No Pearl Harbor and No Barbarossa.

What would happen if Japan decided that Attacking the US would be a bad idea and Hitler realizes the the USSR would not go down as easily as he may think? what would happen if the USA and USSR didn't join the war? would Japan still be taken out by the British due to lack of Oil and Steel? would Hitler try in vain to take out Britain?
 
The English Channel becomes a bloodbath with German and British planes/ships cluttering at the bottom of the ocean. Germany and Britain may soon be in serious shortage of planes and ships. It's uncertain which would come on top. But the British are likely to suffer against the Japanese. Invading the southern islands was always insisted by the Japanese navy, but they feared that America wouldn't allow it. Prevent Pearl Harbor, and the Americans probably won't declare war on Japan, though FDR would be much more hostile to the Axis. Britain COULD eventually fall to the Germans, but it would come at a MASSIVE cost. However, there is a big problem in the East. OTL, Hitler knew that invading the Soviet Union as soon as possible was essential because he knew that the Russians would only get stronger as time would come. In due time, Stalin will feel that Hitler is no longer trustworthy and may seek to potentially expand. When the British Empire falls, the Russians probably invade Germany when their forces are at their best. And the Germans have no hope of winning. It'd be a bloody battle, but in the end, much of Europe falls to Stalin's whim. And Europe is conquered, the Soviet Union invades Japan. Again, bloody battle, but the Russians conquer Japan. However, Stalin is likely to dispose Hirohito because imperial rulers were not suitable as communist-puppet overlords. Hirohito's fall means absolute chaos in Japan against the Soviet troops stationed there. And America wouldn't intervene to save the Axis, though FDR would probably be regretting the outcome through the rest of his presidency. So now, the Soviet Union has a firm foothold in Europe and Asia (Mao will still come on top in China), making it the most powerful country in the world. And Stalin will surely cement himself as a grand figure in the communist puppets he sets up, as well as unprecedented support from his own people. Hate to say it, but Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa were probably significant in the preservation of Western culture. Otherwise, the Soviet Union comes out on top.
 
Stalin will have a firm grip of Germany’s ...errrmmm... throat because he's the one deliverin oil, rubber and strategic metals.
 
Hitler not ordering Barbarossa is as ASB as it gets. Literally the entire purpose of everything the Nazis did was to defeat the USSR and Communism along with it and get lebensraum in the western part of the country. Hitler abandoning that goal is not even worth considering.

The only way is for Hitler to lose before he can get his troops into position. Maybe Stalin decides Hitler can't be trusted and doesn't make the friendship treaty with him. This butterflies the Soviet co-invasion of Poland, extending the Reich's campaign for weeks or months and giving the BEF time to fully deploy in France. Hitler loses the Battle of France and gets ousted pretty quickly. With France unconquered, the Japanese can't invade French Indochina, butterflying the chain of events that led to the Pearl Harbor Raid.
 
Hitler not ordering Barbarossa is as ASB as it gets. Literally the entire purpose of everything the Nazis did was to defeat the USSR and Communism along with it and get lebensraum in the western part of the country. Hitler abandoning that goal is not even worth considering.

The only way is for Hitler to lose before he can get his troops into position. Maybe Stalin decides Hitler can't be trusted and doesn't make the friendship treaty with him. This butterflies the Soviet co-invasion of Poland, extending the Reich's campaign for weeks or months and giving the BEF time to fully deploy in France. Hitler loses the Battle of France and gets ousted pretty quickly. With France unconquered, the Japanese can't invade French Indochina, butterflying the chain of events that led to the Pearl Harbor Raid.

Hitler was quoted as saying if he knew how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have invaded. It isn't totally far fetched that there is some reason that changes Hitler's mind
 
Hitler was quoted as saying if he knew how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have invaded. It isn't totally far fetched that there is some reason that changes Hitler's mind

I can't see it. The fundamental tenet of the Nazi platform was taking over the Soviet Union. That was how they were going to defeat Communism and the perceived Jewish threat, get enough resources for a half-plausible effort at autarky, and get lebensraum. It just isn't plausible that he gives that up; it was his entire platform.

If you have a source for that quote I'd be interested, but I would have a very hard time accepting that assertion.
 
I can't see it. The fundamental tenet of the Nazi platform was taking over the Soviet Union. That was how they were going to defeat Communism and the perceived Jewish threat, get enough resources for a half-plausible effort at autarky, and get lebensraum. It just isn't plausible that he gives that up; it was his entire platform.

If you have a source for that quote I'd be interested, but I would have a very hard time accepting that assertion.

Well, I searched Hitler's Generals but didn't find it but the Palgrave Encyclopedia cites it, so I am unsure. Like you say there were a number of reasons Hitler himself had for the war with the USSR.
 
Well, I searched Hitler's Generals but didn't find it but the Palgrave Encyclopedia cites it, so I am unsure. Like you say there were a number of reasons Hitler himself had for the war with the USSR.
Well, even if Hitler said, I'm sure he didn't really mean it. He was hellbent on conquering Russia as soon as possible to both crush the Soviet Union and get Lebensraum. Of course, he knew that the Russians would get stronger overtime, so to Hitler, it was now or ever. And he'd never let the Soviet Union idly be and get stronger.
 
I can't see Hitler not invading Russia sooner or later either.

This is how I think 1941 would play out without Barbarossa.

However, if he delayed it by a year the short term effect would be that the temporary demobilisation of part of the German Army between the Battle of France and the OTL Barbarossa would be extended by a year. They would have the opportunity to build more tanks and trucks without the corresponding losses. But so would the Russians.

The Blitz would continue for another year, but the Luftwaffe loss rate would climb higher and higher. IIRC the Luftwaffe lost 600 aircraft at night between September 1940 and May 1941 but about 140 of them were lost in the last 2 weeks (96 to night fighters and the rest to AA Command).

The Battle of Britain might resume in the Spring. Fighter Command was much stronger in the Spring of 1941 than the Summer of 1940, but the Bf109s were now fitted with drop tanks. That would be interesting. If it didn't the RAF's Circus and Rhoobarb operations would suffer much heavier losses because there would be more fighters in Luftflotte 3. The night bombers might suffer higher losses too because Flak units and Bf110s fighting the Russians could be redeployed to defend Germany.

In the Battle of the Atlantic the U-boats and surface raiders would receive a lot more support from the Luftwaffe. IX. Fligerkorps would lay a lot more mines around the British Isles and Fligerfuhrer Atlantic would have a lot more aircraft allocated to it and been upgraded to a fligerkorps. So much bigger British merchant shipping losses to air attack.

The RAF might be so preoccupied with other matters that they won't be able to bomb the Twins in Brest and in any case the Luftwaffe would have more fighters and flak in France so the few bombers that did hit them might have been shot down before they could do that ITTL. Also Bismarck with some support from the Luftwaffe might have made it to France. Tirpitz and Hipper may attempt an Atlantic sortie later in the year. More effort would be put into completing Graff Zeppelin and Seydlitz in 1941.

In the Mediterranean X. Fligerkorps remains in Sicily and Sardinia while VIII. Fligerkorps remains in Crete. Without 17 armoured divisions tearing around Russia the Germans can give more fuel to the Regia Navale. At the least Malta falls in the second half of 1941, Libya is better supplied, Tobruk falls in the second half of 1941 and Operation Crusader fails.

More controversially as Hitler sees the Mediterranean as a main theatre of the war rather than a diversion from his Barbarossa preparations (because no Barbarossa in 1941) then from the autumn of 1940 he would have been sending more help to Mussolini whether Benny wanted it or not. He would probably have invaded Greece 6 months earlier and the TTL invasion of Crete may have been less costly. He cant stop Operation Compass, but from February 1941 he uses resources released from not preparing for Barbarossa to improve the transport system in Libya including upgrading the gauge of the railways there from 950mm to Standard, extending from Benghazi to Tobruk, Tripoli to Tunisia to link up with the railways there (which I know were metre gauge) and finally fill in as much of the gap between Tripoli and Benghazi as possible. It's a big job, but no Barbarossa releases a lot of resources. Furthermore the British built a railway from Egypt to Tobruk in less than 6 months after Operation Crusader and in World War One they built a railway from the Suez Canal to Haifa in Palestine. In World War II they extended it from Haifa through the Lebanon and into Syria.

Even more controversially than that Hitler sends a second panzer corps and more Luftwaffe aircraft to Libya in May 1941 and lends Mussolini enough Panzer IIIs to equip 2 armoured divisions for an invasion of Egypt in the second half of 1941.
 
Last edited:
As already stated Hitler will attack Russia sooner or later. He would do it for ideological reasons and because the longer he leaves it the stronger the Soviet Union will become. But if he can defeat the British that would break the economic blockade and allow him to concentrate his military resources on defeating Stalin afterwards. If he can see that no Barbarossa in 1941, but there will be an ALT Barbarossa in 1943 at the latest regardless of whether he defeats Britain first.
 
If Barbarossa was launched in 1942 instead of 1941 the Soviets would have more T-34 tanks and the frontier might be more strongly fortified, but would Stalin still ignore the warnings, deploy his troops too close to the border and appoint generals for their political loyalty rather than their military ability?
 
If in September 1940 Hitler decided to concentrate on defeating Britain by the end of 1941 and then invade Russia in 1942, which results in an earlier invasion of Greece then I doubt that there would have been the events that led to the invasion of Yugoslavia. Instead the country becomes a reluctant member of the Axis in 1941 or is allowed to remain neutral like Sweden and Switzerland. However, to please Mussolini, Hitler may bully their Government into giving Dalmatia to Italy.

An Axis or pro-neutral Yugoslavia means the OTL occupation force can be deployed elsewhere. AFAIK the partisans stopped the Germans getting any raw materials out of Yugoslavia IOTL so if that is correct more raw materials for German factories ITTL.

IOTL Goering helped the Hungarians to expand their aircraft industry to supply the Luftwaffe because it was beyond the range of British bombers. Except that by the time the factories were in production the Allies could bomb them from southern Italy. The Allies might not invade Italy as early as September 1943 ITTL, but if they did they would not be able to fly from there to Hungary if Yugoslavia was still neutral like Sweden or Switzerland. It would also be harder to bomb the Rumanian oilfields if the bombers couldn't fly across Yugoslav territory.

There is also the possibility that the Germans and Italians could use the Yugoslav aircraft industry to supply their air forces. IOTL they were building Do17s, Blenheims and Hurricanes when they were invaded. They could be re-tooled to build more modern German types.
 
If Barbarossa was launched in 1942 instead of 1941 the Soviets would have more T-34 tanks and the frontier might be more strongly fortified, but would Stalin still ignore the warnings, deploy his troops too close to the border and appoint generals for their political loyalty rather than their military ability?

Yes, Stalin (rightly) thought the act itself of mobilizing could lead to war, and he still will think Hitler won't declare war. Deployment plans would be he same, i.e. Plan for the defense of the State Frontier. Soviet Mobilzation plans for 1941 would I think complete in July if I am not mistaken. The leadership of the Red Army would remain essentially the same until Barbarossa kicks off. The USSR would have even more tanks and fortifications like you say but it won't stop the Red Army from evaporating when Barbarossa happens.
 
Yes, Stalin (rightly) thought the act itself of mobilizing could lead to war and he will still think Hitler won't declare war. Deployment plans would be the same, i.e. Plan for the defense of the State Frontier. Soviet Mobilzation plans for 1941 would I think complete in July if I am not mistaken. The leadership of the Red Army would remain essentially the same until Barbarossa kicks off. The USSR would have even more tanks and fortifications like you say but it won't stop the Red Army from evaporating when Barbarossa happens.
Therefore the early stages of Barbarossa 1942 are likely to have been along the lines of Barbarossa 1941. The major difference that I can see is that the Germans capture more T-34s instead of the OTL tanks because the Russian generals haven't had a year's worth of combat experience to learn how to use them effectively.

The downside for the Germans is that the reduction of army losses in men (800,000 casualties IIRC from Liddell Hart, of which a quarter were dead) and material between June 1941 and June 1942 might be offset by higher Luftwaffe casualties by continuing the Blitz into early 1942 and resuming the Battle of Britain in the Spring of 1941.
 
The logistics of Russia might have been better in 1942. Stalin might have built more roads as part of the Five Year Plan.

IIRC many Russian troops were able to avoid encirclement because the German pincers could not close quickly enough. If the above is true some might close that bit faster.
 
The logistics of Russia might have been better in 1942. Stalin might have built more roads as part of the Five Year Plan.

IIRC many Russian troops were able to avoid encirclement because the German pincers could not close quickly enough. If the above is true some might close that bit faster.

Are you trolling?

Seriously the Soviets will have better frontier fortifications, that will cost the Germans at least a day or two and lots more casualties at the frontiers assuming Stalin who now has frontier fortifications in place does not order mobilisation. Even if he does not the state of the Soviet forces will be better on a spares and logistics front because officers will have had a year to find where everything is hidden and work out what is actually missing. More T-34s mean far more additional delays and losses to the Germans than extra T-34s captured. In a year the roads will not be that much better which might be a good thing for the Germans as regardless of initial mobilisation the Soviets would have more stuff and better equipment to send along those roads.

Regardless of this though by the end of 1942 Germany will not outside of some outer rim ASB fluke have defeated Britain. Japan coming into the war will stop the accumulation of British power but it will not remove the British as a threat to the Germans as the Japanese are surprisingly even less capable of striking at Britain's core areas.

The net effect even with an oddly prescient Japan and oddly pathetic USA sitting it out would still be a Germany facing a snow balling cascade of delays and casualties only this time worse.

Edit: removed some random typos
 
Last edited:

gaijin

Banned
Hitler was quoted as saying if he knew how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have invaded. It isn't totally far fetched that there is some reason that changes Hitler's mind

Is this the secretly taped conversation between Hitler and Mannerheim?? If so I remember it differently, to be precise, Hitler saying he couldn't belive how many tanks the Soviets had but if he had known he would have been even more convinced to strike first, maintain the initiative, bla bla bla.

This kinda fits in with his personality. Hitler didn't play defense well, in case of doubt:attack. Secondly, Hitler also wasn't the type of person to show weakness and admitting he made a mistake would most definitely be showing weakness in his opinion.
 
Are you trolling?
If you mean am I taking the piss, then the answer is, cobblers! Because no I'm not.

However, I don't know as many facts about the Eastern Front as you do so I acknowledge that other factors that I don't know about might cancel things out.
Seriously the Soviets will have better frontier fortifications, that will cost the Germans at least a day or two and lots more casualties at the frontiers assuming Staling [Stalin stalling!] who now has frontier fortifications in place does not order mobilisation. Even if he does not the state of the Soviet forces will be better on a spares and logistics front because officers will have had a year to find where everything is hidden and work out what is actually missing. More T-34s mean far more additional delays and losses to the Germans than extra T-34s captured. In a year the roads will not be that much better which might be a good thing for the Germans as regardless of initial mobilisation the Soviets would have more stuff and better equipment to send along those roads.
My limited knowledge about the OTL Barbarossa plan was that the intention was to destroy the Red Army near the frontier anyway. Being drawn further and further into the Russian interior because the Red Army retreated faster than the German Army therefore preventing it from being caught and destroyed was not part of the battle plan.

If the Soviet troops on the border have the capability to hold out longer and receive more reinforcements then that seems to help the Germans in the longer term much more than the Russians because the German Army has the opportunity to bleed the Red Army white with shorter and better supply lines while the opposite is true for the Soviet Forces.

I appreciate that with my limited knowledge of the subject the two paragraphs above might be utter cobblers. However, I wrote them in good faith. For what its worth I'm going back to work on a subject where I do know what I'm writing about.
 
Is this the secretly taped conversation between Hitler and Mannerheim?? If so I remember it differently, to be precise, Hitler saying he couldn't belive how many tanks the Soviets had but if he had known he would have been even more convinced to strike first, maintain the initiative, bla bla bla.

This kinda fits in with his personality. Hitler didn't play defense well, in case of doubt:attack. Secondly, Hitler also wasn't the type of person to show weakness and admitting he made a mistake would most definitely be showing weakness in his opinion.
Someone else I think. I do think Hitler is someone who once he has made up his mind about something can be very difficult to persuade. In the case of Moscow, tons of officers were making every effort to convince Hitler to go for Moscow. He wouldn't listen. He didn't consider Moscow a legitimate objective in the sense they were describing even when he suddenly did a reverse and gave the go ahead for Moscow. The German Army even passed on an opportunity to race straight for Moscow with like virtually no resistance in between but instead stuck to encircling Soviet forces at Vyazma
 
Top