POD: Hitler is Assassinated (Nov. 8th 1939)

forget

Banned
The plot bunnies in this TL are awful, the abuse of logic used to justify key butterflies makes me want to cry.
Really the only thing that makes this TL credible is Germany loses WW2 and all events leading up to USSRs invasion of Germany are floored anyway.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
The plot bunnies in this TL are awful, the abuse of logic used to justify key butterflies makes me want to cry.
Really the only thing that makes this TL credible is Germany loses WW2 and all events leading up to USSRs invasion of Germany are floored anyway.

If we're being frank here, that's an incredibly broad and unhelpful critique. What parts do you find abusive to logic? I'd happily revise them to be more accurate, as I did with Julian's assessment.
 
Julian said:
If the Red Army tried to invade Nazi Germany in 1941
AIUI, the "plan" to invade was a deception by Heidrich with no basis in fact.

And did I miss something? After an agreed ceasefire, Britain still invades France? (BTW, if the Brits & Germans are still actively fighting, how's Britain overcome U-boats so easily? And why isn't the U.S. in the war yet?)
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
AIUI, the "plan" to invade was a deception by Heidrich with no basis in fact.

And did I miss something? After an agreed ceasefire, Britain still invades France? (BTW, if the Brits & Germans are still actively fighting, how's Britain overcome U-boats so easily? And why isn't the U.S. in the war yet?)

The ceasefire was between France and Germany, not Germany and Britain. The U.S. isn't in technically the war because there was no Pearl Harbor (Japan allied with the UK after Germany continued to support the KMT as a result of Goering's personal preference expressed in OTL). And they ARE in the war, just without a declaration of such. As well, Britain has obstructed much of the iron necessary to construct those U-boats, and are receiving assistance from the U.S., as noted before. It's not that much different from OTL in that respect.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Indeed, Glantz decisively disproves that the Red Army could attack in 1941, or intended to.

I think what the Soviet Union was or wasn't planning in regards to Germany during World War II is still a point of on-going controversy with no conclusive evidence against a preemptive strike. This historian believes that the evidence implies that the USSR was gearing up for an offensive war against Germany: http://www.solonin.org/en/article_comrade-stalins-three-plans
 
Last edited:
I think what the Soviet Union was or wasn't planning in regards to Germany during World War II is still a point of on-going controversy with no conclusive evidence against a preemptive strike. This historian believes that the evidence implies that the USSR was gearing up for an offensive war against Germany: http://www.solonin.org/en/article_comrade-stalins-three-plans

Glantz thoroughly examined actual STAVKA documents issued to military districts in 1941 (For his book he includes the plans for the Baltic Military District as an example). Not theoretical plans or notes, but what the STAVKA actually ordered. All of them were entirely defensive in nature, with offensives only to be carried out after the enemy had been halted in the operational depths. This had been Soviet policy since serious war planning began. It's almost certain that offensive action was discussed and theorized at some point; but all militaries develop contingency and theoretical exercises. As your link shows, the Red Army did study number of offensive options. But nothing more than that. For the Red Army planning and a firm operational concept were everything; thus the absence of any STAVKA directives, plans, etc beyond the formulative stages is damning evidence that a serious offensive was never considered.

Even if the Stalin did seriously wish to launch an offensive, Glantz shows that the Red Army was in such a dismal state in 1941 that an offensive would be impossible to consider. It was unable to engage in offense or defense, which the STAVKA was aware of and desperately trying to rectify when Germany invaded. I've already listed some statistics as an example.

Solonin and others rely mostly on circumstantial evidence, conjecture, and a few facts. Glantz's works make extensive use of actualy Soviet archival data, and is supported by a host of statistics and documents.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Glantz thoroughly examined actual STAVKA documents issued to military districts in 1941 (For his book he includes the plans for the Baltic Military District as an example). Not theoretical plans or notes, but what the STAVKA actually ordered. All of them were entirely defensive in nature, with offensives only to be carried out after the enemy had been halted in the operational depths. This had been Soviet policy since serious war planning began. It's almost certain that offensive action was discussed and theorized at some point; but all militaries develop contingency and theoretical exercises. As your link shows, the Red Army did study number of offensive options. But nothing more than that. For the Red Army planning and a firm operational concept were everything; thus the absence of any STAVKA directives, plans, etc beyond the formulative stages is damning evidence that a serious offensive was never considered.

Even if the Stalin did seriously wish to launch an offensive, Glantz shows that the Red Army was in such a dismal state in 1941 that an offensive would be impossible to consider. It was unable to engage in offense or defense, which the STAVKA was aware of and desperately trying to rectify when Germany invaded. I've already listed some statistics as an example.

Solonin and others rely mostly on circumstantial evidence, conjecture, and a few facts. Glantz's works make extensive use of actualy Soviet archival data, and is supported by a host of statistics and documents.

I'll revise accordingly, but not immediately as this will change a lot. Goering didn't want to launch an invasion of the Soviet Union until after Britain was dealt with, and we all know how Operation Unspeakable Sea Animal would go. Thanks for all the information by the way! Alternate history is a wonderful place for tangential learning.

----------------

This timeline is being put on a hiatus for further revisions. I plan to implement Operation Felix (and Operation Tracer) into it as well, among other things. Thanks for everyone's support and help thus far, sorry I'm abandoning my schedule for updates for now.
 
Top