Molotov is agreeable to Hitler in November 1940 meeting

In OTL November 1940 meeting in Berlin, Molotov wanted Soviet influence in Bulgaria and Finland, lets say in this time line Stalin is worried about a 1941 German attack and gives instructions to demand little.
Stalin figures he has already got a good chunk of territory to ingest already and if he can get through 1941 and maybe even 1942, the Soviets would be through the danger zone.

Hitler is pleased at Soviet acceptance of the new realities. The Soviets sign the pact, theoretically committing them to declare war on the USA if the USA declares war on German or Japan. A risk but at least he has powerful countries between the USA and the Soviets if this happens, and he would only do a Russia 1808 sort of war against the western powers anyway.

So then this is November 1940, Germany scraps Barbarossa plans for 1941, Mussolini has already invaded Greece, Franco and Petain have already refused any alliance. Battle of Britain is already lost.

What is the German strategy in this time line?
 
May I suggest checking out my "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy" TL?

Just got through the first part. A good story. I like the Jews resisting in Palestine, pretty epic. (These days some people would probably dispute how many German divisions you could get across the med and keep supplied, but I don't know, the Germans could commit more Seibel ferries and MFPs to the med, plus more Ju52s and more air power for top cover for convoys if the Russian front is peaceful). Supply capacity disputes are in a lot of threads these days.)

Hitler would have an earlier opportunity here, since he knows in November 1941, vs after OTL Crete. So could prioritize production of light craft for the med, JU 52s etc. Might be willing to commit a larger force earlier to Africa.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
snip

So then this is November 1940, Germany scraps Barbarossa plans for 1941, Mussolini has already invaded Greece, Franco and Petain have already refused any alliance. Battle of Britain is already lost.

..."already" lost ??
Maybe "round 1" :p!

What is the German strategy in this time line?
At first I would ask :
What is Hitlers motivatuion for signing such an agreement with Stalin ?

IOTL in late autumn 1940 Hitle4r was already all for Barbarossa/invading the arch-enemy Soviet-Union. To sign - and plan to keep the agreement at least for a year or so would IMO need a change of mind on Hitlers side to the behalf of "finally finishing these stubborn Tommys off !"

For this he would need the ... Luftwaffe resources as well as every plane to be produced until spring/early summer 1941 for "Adler-Tag 2" and maybe a more thorough preparation for whatever the unmentionable sea-mammal operation might evolve over the winter into, now that "The Führer" is fully committed to.

A mediterrainian strategy ... would IMO only be rendered a "side show" by Hitler, maybe a somewhat bigger Afrika-Korps, maybe a somewhat bigger air-fleet, as it would be clear, that whatever happens at the fringes of the british empire would rather neglectably affect the politicians at White-Hall.

However, such an agreement would IMO make something like Operation Pike become (much) more probable ... again with whatever butterflies for the inter-allied relations, that might bring ... whoever these allies on bióthe sides now might be or become ...
 

Deleted member 1487

At first I would ask :
What is Hitlers motivatuion for signing such an agreement with Stalin ?

IOTL in late autumn 1940 Hitle4r was already all for Barbarossa/invading the arch-enemy Soviet-Union. To sign - and plan to keep the agreement at least for a year or so would IMO need a change of mind on Hitlers side to the behalf of "finally finishing these stubborn Tommys off !"
He didn't give the order until December and was still open to not invading; it was ultimately Stalin's counterproposal to Ribbentrop's draft agreement that convinced him that Stalin was ultimately against any sort of deal that he wanted to take:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#German_proposed_draft_agreement
Hitler, however, saw the Soviet territorial ambitions in the Balkans as a challenge to German interests and saw its plan as effectively making Bulgaria into an adjunct of the Axis pact.[6] On several occasions, Molotov asked German officials for their response to Moscow's counterproposals, but Germany never answered them.[6][84][86][87] Germany's refusal to respond to the counterproposal worsened relations between the countries.[88]
Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin "demands more and more", "he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and that "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible."[7]
 

NoMommsen

Donor
He didn't give the order until December and was still open to not invading; it was ultimately Stalin's counterproposal to Ribbentrop's draft agreement that convinced him that Stalin was ultimately against any sort of deal that he wanted to take:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#German_proposed_draft_agreement
OTOH,
a quote from the german wiki about Barbarossa (unfortunatly this part isn't covered by the english wiki) :
Am 31. Juli teilte Hitler auf dem Berghof den höchsten Generälen[40] seinen Kriegsentschluss mit. Halder notierte: Um „Englands letzte Hoffnung“ auf dem Kontinent zu zerschlagen, müsse Russland ab Frühjahr 1941 „erledigt“ werden; je eher, desto besser. Der Angriff habe nur als Blitzkrieg „in einem Zug“ Sinn und müsse auf die „Vernichtung der Lebenskraft Rußlands“ zielen.
(Translate : At 31. July Hitler told the highest generals on the Berghof his decision for war (against Russia). Halder noted : To crush englands "last hope on the continent, Russia has to be "finished" from spring 1941 onwards; the sooner, the better. The attack only make sense als a "Blitzkrieg" in "one move" and has to aim at the "destruction of the living-power of Russia".)
From then onwards the planning started with its various proposals until Hitler on 5th December 1940 finally decided upon the later executed plan (the "Loßberg"-study) (beside the "planning in detail" that followed until March/April 1940, when first deployments started ... including some redeployments for/due to the Balkan-Blitz), formulated in the "Weisung 21" of 18th December 1940.

I may also add from the link you've provided :
While no concrete plans were yet made, Hitler told one of his generals in June that the victories in western Europe "finally freed his hands for his important real task: the showdown with Bolshevism",[41] though German generals told Hitler that occupying Western Russia would create "more of a drain than a relief for Germany's economic situation."[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#cite_note-ericson138-42...

Well, if Hitler would have stayed with his "opinion", that Russia has to be defeated, as it is "only" Britains "continental rapier", an agreement with Srtalin would ofc make a lot of sense.
But given Hitlers "overall" aims as formulated already years before ("Mein Kampf") I would rather assume, that the "rapier" tale is rather an excuse to finally fight the "true enemy".
 
Last edited:
Just got through the first part. A good story. I like the Jews resisting in Palestine, pretty epic. (These days some people would probably dispute how many German divisions you could get across the med and keep supplied, but I don't know, the Germans could commit more Seibel ferries and MFPs to the med, plus more Ju52s and more air power for top cover for convoys if the Russian front is peaceful). Supply capacity disputes are in a lot of threads these days.)
IIRC correctly, a lot of disputes are about the port capacities and transportation issues in North Africa itself. And while more trucks and fuel will help, it will still put a hell of a strain on Axis logistics.
 
He didn't give the order until December and was still open to not invading; it was ultimately Stalin's counterproposal to Ribbentrop's draft agreement that convinced him that Stalin was ultimately against any sort of deal that he wanted to take:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#German_proposed_draft_agreement

cannot find a reference to Battle of Britain in any of the discussions other than Molotov's throwaway line about why they were in air raid shelter if Great Britain was defeated? just wonder if the LW had pursued a more deliberate plan, Channel warfare or whatever, and NOT suffered thru the OTL losses if it would have had any effect on Soviet thinking, if they were in fact aware of losses (in real time or close), and would have been more amenable to a deal? (if Germany was doing better)
 

NoMommsen

Donor
So Hitler is going to make and deal and then stick to it?
...
Molotov-Ribbentrop could well serve as a template here, that Hitler "sticked" too for as long as ... it served his interersts.
... not different to what Stalin had in mind ...

... and ...
What deal, that Hitler had made did he NOT kept ?
  • ToV, Locarno were all treaties not made by him and well before he took power he announced to "fight" them.
  • Lausanne Conference of 1932 agreements on war debts. Also some agreements not made by Hitler. Its regulations didn't come into effect, as the precondition - an interallied agreement about war debts with the USA - didn't materialize.
  • The Four-Power pact or "Mussolini-Pact" was never ratified - by none of its signatories.
  • The "Reichskonkordat" of 1933 with the Vatikan is actually still valid
  • The german-polish non-agressian pact of early 1934 was actually valid over 5 years until August 1939, when - for more or less understandable reasons - Germany formally renounced it.
  • The Munich-agreement ... well by the letters this wasn't violated either, as the subject of it the state of Czhechoslovakia had - maybe arguably - ceased to exist by the slovakian claim of independence. All that was "violated" here was the also arguably "juridical valid" written statement of Hitler to be "saturated".
Something else I forgot ?

(Plz don't misunderstand me : I DO NOT try to justify or warrant Hitler and his expansionism/warmongering.
But "Hitler-betraying-all-treaties" is - sorry - IMO a non-sustainable, propagandistic assertion, a common "trope" nobody really questions (or dares to question) without much of substance (see above).)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

OTOH,
a quote from the german wiki about Barbarossa (unfortunatly this part isn't covered by the english wiki) :
From then onwards the planning started with its various proposals until Hitler on 5th December 1940 finally decided upon the later executed plan (the "Loßberg"-study) (beside the "planning in detail" that followed until March/April 1940, when first deployments started ... including some redeployments for/due to the Balkan-Blitz), formulated in the "Weisung 21" of 18th December 1940.
He started a contingency plan for the invasion of Russia in mid-1940, but didn't decide firmly about invading until December on the basis of what he considered the failed negotiations of November 1940. Hitler tended to be all over the place in his statements and thought.

I may also add from the link you've provided :
...

Well, if Hitler would have stayed with his "opinion", that Russia has to be defeated, as it is "only" Britains "continental rapier", an agreement with Srtalin would ofc make a lot of sense.
But given Hitlers "overall" aims as formulated already years before ("Mein Kampf") I would rather assume, that the "rapier" tale is rather an excuse to finally fight the "true enemy".
Again Hitler vacillate in his thought; he first 'exhausted' negotiations before finally settling on invasion. I don't have access to Kershaw's Hitler bio at the moment to quote from, but Hitler was open to negotiations if the Soviets could be neutralized by bringing them onside as a firm ally, which IOTL failed in Hitler's mind so he decided to go to his standby, which was the invasion of the USSR.

cannot find a reference to Battle of Britain in any of the discussions other than Molotov's throwaway line about why they were in air raid shelter if Great Britain was defeated? just wonder if the LW had pursued a more deliberate plan, Channel warfare or whatever, and NOT suffered thru the OTL losses if it would have had any effect on Soviet thinking, if they were in fact aware of losses (in real time or close), and would have been more amenable to a deal? (if Germany was doing better)
I doubt it, Stalin had a pretty firm idea of what he was doing, for good or ill. He wanted to see the Germans and Brits fight it out and weaken each other while gaining on the cheap in the Balkans to realize the traditional Russian foreign policy goal: control over the Bosphorus.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@wiking
Than "Beat Britain First" is well within plausibility, possibility as well as probability. :)

... though I still have some problems envisaging Hitler to prefer a "mediterrainian" campaign over an "Adler-Tag 2" attempt (however "problematic" such an attempt might be. He would be still Hitler with "silly" ideas and wishes).
 
Was there any politcal or military factions in the Soviet Union, that could have replaced Stalins faction and seat a pro-German govorment?
 

Deleted member 1487

@wiking
Than "Beat Britain First" is well within plausibility, possibility as well as probability. :)

... though I still have some problems envisaging Hitler to prefer a "mediterrainian" campaign over an "Adler-Tag 2" attempt (however "problematic" such an attempt might be. He would be still Hitler with "silly" ideas and wishes).
Hitler was for the 'Gibraltar via Spain' option before Franco was so intractable. Without Russia as an option and the failure of the 'direct route' and the RAF only getting stronger, then really there is only the Mediterranean Option left and Raeder has some influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Raeder_during_World_War_II#Sea_Lion_and_the_"Mediterranean_plan"
 

nbcman

Donor
Molotov-Ribbentrop could well serve as a template here, that Hitler "sticked" too for as long as ... it served his interersts.
... not different to what Stalin had in mind ...

... and ...
What deal, that Hitler had made did he NOT kept ?
  • ToV, Locarno were all treaties not made by him and well before he took power he announced to "fight" them.
  • Lausanne Conference of 1932 agreements on war debts. Also some agreements not made by Hitler. Its regulations didn't come into effect, as the precondition - an interallied agreement about war debts with the USA - didn't materialize.
  • The Four-Power pact or "Mussolini-Pact" was never ratified - by none of its signatories.
  • The "Reichskonkordat" of 1933 with the Vatikan is actually still valid
  • The german-polish non-agressian pact of early 1934 was actually valid over 5 years until August 1939, when - for more or less understandable reasons - Germany formally renounced it.
  • The Munich-agreement ... well by the letters this wasn't violated either, as the subject of it the state of Czhechoslovakia had - maybe arguably - ceased to exist by the slovakian claim of independence. All that was "violated" here was the also arguably "juridical valid" written statement of Hitler to be "saturated".
Something else I forgot ?

(Plz don't misunderstand me : I DO NOT try to justify or warrant Hitler and his expansionism/warmongering.
But "Hitler-betraying-all-treaties" is - sorry - IMO a non-sustainable, propagandistic assertion, a common "trope" nobody really questions (or dares to question) without much of substance (see above).)

Lets see on the treaties that Hitler did agree to:
  • Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. Formally broken in 1939 but was being denounced and secretly broken years before then.
  • German-Polish NA pact - it was supposed to be valid for 10 years. So he did break it.
  • Various NA pacts with Baltic states - sold them all down the river with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Not a very non-agressive thing to do.
  • Munich Agreement - the statement that it wasn't violated because of the Slovakian claim of independence is Nazi BS to cover their aggression-especially since the Germans were encouraging the Hungarian aggression to force the Slovaks to accept their 'protectorate' on the same day the Germans began crossing the borders of the remainder of Czechoslovakia.
  • Anti-Comintern pact - parties agreed not to make political treaties with the Soviet Union. Germany broke that with the Credit agreement in August 1939 even before M-R pact.
  • Reichskonkordat agreement was worthless and was repeatedly violated by the Nazis-see the wiki page that you referenced.
  • Non-Intervention Agreement during SCW - signed by Germany in September 1936. Germany never abided by the terms.
What treaties did Hitler keep which were signed between 1933 and 1938?
 
What deal, that Hitler had made did he NOT kept ?

See the last post. It is significant that when Ribbentrop had his 50th birthday, they wanted to give him facsimiles of all the treaties done by him - unfortunately, at that time, pretty much all of them were already broken.
 
The time had passed as of early 1941 for beating Britain first. Britain with its smaller population was carrying out a total mobilization far more intensive than German mobilization. Its aircraft production rate had accelerated beyond that of Germany, and it would be able to stop anything except the non-strategic night bombing of London, and even that it would have gotten a handle on if it had continued much longer. To destroy the British navy the Germans would need years of massive production of ships including subs which would make a 1942 Barbarossa weaker than the 1941 OTL version, especially given the greater Soviet preparation for war that would unfold in 1941 and early 1942. Already in early and mid 1941 OTL, the British were getting substantial help from the U.S., which had drawn a line in the Atlantic, was battling the U-boats in a low-key way, pressuring Spain and Vichy France to stay neutral, and relieving British troops in Iceland (this, apart from Lend Lease). The British were increasingly confident the Germans could not launch an invasion in the near term and thus were sending more ships, planes and tanks to the Mideast. Continued German air and sub pressure on Britain would probably accelerate British development of the technology that defeated the U-boats, and would force the British to produce more and better fighter planes (including night fighters) rather than Bomber Harris's ineffective bombers of the early war years. Maybe someone would figure out about drop tanks a lot sooner.

A Britain First strategy would probably mean German conquest of Malta and Egypt in 1941, but as in one published scenario, the British sabotage the canal, retreat up the Nile to the Sudan, seize Italian North Africa and Madagascar, maintain their supply route around the Cape, then strike down the Nile once the Germans invade the USSR in 1942.

German conquest of Egypt might wake up the U.S. to the danger of Germany seizing the Mideast oil fields, and U.S. troops might be placed as a tripwire at Basra. The not-yet-invaded Soviets might also recognize this danger and cooperate in 1941 in an attempt to block German proxies from seizing Iraq and Iran. Germany might be prompted to declare war on the U.S. far earlier then in OTL and to get into a shooting war with the USSR at an inopportune time of year before Barbarossa is fully prepared.
 
Top