For whatever reason Hitler decides that an attack on the Soviet Union is a poor idea and shouldn’t be carried out. Where does he direct its anger instead? Does he double down on Britain, focus on holding down Europe, or go attack another target entirely (Turkey or the Middle East perhaps, you decide)?
No Barbarossa, what does Hitler do instead?
- Thread starter Blair
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
Some years ago I wrote the "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy" TL where he attacks around the Med in 1941. He still attacks the Soviet Union in 1942. And in fact, I can't imagine a TL where he wouldn't - unless Stalin attacked first.
An invasion of the Soviet Union in 1942 would see German forces decisively halted within a month, and then bled white over the course of the year. There was a pretty in depth thread about a 1942 invasion a while ago.
If Germany doesn't invade in 1941 or 42, the Red Army attacks in 1943 and utterly annihilates it.
If Germany doesn't invade in 1941 or 42, the Red Army attacks in 1943 and utterly annihilates it.
Is there any way to avoid a Soviet attack and make the Germans sucessful in Turkey and the Middle East?
I agree with the first part but not with the second, Stalin wanted the "Imperialists" and "Faschists" to tear each other apart so until there is a clear sign that Germany is exhausted I dont see him attacking
I bet he went to the Zoo and ponders about immentionable sea mammals...
= Can't imagine Hitler NOT to attack the SU
= Can't imagine Hitler NOT to attack the SU
Max Sinister
Banned
If the US don't join the war against Germany, and Stalin doesn't attack either, the war between the Axis powers and the Empire will be quite one-sided. Britain is a sea power, on land Germany's got the advantage.
So Stalin may decide to help Britain when he feels that Germany becomes too powerful. But when? If they take the Suez canal? If they reach Syria / Iraq (and could strike against Baku)? If they reach Persia? And would Churchill be able to keep the Brits in the war that long, if Hitler keeps making promises "just make peace with me, promise you'll not attack me, and I'll guarantee your empire"?
So Stalin may decide to help Britain when he feels that Germany becomes too powerful. But when? If they take the Suez canal? If they reach Syria / Iraq (and could strike against Baku)? If they reach Persia? And would Churchill be able to keep the Brits in the war that long, if Hitler keeps making promises "just make peace with me, promise you'll not attack me, and I'll guarantee your empire"?
"If the US don't join the war against Germany, and Stalin doesn't attack either, the war between the Axis powers and the Empire will be quite one-sided."
Why one-sided? I think it would become something of a stalemate for several years. Germany is too strong to invade occupied Europe in the early 40s, Germany can't invade Britain or her overseas colonies in any timeframe, which leaves a protracted airwar with a lot of attrition. But once the US presumably becomes involved in 1941 the Allies will eventually win. In the meantime the British will manage to keep hold of Egypt and the Middle East (for reasons of logistics discussed ad nauseum), and even if they did lose Gibraltar and Malta they would still fight on by rerouting shipping. Japan will lose much as she did in OTL, allowing the western allies to launch a longer bombing campaign against Germany without the need to rush a D-Day invasion before the Soviet Union grabs Europe. It would be an expensive and protracted war but the allies have too much industrial might. Ultimately it probably would get settled by the A-bomb.
Why one-sided? I think it would become something of a stalemate for several years. Germany is too strong to invade occupied Europe in the early 40s, Germany can't invade Britain or her overseas colonies in any timeframe, which leaves a protracted airwar with a lot of attrition. But once the US presumably becomes involved in 1941 the Allies will eventually win. In the meantime the British will manage to keep hold of Egypt and the Middle East (for reasons of logistics discussed ad nauseum), and even if they did lose Gibraltar and Malta they would still fight on by rerouting shipping. Japan will lose much as she did in OTL, allowing the western allies to launch a longer bombing campaign against Germany without the need to rush a D-Day invasion before the Soviet Union grabs Europe. It would be an expensive and protracted war but the allies have too much industrial might. Ultimately it probably would get settled by the A-bomb.
Hitler wants to invade the Soviet Union really badly. Its the reason for the whole Nazi program.
In our TL, invading the Soviet Union might actually have been the best option available in 1941. There really were not many good other options. Germany really didn't have the weapons to defeat Britain in an air or sea campaign. And in our TL Germany did pretty well in that Soviet invasion, and Soviet survival was a close run thing.
So lets say in this alternate time line Hitler somehow figures out the Soviet Union is stronger than he actually thought OTL (something like: Germany knows about the T34, or figures out the Soviet capability to generate massive reserves, or worries more about their ability to supply such forces over such distances).
So in this TL Germany would almost certainly try to spend 1941 fixing these deficiencies in her armed forces vs. the Soviet Union and plans on attacking in 1942, and in the mean time cleans up further Italy's mediterranean situation. Malta and Tobruk would both fall to the Axis in 1941, however there is much debate on these forums if the Axis could actually take Egypt due to supply issues.
In any case 1942 would roll around, and the USA is now in the war!, the Soviet Union is even stronger and harder to attack, the British Bomber offensive is getting annoying, Britain is still in Egypt. Perhaps Hitler then decides he just isn't strong enough to take that Soviet Invasion on until Britain and the USA are defeated.
The USA/Britain would be able to drive the Axis out of Africa in 1943 but invading Europe is far more risky with the undimished German army around. Stalin, cautious man that he is, won't invade until the Allies are on the ground in Europe in strength.
Allies resort to a bombing only strategy which eventually become effective due to the Allies technical and production superiority. Hitler dies of his ailments in early 1946 and the Nazi state falls apart due to infighting and a massive June 1946 Allied invasion of France wins easily.
(I am assuming the Allies might be more cautious about using the Atomic bomb if the Germans were just across the channel and could retaliate with nerve gas loaded into V2s or something)
In our TL, invading the Soviet Union might actually have been the best option available in 1941. There really were not many good other options. Germany really didn't have the weapons to defeat Britain in an air or sea campaign. And in our TL Germany did pretty well in that Soviet invasion, and Soviet survival was a close run thing.
So lets say in this alternate time line Hitler somehow figures out the Soviet Union is stronger than he actually thought OTL (something like: Germany knows about the T34, or figures out the Soviet capability to generate massive reserves, or worries more about their ability to supply such forces over such distances).
So in this TL Germany would almost certainly try to spend 1941 fixing these deficiencies in her armed forces vs. the Soviet Union and plans on attacking in 1942, and in the mean time cleans up further Italy's mediterranean situation. Malta and Tobruk would both fall to the Axis in 1941, however there is much debate on these forums if the Axis could actually take Egypt due to supply issues.
In any case 1942 would roll around, and the USA is now in the war!, the Soviet Union is even stronger and harder to attack, the British Bomber offensive is getting annoying, Britain is still in Egypt. Perhaps Hitler then decides he just isn't strong enough to take that Soviet Invasion on until Britain and the USA are defeated.
The USA/Britain would be able to drive the Axis out of Africa in 1943 but invading Europe is far more risky with the undimished German army around. Stalin, cautious man that he is, won't invade until the Allies are on the ground in Europe in strength.
Allies resort to a bombing only strategy which eventually become effective due to the Allies technical and production superiority. Hitler dies of his ailments in early 1946 and the Nazi state falls apart due to infighting and a massive June 1946 Allied invasion of France wins easily.
(I am assuming the Allies might be more cautious about using the Atomic bomb if the Germans were just across the channel and could retaliate with nerve gas loaded into V2s or something)
Maybe instead of attacking Russia from the west he could attack via the middle east instead? That would also let him get the oil that he desired to fuel the war machine. Of course there is always the issue of the horrendously long supply lines that they would have but that's another matter.
This was the strategy prior to the defeat of France. After that however it was apparent that the Soviet Union was Germany's only remaining land target. Stalin's opinion was that Germany wouldn't turn east until 1942, which proved incorrect. In the meantime the Red Army would complete reforming, Soviet industry would mobilize, and defenses would be constructed.
While Soviet strategy was defensive in nature, several incidents show that, if Germany did not invade, the Soviet Union would strike. This includes disagreements over spheres of influence in the Balkans (Stalin wanted Turkey and Bulgaria), and Soviet war games in May 1941, along with plans simulating possible future offensive actions (Which were shelved due to the Red Army's various defects).
Last edited:
sharlin
Banned
Attacking the Soviet union for Lebensraum was ingraned into Nazi doctrine and ideology, it had to happen and it had to happen in 1941. Delaying until the same time 1942 would basically result in the german army ramming its face into a band saw. Stalin was a monster but not stupid and he was having his military rebuilt at an impressive pace. Any delay would mean a better equipped and better trained and prepared Soviet army = death for the Wermacht.
As others have basicaly said, if he doesnt do Barbarossa, he doesnt do anything. Either hes dead or put away somewhere.
Unless he attacked France in '40 and lost. In which case hes buildding defenses against a Wally attack.
Unless he attacked France in '40 and lost. In which case hes buildding defenses against a Wally attack.
It seems likely Stalin would push to pick up things for cheap once the Germans got pressed a bit vs. diving into an all out war where the costs are high. In this ATL war, make the Allies suffer the millions of casualties to win victory while you suffer only the hundreds of thousands picking up the easy stuff.
For starters, once 42 rolls around their likely not shipping any more grain or oil to the Nazis unless they are getting something serious in return. If Stalin wants spheres of influence over Turkey and Bulgaria he would likely get them.
If Japan is in the war the against the USA like our OTL, the easy thing to do is attack the Japanese in Manchuria in 1943, turn China communist, and open up the whole of south east asia to Soviet/Communist exploitation before the Allies arrive. If the Germans want to attack to support their ally, let them go ahead and be on the defensive.
Only once the Allies have invaded France and retaken Paris in the face of an undiminished German army do you attack into Poland and Rommania.
Flubber
Banned
I first came across the Mediterranean strategy in either 1974 or '75 in the pages of Avalon Hill's The General as part of an article discussing play options for their "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich" game and I'm very certain the idea dates well before that.
Except that Germany will have the majority of it's assets deployed in the East, even if the Allies do invade France; the Soviet Union was viewed as the greatest threat to "Aryan society". Soviet military theory and foreign policy dictate that allowing such large forces to be concentrated along the border, even if they've not yet attacked, is a disaster waiting to happen. The pre-war strategy of the Red Army assumed that it would have several weeks to enact final war preparations, as any opponent attacking from the west would need time to concentrate and assemble forces. If Germany is already concentrated in the east then Soviet doctrine dictates that these forces be destroyed,
Last edited:
Has anyone else read Tomorrow The World? Makes the case that Germany's operations in Northwest Africa were not reactive but part of a grand plan to gain bases for the inevitable war against 'the Anglo-Saxon Empires' (Raeder's term for the Americans and British). I never quite believed it myself. It uses a few too many 'this happened probably because of this' arguments and not enough hard source material, but as with all things Nazi policy, the amount of it which can be deemed as 'in Hitler's head and never written down' means the author may well be onto something.
So there's a potential answer - while this oddly changed Hitler doesn't invade Russia, he could pour everything into 'the game against England' (Jodl) and start defeating her on the periphery while readying the armed forces for a confrontation with the US.
So there's a potential answer - while this oddly changed Hitler doesn't invade Russia, he could pour everything into 'the game against England' (Jodl) and start defeating her on the periphery while readying the armed forces for a confrontation with the US.
katchen
Banned
The question becomes, if Hitler simply finishes the war without Babarossa; if he consolidates hGermany's position by occupying Yugoslavia, Greece, Egypt, Palestine (ouch!)
, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, waiting at some poin for Japan to hookup with him, will Stalin keep the non-aggression pact and leave Germany alone? Because strictly speaking, Germany can get it's lebensraum in Africa.
, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, waiting at some poin for Japan to hookup with him, will Stalin keep the non-aggression pact and leave Germany alone? Because strictly speaking, Germany can get it's lebensraum in Africa.