Operation Barbarossa Question

Hello all, as most are undoubtedly aware, Operation Barbarossa was Hitler's ultimate gamble to secure land and resources for Germany in the East. His contempt for the Russians prevented the German Army from being properly provisioned for the weather conditions they would ultimately face, thereby in essence sealing the fate of the Wehrmacht. However, as a "what if" - and I am aware that many other posters will be able to tell me this is impossible - the German campaign goes according to plan, and they are able to secure all objectives? Operation Typhoon (the third phase of the Campaign) succeeds in destroying the remnants of the Red Army that Stalin has available - in this timeline, Japan wants a rematch with the Red Army so there are no Siberian troops to arrive at the eleventh hour. Moscow falls after a protracted seige and Stalin is killed, as he refused to leave the city. With the loss of the capital, most of the government, and Stalin, what is left of Russia surrenders December 25, 1941.

The subsequent division of Russia is thus:

RK Ostland
RK Moskovien
RK Kaukasus
RK Ukrain
RK Turkestan

The main element I am interested in exploring is, what would be the international reaction towards the collapse of Russia, principally in regard to Britain? Will she sue for peace?
 
The subsequent division of Russia is thus:

RK Ostland
RK Moskovien
RK Kaukasus
RK Ukrain
RK Turkestan

The main element I am interested in exploring is, what would be the international reaction towards the collapse of Russia, principally in regard to Britain? Will she sue for peace?

Even if Germans manage to defeat Soviets, they will have to keep strong garrisons in the east to keep partisans manageable. I will handwave away the obvious problem that Japanese are simply not able to defeat Soviets in the far East. Also the troops from Soviet Far East did not play that much a role in Moscow counteroffensive.

But after this limitation, let's consider question of British attitude. Victory over USSR does very little to help German basic problem as they still have no power to defeat Britain. Britain has no power to decisively defeat Germany too, but Germany has to maintain control over much of the continent, keep feeding its own population and maintain industry. They will be hard pressed to manage all this with their political structure. Unless British suffer decisive defeat and lose large part of their navy, I do not see them suing for peace any time soon.
 
I think you make few crucial mistakes. stalin decided move those troops west no matter what Japanese did. So they are there. Also I don't think germans could take and hold Moscow in 1941. Somebody described situation in late 1941 as two exhausted boxers in the ring, punch-drunk from fight so far and none willing to throw in the towel. Soviets simply managed to hold on long enough to collect some strength for a final punch (that would be Moscow counter-offensive) while Germany did not.

But assuming SU folds (say in 1942), Germany is in better short term position. It doesn't have to fear SU attacking them, however it will take time before they can fully eploit resources now at hand. I think Wallies could still win Battle of the Atlantic but will lack strength to invade, not with E Front not sucking and chewing German division after division. In the end I see some sort of compromise peace with both sides preparing for next round.
 
I think you make few crucial mistakes. stalin decided move those troops west no matter what Japanese did. So they are there. Also I don't think germans could take and hold Moscow in 1941. Somebody described situation in late 1941 as two exhausted boxers in the ring, punch-drunk from fight so far and none willing to throw in the towel. Soviets simply managed to hold on long enough to collect some strength for a final punch (that would be Moscow counter-offensive) while Germany did not.

But assuming SU folds (say in 1942), Germany is in better short term position. It doesn't have to fear SU attacking them, however it will take time before they can fully eploit resources now at hand. I think Wallies could still win Battle of the Atlantic but will lack strength to invade, not with E Front not sucking and chewing German division after division. In the end I see some sort of compromise peace with both sides preparing for next round.
That's pretty much what I'd say too, though the Battle of the Atlantic will be longer and harder with the Kriegsmarine getting more resources & the Luftwaffe concentrating it's strength in the West.

And the Nazi's also risk imploding before round 2 gets properly started.
 
That's pretty much what I'd say too, though the Battle of the Atlantic will be longer and harder with the Kriegsmarine getting more resources & the Luftwaffe concentrating it's strength in the West.

Maybe, maybe not. LW and KM would get more resources but those would take time to translate into actual combat increase. By then Wallies could get so far ahead it would be hard for Germans to gain supremacy. So it's a stalemate, Wallies control Atlantic, can't invade but keep Germany blockaded. Germany can't break the blockade, but doesn't need to, and has enough forces to prevent any large scale invasion of Europe. Africa could become more important and it's possible Axis would be cleared from it. That and/or both sides try to bomb each other to peace table.

And the Nazi's also risk imploding before round 2 gets properly started.

Always a possibility. Though I think as long as Hitler lives and is healthy(ish) Nazi regime would soldier on. when he dies it depends on who comes out on top and how key players arrange themselves.
 
But assuming SU folds (say in 1942), Germany is in better short term position. It doesn't have to fear SU attacking them, however it will take time before they can fully eploit resources now at hand. I think Wallies could still win Battle of the Atlantic but will lack strength to invade, not with E Front not sucking and chewing German division after division. In the end I see some sort of compromise peace with both sides preparing for next round.

But the more of the ussr the nazis try to hold, the more troops will be chewed up in occupation duty.

Oh, sure, that will be a lot less than otl and dday might have to be postponed for a while, but worst come to worst, the walies come ashore in 46 after carpet bombing normandy with nukes.
 
Hello all, as most are undoubtedly aware, Operation Barbarossa was Hitler's ultimate gamble to secure land and resources for Germany in the East. His contempt for the Russians prevented the German Army from being properly provisioned for the weather conditions they would ultimately face, thereby in essence sealing the fate of the Wehrmacht.


the reason the Germans are was not prepared for the winter was lack of resource and logistics. They could not get the winter clothing to Russia and supply ammo and food at the same time.
Russian rail way used a different gauge than the rest of Europe and hand to be changed be fore the Germans could use them.

However, as a "what if" - and I am aware that many other posters will be able to tell me this is impossible - the German campaign goes according to plan, and they are able to secure all objectives? Operation Typhoon (the third phase of the Campaign) succeeds in destroying the remnants of the Red Army that Stalin has available - in this timeline, Japan wants a rematch with the Red Army so there are no Siberian troops to arrive at the eleventh hour. Moscow falls after a protracted seige and Stalin is killed, as he refused to leave the city. With the loss of the capital, most of the government, and Stalin, what is left of Russia surrenders December 25, 1941.

a better what if is if the Germans accepted the peace deal Stalin offered in late in 1941 as the Germans approached the gates of Moscow.
He was offering them a better deal that the got for Leinin a t the treaty of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg



This would have been all the land and resource the Germans could have used in the medium term. This would have allowed to Germans to consulate their gains. It would be a more manageable area to control than the whole of the USSR.

The main element I am interested in exploring is, what would be the international reaction towards the collapse of Russia, principally in regard to Britain? Will she sue for peace?

Without a Japanese attack on pearl harbour Germany and American may not have gone to war.

if Churchill dies or was disgraced the British might agree to withdraw for the war, leave German to built it empire in eastern Europe and the British to running the own empire.

While the British cannot defected by the Germans they cannot keep fighting in the long therm they are already facing bankruptcy in1941.
No much point in fighting a war they cannot win.
 
Last edited:
Operation Barbarossa is inherently incapable of meeting its own objectives, likewise with Operation Typhoon. For Barbarossa to go according to plan the Red Army will have to collapse altogether in the first two weeks of the war, and in forteen days with it goes the entire USSR. Barbarossa, contrary to the historical negationism of Nazi fanboys, failed the moment the Nazis got sucked into the endless fighting from the Battle of Smolensk onward. The fighting in 1941 after the first two weeks was one of both sides improvising, one more effectively than the other in the short term, the other more efficiently by far in the medium and long terms.
 

b12ox

Banned
There was no such thing as peace with Hitler. The British new it just like anybody else. Those who didn't and who became Hitlers allies had to pay blood tax or pay in other ways. Peace with Hitler meant surrender. Either be my friend and do what I say or I will bomb the hell out of you. Thats the kind of peace, you are looking at. The British could not fight strong Gemany in Europe or even in Africa but they could alwayz count on America. What a pact like that would have meant anyway. Even for Hitler, if he decided to leave Britain alone, he would keep worrying about England engaging America later, with or without a pact. With Russia down, Hitler would try to pin down England asap and effectively block the island.

Japan was not intrested in Siberia. They had other plans. Besides, they got a licking form the Russian a couple years back, so they were not keen on going back.
 
But the more of the ussr the nazis try to hold, the more troops will be chewed up in occupation duty.

But still less than were lost at Stalingrad, Bagration.....

Oh, sure, that will be a lot less than otl and dday might have to be postponed for a while, but worst come to worst, the walies come ashore in 46 after carpet bombing normandy with nukes.

If they are still willing to fight at that point. It's just as likely that if SU falls and with no prospect of victory in Europe in sight US would simply say "screw it" and focus on Pacific. I guess it depends on how UK plays it. If they think some sort of peace is best option they could opt out and US will be unlikely to go at it alone, not without major European partner.
 
There was no such thing as peace with Hitler. The British new it just like anybody else. Those who didn't and who became Hitlers allies had to pay blood tax or pay in other ways. Peace with Hitler meant surrender. Either be my friend and do what I say or I will bomb the hell out of you. Thats the kind of peace, you are looking at. The British could not fight strong Gemany in Europe or even in Africa but they could alwayz count on America. What a pact like that would have meant anyway. Even for Hitler, if he decided to leave Britain alone, he would keep worrying about England engaging America later, with or without a pact. With Russia down, Hitler would try to pin down England asap and effectively block the island.

Japan was not intrested in Siberia. They had other plans. Besides, they got a licking form the Russian a couple years back, so they were not keen on going back.

The difference was Germany never dealt with equal state. It was either small ones that could be bullied (Austria, CS, Balkans), weak and defeated (Poland, Scandinavia, Low countries) or ones crushed (France). With UK they'd have to deal with near equal. Strong though weakened and one Germany could not defeat in straight fight. Would that matter? In short term yes, in mid to long who knows.
 
Interestingly, the CIGS FM Alanbrooke believe that Russia would last maybe six months tops, a view shared by the americans as well. They planned to continue the war after the collapse of Russia.

As to how effective this would have been is up for grabs. Britain is caught between a rock and a hard place. The longer the war goes on, the stronger she gets (at least on paper) as does the US. However, the longer the war goes on the more economically indebted to the US she gets. Churchill's rhetoric will only keep the British people going for so long, if there are no victories (and lets face it there won't be many, if indeed any for a good few years) the British people may well grow war weary and demand a peace with honour of sorts.
 
The Russian people will never surrender, sod Stalin and the USSR, even if they're pushed back beyond the Urals. Britain will never surrender. Enter the USA at some point. That's inevitable in its own interest.
 
Interestingly, the CIGS FM Alanbrooke believe that Russia would last maybe six months tops, a view shared by the americans as well. They planned to continue the war after the collapse of Russia.

As to how effective this would have been is up for grabs. Britain is caught between a rock and a hard place. The longer the war goes on, the stronger she gets (at least on paper) as does the US. However, the longer the war goes on the more economically indebted to the US she gets. Churchill's rhetoric will only keep the British people going for so long, if there are no victories (and lets face it there won't be many, if indeed any for a good few years) the British people may well grow war weary and demand a peace with honour of sorts.

But that is a bit of hindsight, isn't it? Sure Britain (and Wallies in general) will grow stronger as time goes on, but so will Germany, or at least that's how it would look if SU folded and their resurces could be exploited by Germany. And don't forget that if Germany wins they'll have a string of uninterupted victories, no matter how Battle of Britain is lauded. And in North Africa any British victory was soon reversed by Germans, making them a moot point. I think UK could rake enough victories (Atlantic, maybe Africa) to make a decent peace and not capitulate but I simply don't see them fighting on for long time.

And don't say "nukes". In 1942 those were still a distant project which may or may not work and nobody knew if it worked how exactlly will it work. Plus Germany would be better position to ride out few nuclear strikes than Japan was.
 
The Russian people will never surrender, sod Stalin and the USSR, even if they're pushed back beyond the Urals.

That's like saying Palestinians will never surrender. Who cares if they surrender or not, as long as Israel holds all the cards and is willing to endure low level violence and keep watch on them.

Britain will never surrender.

Given enough German victories and lack of serious ally on continent they would seek peace. Not capitulate. Even Churchill said that if UK could get peace in exchange for some territory he'd do it. OK, that was at height of crisis in May 1940 with BEF having little prospect of getting out and may not really mean, but still......

Enter the USA at some point. That's inevitable in its own interest.

If they enter the war as per OTL (which this thread assumes) and UK bows out how will they fight on? There will be no springboard and with all major European powers out of the fight I simply don't see US people willing to fight on on their own. Not with Japan advancing.
 

b12ox

Banned
If they enter the war as per OTL (which this thread assumes) and UK bows out how will they fight on? There will be no springboard and with all major European powers out of the fight I simply don't see US people willing to fight on on their own. Not with Japan advancing.

The US would fight no matter what. If they didn't want to, the Germans would soon make them fight. Wunderwaffen were coming, also against America. Had the germans had more time, they would have bombed New York in their all embracing madness. No matter how you flip it, Hitler could be brought down only the way he was. I dont see Hitler ever being able to transform his politics into the real world.
 
The US would fight no matter what. If they didn't want to, the Germans would soon make them fight. Wunderwaffen were coming, also against America. Had the germans had more time, they would have bombed New York in their all embracing madness. No matter how you flip it, Hitler could be brought down only the way he was. I dont see Hitler ever being able to transform his politics into the real world.

Forgive a perhaps very ignorant question, but what is there in Hitler's writings or his table talk or speeches or any where else to indicate he looked forward to going to war against the USA. He certainly despised Americans as mongrels, etc. But it seems to me that he was aiming at building his empire in Europe. IIRC he never asked for Germany's colonies in Africa.

FDR played a devious game in order to help the UK and USSR. In the 1940 campaign he promised he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars." In 1941 he had the beginngs of an undeclared naval war going in the Atlantic.

Might not the sudden collapse of the USSR have made FDR back off in the Atlantic? Wouldn't it have increased public pressure on FDR to do so? Does Hitler still declare war right after Pearl Harbor if the US Navy is backing off?
 
Forgive a perhaps very ignorant question, but what is there in Hitler's writings or his table talk or speeches or any where else to indicate he looked forward to going to war against the USA. He certainly despised Americans as mongrels, etc. But it seems to me that he was aiming at building his empire in Europe. IIRC he never asked for Germany's colonies in Africa.

FDR played a devious game in order to help the UK and USSR. In the 1940 campaign he promised he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars." In 1941 he had the beginngs of an undeclared naval war going in the Atlantic.

Might not the sudden collapse of the USSR have made FDR back off in the Atlantic? Wouldn't it have increased public pressure on FDR to do so? Does Hitler still declare war right after Pearl Harbor if the US Navy is backing off?

Well, let's start with the concept that in Hitler's Zweites Buch refers to the USA as the ultimate global rival of Germany and Hitler's end goal was a war for global hegemony with the USA. The destruction of the USSR he viewed as but part of the global agenda. Of course the destruction of the USSR was ultimately impossible for Nazi Germany to ever accomplish.....
 
The US would fight no matter what. If they didn't want to, the Germans would soon make them fight. Wunderwaffen were coming, also against America. Had the germans had more time, they would have bombed New York in their all embracing madness. No matter how you flip it, Hitler could be brought down only the way he was. I dont see Hitler ever being able to transform his politics into the real world.

Even if US somehow still pushes "Germany first" how do they fight on? UK is out, Ireland is neutral, Spain and Portugal are neutral and more pro-Germany than pro-US. Where does US base its forces? What is used as a springboard to invade? The easternmost point US could base itself is Iceland and that can't support much.
 
Top