Minimal PODs for Barbarossa to succeed taking Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov and holding the cities through winter

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

Then I'm afraid you are misreading the political situation in 1940 Britain. Churchill got the PM job because he was seen as a man who would fight on. Hitler had shown he couldn't be trusted and Churchill's stance was backed in Parliament. That idea of Halifax seeking out terms never came to pass for sound reasons. And for Hitler to ever lay out a clear coherent set of terms that would be remotely acceptable to the British is all but impossible unless you change his character and warped world view.

The problem was, that unless what I read was a forgery, Churchill did laid out terms on which he would accept peace with Germany to Halifax. Those terms were considered so generous that it was considered unreasonable for Germany to offer then (and this is likely why Churchill laid out those terms knowing Hitler would never offer them). Those terms by the way, were roughly what is now, in hindsight, considered Germany would actually be willing to offer.

If they or better terms are offered, Churchil would have to deal with the fact that he promised he would accept peace under those circumstances and those circumstances have come to pass.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Most of the Lend-Lease Aid the Soviets received came through the port of Vladivostok. Perhaps you could have the Japanese attack to stop it, though that might require a POD before Khalkhin Gol. You could also have Stalin purge some more generals. Even with the Soviets weakened by this though, the Germans would still have problems transporting the supplies needed to support their troops.

 

[marathag]

I'm sorry, I've got to ask: what religious reasons force the use of these?!

Pneumatic tires can be considered a temptation, to use the Tractor for more than just field work
Each Mennonite Community has different levels of acceptable technology.
Some allow Electricity in the Barn, but not the House, some both, or neither, while other might allow diesel engines but not spark ignition

Beliefs are what make Religion. Faith in doing the right thing

 

[EWHM]

Pneumatic tires can be considered a temptation, to use the Tractor for more than just field work
Each Mennonite Community has different levels of acceptable technology.
Some allow Electricity in the Barn, but not the House, some both, or neither, while other might allow diesel engines but not spark ignition

Beliefs are what make Religion. Faith in doing the right thing

Amish generally have a pretty pragmatic way of deciding whether to embrace a technology or not. Normally they look at---will this deprive some of our people of their life's work? Is this advance going to be good for us as a community? And when they're not sure, they table it for a few years, or even a generation. In some ways, they're the control group of the human experiment.

 

[Post]

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading in German Rule in Russia 1941-1945 that Leningrad was not really meant to ‘fall on the march’ anyway, and that the intentional starvation and destruction of the entire city through a protracted siege was the entire point of the affair, even if a direct infantry assault was possible without horrendous losses. I believe the city was slated for destruction from the pre-Barbarossa planning stages, and that this was deemed most accomplishable through attrition. I’ll have to find the specific passage to see if there were actual intentions to take the city and then cordon it off after it had been cleared of proper Red Army resistance, or it was intended from the outside to be sealed with its defenders still inside but the latter seems to make the most sense logically (logical from a NSDAP ideologue’s point of view obviously).

EDIT: Ah, here we go..
View attachment 713336View attachment 713337View attachment 713338View attachment 713339
So in the pre-planning and planning stages, the city was to remain intact but once the idea for razing cities came up, the Führer clearly couldn’t resist himself and it was decided to destroy the city and murder its entire population in July. As German forces came to the outskirts of the city, you can see Hitler issued an order not to accept any surrender offers from the defenders and to maintain the siege until the population was liquidated by disease or starvation through the course of Winter ‘41 and the survivors would be killed in the spring. So, the idea of the city falling to a few over-eager Panzer divisions isn’t really very plausible when you realize that isn’t what the Germans wanted and that’s not what their orders were. They couldn’t feed the population and they didn’t want an occupation, and so falling ‘on the march’ wasn’t really an option at this point. The only “solution” to the situation would be the furthering of the OTL offensive on Tikhvin and over the Volkhov, linking up with Finnish troops, and fully cutting the supply routes over Ladoga.

This post shows what a lovely* bunch the Nazi's were and that it's virtually impossible to get Notzi's , because the army clearly was aware of the impossibility of capturing Leningrad and feeding the population, and all the options considered involved starving a large part of the population.

* Just to be clear: sarcasm.

The problem was, that unless what I read was a forgery, Churchill did laid out terms on which he would accept peace with Germany to Halifax. Those terms were considered so generous that it was considered unreasonable for Germany to offer then (and this is likely why Churchill laid out those terms knowing Hitler would never offer them). Those terms by the way, were roughly what is now, in hindsight, considered Germany would actually be willing to offer.

If they or better terms are offered, Churchil would have to deal with the fact that he promised he would accept peace under those circumstances and those circumstances have come to pass.

If you read what peaceterms were acceptable for Churchill, you possibly can post them here?

 

[thaddeus]

In 1942 around a huge amount of the Red Army was around Moscow, around 40%. The Soviets expected Germany to attack Moscow in 1942 and were prepared, however in early 1942 the Germans were still far from losing steam, their strongest armies were in the center and the logistical chains would be, compared to Stalingrad, a walk in the park.

It is possible, albeit doubtful, that if Germany went all in, they could had taken Moscow in 1942 and defeated 40% of the Red Army in a single attack (alibeit with horrific loses for themselves too). A fall of Moscow in 1942 with 40% of the Red Army there, would had been far worse than a fall of Moscow in 1941 with minimum armies destroyed.

it's always seemed more feasible to take Leningrad and Kiev in 1941, while "pulling up short" of Moscow, thus not exactly Operation Typhoon?

there might be some parallels to Stalingrad in capturing Leningrad but they would be able to resupply via the Baltic, my view it could not turn into a similar catastrophe?

what would happen then? counterattack(s) towards Leningrad in parallel to the historical battle of Rzhev? at some point, the Germans might be able to force most of the Soviets into the defense of Moscow? which is later in 1942 - 1943?

if the worst of the conflict was kept in the NW region, while (just IMO) it seems hard to forecast a capture of Moscow, it also seems the Germans avoid most of their disasters as well?

 

[rush4you]

What about an early 30s PoD where Mussolini wakes up one day and decides that he wants a competent army and industry, purges incompetent generals and ministers, and invites American investors for automotive industry as well as Lybian oil fields that were just discovered. This way Italy can hold its own in North Africa, but can also build a large amount of trucks that he sells to Germany for Barbarossa, AND provide more oil to the Axis.

 

[MattII]

I think Leningrad is the lynch-pin here. If you can take Leningrad in '41, the troops that were besieging it can be re-deployed, and will eventually be better supplied (Leningrad is a port after all). One movement that can then me made is to cut the Murmansk railway, which slows the transfer of supplies via the Arctic Convoys, even if only a bit. Also, if you don't completely demolish the city in capturing it, you're like to end up catching not a bit of rolling-stock, which will help ease your logistics. Also, Leningrad is the mouth of the Neva River, which connects to Lake Lagoda, and then via the Svir River to Lake Onega, without the use of a single truck. Said trucks can then be shifted south to the benefit of AGC and AGS.

Of course, none of this would allow the Germans to actually win, but it could see them doing enough damage that the Soviets would have to choose between Germany and say, Bulgaria.

 

[CHKeeley]

Leningrad was not really meant to ‘fall on the march’ anyway, and that the intentional starvation and destruction of the entire city through a protracted siege was the entire point of the affair, even if a direct infantry assault was possible without horrendous losses.

Not to keep bringing up this up, but people keep suggesting that an effort to capture Leningrad was key, but I already pointed out that the Nazis did not want to capture Leningrad in 1941. They did not want the responsibility of feeding the populace, they did not want to incur the casualties of taking the city, and they wanted to wipe it off of the map. If you want to free up the troops besieging the city, you need to direct it over the Volkhov and over the shorelines of Ladoga in order to starve the city into submission. And then you need to wait until the spring of 1942 for the remainder of the army units guarding the perimeter to be freed up for other operations. They would not launch a direct assault on the city, Hitler issued specific orders on this not even just to not attack, but to not accept a surrender of the defenders.

 

[TDM]

Or just give Hitler a heart attack. I remember that prior to Barbarossa no one really wanted war with the USSR and in fact the overwhelming majority of the German high government favored an alliance with the USSR and including them in the Axis, Stalin even went as far as to issue a proposal for points to enter the Axis. Excitement in the German government was high. Hitler almost single handedly rejected it.

If I recall correctly, Goering was one of the most opposed to war in the East, if Hitler died he was his official successor, so him negotiating a Brest Litovsk style peace against would be very possible.

Actually the German high command were fine with attacking the soviets,

either because:

1). they were fully paid up Nazi ideologues/Hitler fans who hated Judaeo-Bolshevism

or

2). They considered the victory they had achieved in WW1 with the Ost empire it promised Germany's due, and were pissed off at the subsequent reversal of it at ToV

or

3). They felt the USSR was a soft option especially as they had just done in 8 weeks in the west what they couldn't do in 4 years during WW1, so how hard will it be repeating in the east what doing what they had achieved in WW1 while all that while still fighting in the western front. i.e if they just did the hard bit from WW1 easily, how easy will be the easy bit be.


or some combination of all three


any concerns they had were more about how it could be done quickly, opposition to it in general was largely a post-war memoir re-writing of history

NB: IIRC Goering was at some points somewhat hesitant about it after over promising at Dunkirk and the BoB had tarnished the halo he'd won in Poland etc , but ironically after his failures at BoB he also saw it as golden opportunity to redeem himself and was quickly all for it when he realised most were for it.

 

[TDM]

.....

I am relatively convinced that if Germany sent a generous enough peace proposal ASAP to the UK after France, he could had secured peace in the West. I recall reading in wikipedia conversations Churchill had with Halifax where Halifax forced him to lay out some terms in which he would accept peace with Hitler. If Hitler had immediately, not in a Reichastag speech, but officially and immediately sent an official diplomatic proposal to withdraw from everywhere minus Poland, I think it would had swayed the Cabinet to force Churchill to either resign or accept peace.

The problem was, that unless what I read was a forgery, Churchill did laid out terms on which he would accept peace with Germany to Halifax. Those terms were considered so generous that it was considered unreasonable for Germany to offer then (and this is likely why Churchill laid out those terms knowing Hitler would never offer them). Those terms by the way, were roughly what is now, in hindsight, considered Germany would actually be willing to offer.

If they or better terms are offered, Churchil would have to deal with the fact that he promised he would accept peace under those circumstances and those circumstances have come to pass.

have you got a cite or link for that?

 

[Hammerbolt]

Actually the German high command were fine with attacking teh soviets,



or some combination of all three

Add "a severe case of "victory drunkness" after having destroyed the much vaunted French army and send the british army of home in retreat, in a few weeks, despite all the misgivings many had in early 1940.

 

[Garrison]

Actually the German high command were fine with attacking the soviets,

either because:

1). they were fully paid up Nazi ideologues/Hitler fans who hated Judaeo-Bolshevism

or

2). They considered the victory and they had achieved in WW1 with the Ost empire it promised Germany's due, and were pissed off at the subsequent reversal of it at ToV

or

3). They felt the USSR was a soft option especially as they had just done in 8 weeks in the west what they couldn't do in 4 years during WW1, so how hard will it be repeating in the east what doing what they had achieved in WW1 while all while still fighting in the western front. i.e if they just did the hard bit from WW1 easily, how easy will be the easy bit be.


or some combination of all three


any concern they had were more about how it could be done quickly, opposition to it in general was largely a post-war memoir writing of history

NB: IIRC Goering was at points somewhat hesitant about it , but after his failures at BoB saw it as golden opportunity to redeem himself and was quickly all for it

It does sometimes get forgotten that the idea of Germany expanding eastwards was not invented by Hitler. As Brest-Litovsk showed it had long been a dream of German imperialists. It was a place where Germany could find the land and resources needed to become a true first rate power. The only difference was the sheer ruthlessness of Hitler's vision. Other German imperialists had been content with the notion of ruling the Slavs, Hitler took it to another level. The Generals who claimed they were against Barbarossa are the same ones who spread the myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht' conveniently forgetting the Hunger Plan and the death of millions of Red Army POWs who were simply marched and starved to death while under the guard of the Ostheer, not the SS.

 

[Post]

The Generals who claimed they were against Barbarossa are the same ones who spread the myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht' conveniently forgetting the Hunger Plan and the death of millions of Red Army POWs who were simply marched and starved to death while under the guard of the Ostheer, not the SS.

And also the same who claimed that if "all the dead people would have listened to us, we'd have won," ignoring there were quite a few (lot) cases were those dead people had listened to them.

 

[Gudestein]

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading in German Rule in Russia 1941-1945 that Leningrad was not really meant to ‘fall on the march’ anyway, and that the intentional starvation and destruction of the entire city through a protracted siege was the entire point of the affair, even if a direct infantry assault was possible without horrendous losses. I believe the city was slated for destruction from the pre-Barbarossa planning stages, and that this was deemed most accomplishable through attrition. I’ll have to find the specific passage to see if there were actual intentions to take the city and then cordon it off after it had been cleared of proper Red Army resistance, or it was intended from the outside to be sealed with its defenders still inside but the latter seems to make the most sense logically (logical from a NSDAP ideologue’s point of view obviously).

EDIT: Ah, here we go..
View attachment 713336View attachment 713337View attachment 713338View attachment 713339
So in the pre-planning and planning stages, the city was to remain intact but once the idea for razing cities came up, the Führer clearly couldn’t resist himself and it was decided to destroy the city and murder its entire population in July. As German forces came to the outskirts of the city, you can see Hitler issued an order not to accept any surrender offers from the defenders and to maintain the siege until the population was liquidated by disease or starvation through the course of Winter ‘41 and the survivors would be killed in the spring. So, the idea of the city falling to a few over-eager Panzer divisions isn’t really very plausible when you realize that isn’t what the Germans wanted and that’s not what their orders were. They couldn’t feed the population and they didn’t want an occupation, and so falling ‘on the march’ wasn’t really an option at this point. The only “solution” to the situation would be the furthering of the OTL offensive on Tikhvin and over the Volkhov, linking up with Finnish troops, and fully cutting the supply routes over Ladoga.

You are absolutely correct if we seek a military solution to the OTL plan for Leningrad. My proposal was therefore that as part of a POD, Leningrad is seen as beneficial for the drive on Moscow (which it surely would be).
Razing the city would then be postponed to after reconstruction of the main Soviet railways.

 

[Garrison]

You are absolutely correct if we seek a military solution to the OTL plan for Leningrad. My proposal was therefore that as part of a POD, Leningrad is seen as beneficial for the drive on Moscow (which it surely would be).
Razing the city would then be postponed to after reconstruction of the main Soviet railways.

But its not beneficial because if they occupy the city its a massive drain on resources one way or another and as has been pointed out starving the population to death was an intentional act, not a side effect of their strategy.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Yep, I saw a post once (might have been here might be elsewhere) that basically said an awful lot of people seem to believe the Germans were somehow unlucky in Russia or in some other way robbed by random chance or the Soviets got lucky. That they seem to imagine there are umpteen possible ways the Germans can win here often just by some tank div zigging instead of zagging or finding a week here or there or some other such level of POD. But the reality is given the disparity of forces in WW2, given the monumental tasks Germany set itself and given the inherent and unavoidable handicaps it faced for all sorts of reasons, OTL is probably about as good a TL as it gets for the Nazis!

I would argue this applies to Japan as well.

If someone on this site wrote a TL that replicated OTL's results from Pearl Harbor to Midway there would be people shouting "ASB!!!!!" from the rooftops.

 

[Garrison]

I would argue this applies to Japan as well.

If someone on this site wrote a TL that replicated OTL's results from Pearl Harbor to Midway there would be people shouting "ASB!!!!!" from the rooftops.

Well forgive me for invoking this old saw but, 'Fiction must be plausible, reality is under no such constraint'. So yes for the purpose of discussions in Post-1900 plausibility is a requirement. Writers is the place to explore such things without that constraint. This is a good thing because if one person argues that wildly implausible thing A happens then everyone else can simply say then wildly implausible thing B, C, or D happens in response and any sort of coherent argument goes out of the window.

 

[TDM]

I would argue this applies to Japan as well.

If someone on this site wrote a TL that replicated OTL's results from Pearl Harbor to Midway there would be people shouting "ASB!!!!!" from the rooftops.

Yep, Japan had couple of advantages as well

1). A pretty well trained Navy, and naval air crews (personal loses really hurt them though)

2). An army that was actually pretty experienced and very motivated going up against armies that were less good for several reasons (in the first 6 months anyway).

3). Initially chronically underestimated by Western nations.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Yep, Japan had couple of advantages as well

1). a pretty well trained Navy, and naval air crews (personal loses really hurt them though)

2). and army that was actually pretty experienced and very motivated going up against armies that were less good for several reasons (in the first 6 months anyway)

3). Initially chronically underestimated by Western nations

Agreed. My general point was that OTL's results were probably as good as Japan could realistically hope for.