the logic that they would end up a junior partner isn't mine, its what they concluded in Berlin at the time.
Food was the most unsolvable issue, if trying to do a war against the British, and as expected, the Americana. It was a monthly deficit even when the Soviets were doing shipments, and they Soviets were diminishing their own reserves to make these shipments, so it was unsustainable regardless.
Oil was big, but they were while the Soviets were shipping, gaining in oil stocks every month. (Perhaps if they wanted to 10x their air force to compete with the Americans then they would need all the Baku oil)
Metals like Magnesium were big, they were getting shipments from the Soviets which covered 40-41 needs anyway.
So while they needed lot stuff from the Soviets, trade with the Soviets got a lot of things they needed in sufficient levels. And there was also transshipment, i.e. the Soviets bought rubber from the British and resold it to Germany.
The point of the POD is if the Germans "know or guess" the Soviets can't be beaten due to the distances involved what can they do about their situation in 1941.
The choices
a) Deal with the Soviets as friendly Neutrals to get the war supplies they needed (works except for food, I honestly think a non Nazi competent government could make food work, with the resources available, but that is not what the Germans had going on)
b) Invade and eventually get overextended and lose big as per OTL.
c) Do a smash and grab to get resources close at hand and go on the defensive. Rely on the fact (from the Nazi point of view of course) that the Soviets are a pathetic Commie Slav state, the even the Finns can mount a credible defense against, should be no issue for Germany.
thaddeus
Donor
my point on the oil situation is that the Nazi regime built out a huge synthetic program, they just did it in a "start-stop" manner that had completion into 1943, the worst of both worlds as they expended the resources but had no time to reap the benefits before the bombing campaign.
the interwar plan (and this is even prior to the Nazi regime) was for the exploitation of Romania's oilfields, without regard to payment or consent, the country was considered a target for Germany (possibly with Hungary and/or Bulgaria.) instead the Nazis "puffed up" the Romanian military beyond all reason, ending with their putative ally turning on them at a critical moment? and in the meantime they only obtained half the oil production.
a different plan for both those, a somewhat improved oil situation, the Nazi-Soviet trade could have centered around food which Germany could have stockpiled in greater amounts than historical? (and drains the Soviets)
TDM
Kicked
Thing is is food the biggest problem and more importantly can it only be solved by the Ukraine?
By the end of 1940 Germany has occupied France and Poland (and elsewhere). don't get me wrong seizing the Ukrainian breadbasket is better but it's not the only solution they have available to them here for accessing food.
Thing is they already knew this an planned accordingly. It's why Barbarossa is not about getting to certain spots on the map and thus winning*. It's about quickly destroying the Red army thus ending the USSR's ability to resist and then occupying those spots on the map much more easily and reaping the resource rewards.
*which is why ATL POD's that obsess about getting some panzers into red square by having panzer div X zigging in mid Oct instead of zagging = Nazi win, miss the reality of the situation
The problem with C as presented is it ignores a few things:
1). it completely flies in the face of all German armed strategy and tactics they developed and based themselves around, which is go in quick and win quick. A strategy that had just served them very well in Poland and the west.
2). it ignores the reality of the USSR that while the German underestimated aspects of it, still knew. That the USSR once fully mobilised can basically out muscle Germany on pretty much every front. Look at the plan for Barbarossa, it's overly optimistic for several reasons but it still based on the underlying fact that Germany has to go in quick, inflict an insurmountable amount of damage and win before the USSR get's going and fully mobilises it greater population, industry and resource base.
3). If the Soviets are a pathetic commie slave race (which as you say was the German position) then you beat them and win thus solving the food problem and more besides (ties into 1 above).
4). The Winter war was the Finn's repulsing an invasion from the Soviets and a fraction of Soviet force at that. Not going into the USSR and sitting on a big chunk of soviet territory and trying to defend it. Very different situations
5). 3 assumes 2 is known, 2 was not known, and ran counter to not only Nazi ideology but the German experience of the war so far to date
6). Even 'just' taking the Ukraine and holding is still going to require a very long defensive line because they will have anchor both flanks. Plus going over to the defensive means handing the initiative to the Soviet in terms of when and where they attack which means the Germans can't concentre forces as much which is a big part of their operational playbook. (this relates back to 1).
7). lessons of WW1 (this kind of relates back to 1 and 6 but is worth picking out specifically), no one, no one who was involved in WW1 is going to go looking for a static war based on out defending the other side along long lines of contact where all your lovely advances in mobile warfare are largely negated.
8). It still means fighting on more fronts than you need to, Germany wants to beat the USSR quick so it can go back and deal with the British/N.Africa/M.East.
Last edited:
I had done a earlier post:
Tooze vs Molotov and Ribbentrop - Check my math.
I was trying to compare the amount of food the Germans received from the Soviets, vs the amount they might have plundered and consumed feeding their army there. The story from Tooze and such authors is that Germans needed to invade the Soviet Union to feed their people, and practically OTL the...
www.alternatehistory.com
Where I put forward where the Germans looted about as much food from the Soviets as the received in shipments, so the invasion was a wash really. (Really the only thing that saved the food situation OTL was the Germans liquidating the Jewish ghettos and clamping down of food in Poland in general).
Germany could continue to buy stuff from the Soviet Union, by making half as many tanks that were just getting shot up on the east front anyway.
And with fuel saved by not driving around the Soviet Union with thousands of vehicles, French agricultural production wouldn't have to rot in the field like OTL because there was no way to get it to market.
Plus Germany could transship things like Manchurian Soybeans across the Soviet Union (as they did a little OTL), If Germany were to contract for favorable pricing, much more could be imported.
(So if Hitler died somewhere after the fall of France and before the Soviet Union, and the new people in charge aren't so willing to invade the Soviet Union I could see the Germans working out food.)
The oil issue is solvable, especially is the Germans don't invade a lot less is being used. The Germans could have gotten creative with the Soviet, export tractors (build less tanks not getting shot up on the eastern front), in exchange the Soviet Union exports more grain made possible by increased mechanization. Help increase thru put on the Trans Siberian, In exchange for a high percentage of the traffic being made available to trans ship Manchurian beans. Buy more phosphates for fertilizer from Vichy controlled mines in Tunisia.
If poof by magic a civilian government took over Germany in the Winter of 40-41, I think they could work it out.
A recent map would say you are right. I was thinking the region between the Bug and the Dniester rivers was big in grain which is true, but is big everywhere, except in the marshy area. A lot of that grain producing are was in hand by September 30th, although the eastern parts like Kharkov probably don't fall unless you are doing a stage 1 typhoon at least, since the Soviets would focus there otherwise.
McPherson
Banned
Good analysis. Just what was the fertilizer situation like, I wonder? That would have a bearing on bushels per acre as far as crop yields were concerned with cultivated land under German control as well as the lack of men to harvest and transport means to move farm goods. After all, the Germans stole the horses and wagons as well as the trucks and burned up all the gasoline and mulched the farm land with their marching armies. That situation in western Europe could not have been too good in addition, since explosives and fertilizer sort of compete for the same exact chemical industry?