Stalin dies at the Tehran Conference

The Soviets will fight as hard as possible under any leadership. Quite simply they had no alternative- the Nazis regarded them as inherantly inferior.

The war mostly goes as in OTL. I think a saner leadership (+ losing Uncle Joe guarantees this to some extent) might have done some kind of deal over Poland.

There might well be less of a cold war.
 
They had to settle questions of second front. Without clear USSR position (no Stalin and struggle of his successor for next 6 monthes-1 year) Allies wouldn't start second front or it would be weak Italian crawling.

Without firm opinion - consensus between USA, Brits, USSR - Soviets can just wait during allied invasion and it will sink in blood (especially in Normandy). Germans will temporarily send troops to fight Allies back in ocean and then return on Eastern front where Soviet will wait.

Or you cannot imagine such meanness of Soviets ? ;-)

So as I said second front could be later and less successful.


I really doubt things would work out that way.

For starters, let's suppose all is quiet on the Eastern Front in June 1944. Thus the Germans can redeploy West even more troops than they did historically – IF they trust that the Soviets won't attack them as soon as they redeploy. And how could they have any trust in that? Assume the Soviets make an under-the-counter deal with the Germans, promising them they won't attack if the Germans reinforce the West. Who could be sure that the Soviets are tricking their Allies... and not the Germans themselves?

That said, yes, if we pit say 10 German armored divisions and 40 infantry divisions against what the Allies had landed by D-Day +10, onto an ideal, open, limitless battlefield surrounded by vacuum, the Germans would win. But that's not what would have happened. The battle wouldn't be fought in a vacuum.
For starters, the German reinforcements would have to be shipped West. And, not coincidentally, the French rail network was in shambles, the German one not much better off, and both still under Allied strategic bombing attack. The situation was bad enough with the reinforcements the Germans actually sent in OTL, increase them, and you won't have more German troops on the frontline; you'll have more German troops on sidings and marshalling yards from Smolensk to Paris, waiting for rolling stock the Germans did not have. And while there, they'd be bombed together with the rail lines.
Of course, the same goes for the supplies these units would need. It's no good to have Koenigstigers around if you aren't getting fuel and spare parts for them.
Once the units reach the vicinity of the frontline, already whittled down by these problems, there's the Western Allied tactical airfleet, which had not a lot to do in OTL due to a shortage of suitable targets. In this ATL, they get what they'd call a "target-rich environment".
And once the survivors get close to the shores – naval bombardment. For a few hours in each case, the Germans had thought they had half a chance both at Gela and Anzio the year before; the battleships' guns melted that half chance.

So in the very best case the Germans can contain the landing, for longer than they did historically, and at an accordingly much higher price. But I very much doubt they'll be able to do away with it.

And, meanwhile, in the East… Assuming that whoever replaced Stalin was seriously thinking about cheating on the Western Allies and wasn't simply double-crossing the Germans... the German lines will have grown thinner and thinner. The Red Army generals will be clamoring for an offensive (and the lack of a Stalin will very likely make them bolder than in OTL). And some Western ambassador, probably the US one, will have an opportunity to mention that in May, some 553,000 tons in Lend-Lease aid have been shipped to the Soviet Union. Another 522,000 are en route for June. Another 624,000 for July are planned. But if the situation remains dangerous on the new Western Front, unfortunately these shipments will have to be cut back. Instead of sending 561,000 tons of military supplies to the Soviet Union in August, the Allies might well decide they really have to commit more resources to their own Front.
Make no mistake, by this time the Soviet Union can beat the Germans even without Lend-Lease – at a higher price and a year or so later. Meanwhile, who knows where the Western Allies will have arrived.
Uh-oh; do we really want to make do without that aid, comrade?
Guess the quiet on the Eastern Front won't last.
 
I really doubt things would work out that way.

For starters, ....the Soviets are tricking their Allies... and not the Germans themselves?


Make no mistake, by this time the Soviet Union can beat the Germans even without Lend-Lease – at a higher price and a year or so later. Meanwhile, who knows where the Western Allies will have arrived.
Uh-oh; do we really want to make do without that aid, comrade?
Guess the quiet on the Eastern Front won't last.

You are right. BTW we have known weak points and risks of letting WAllies to be thrown to the sea back too.

But, for starters ;-), let's recall 2 things
1. To the June-July 1944 USSR had freed ALL its territory and entered Poland and Romania.
Imagine that Soviets can relax and slow down offence, not drowning Nazi in soviet blood for WAllies sake.
2. Just ask any German that day or today - How much fronts do they want? ;-)
What they prefer - Leave to soviets Romania, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia (who will leave Nazi anyway) OR get second front. Anyway Germans will defend in Germany and Austerreich.

Do you think soviets are fools ? Just recall how they slow down offence when polacks rioted in Warsaw - they just stopped and let Germans to kill them all.
Here is the same except scale.

USA will forgive Soviets 'COS they need Soviets to vanquish 1 million Quantun army in Manchjuria.
What about UK? Yes, they won't forgive but soviets don't need it from people who had started WWII in Munchen and show Nazi way eastward during "Strange war".
 
1. To the June-July 1944 USSR had freed ALL its territory and entered Poland and Romania.

You are over-eager. On July 18 the Soviets were still fighting for pskov or Kovel. And the attack that shattered HGM had started not early than the last decade of June.

That only highlights another downside. If the Soviets decide to wait and see if the Germans redeploy more troops West, they are throwing away good summer weeks, the weeks in which one can advance quickly, not hampered by weather and bad roads.

Imagine that Soviets can relax and slow down offence, not drowning Nazi in soviet blood for WAllies sake.

Advancing fast, by now, was not done for the Western Allies' sake. It was done to make sure where the sphere of influence would end. It's an endgame decision for postwar's sake.

Do you think soviets are fools ? Just recall how they slow down offence when polacks rioted in Warsaw - they just stopped and let Germans to kill them all.

There's more to that than what you seem to think.

Here is the same except scale.

Which alone invalidates the comparison, sorry.

USA will forgive Soviets 'COS they need Soviets to vanquish 1 million Quantun army in Manchjuria.

I doubt that. The USA would not worry a lot about that 3rd-rate army, given that they could exact a surrender somewhat more directly. Had there been three 1st-rate armies in Kwantung and no Soviets to engage them, the nukes would have obtained Japan's surrender all the same.
 
Well, for a start, the politburo is going to dissolve into massive infighting. Without Stalin directing the war effort, key events such as the Battle of Berlin are going to be rather different. Whether the Red Army is able to capture the capital sooner (due to rather less meddling than in OTL) or has their offensive slowly stall (no Stalin means it is going to be difficult keeping Zhukov and Rokossovsky from each others throats) is a matter of some debate.

The question is really dependant on who succeeds Stalin as leader. It would have to be someone within the Politburo, none of the Marshals would get the job as the Army would never be trusted. Beria would equally be seen as unacceptable by the other candidates; after all, no one would want another psychopath as Soviet leader.

To me, any contest would be between Molotov, Bulganin and Kaganovich. All of whom would be far more competent than Khrushchev. In any post war world, (which would be largely the same in terms of territory occupied) we are likely to see a much more hard-line Soviet State. The Korean War would probably still happen largely as OTL, but Mao would not be as trusted by any of the three above and the Sino-Soviet Split would not happen to the extent that it actually did.

Depending on how long the new General-Secretary lasts in office (no real chance of them being ousted a la Khrushchev) it would be at least 1970 before a new leader would come to power (Molotov and Kaganovitch both lived well into their nineties) at the head of a state much less “reformed” and far more tyrannical than in OTL.

This could make an interesting Time Line as it happens. We don’t have many with leaders dying at the end of conflicts!
 
Guys

My 2p worth

a) I can't see a separate peace between Russia and Germany because not only Hitler's insanity and the lack of trust between the two powers. Another factor is without Stalin's iron hand on the helm any Soviet group/faction suggesting such a peace is handing a hell of an axe to its opponents to bury in its back. Some single person might become leader pretty quickly but his position is unlikely to be secure for quite a while.

b) One point I don't think anyone's mentioned is what the western response to a change of Soviet leader. Even presuming no clear infighting or possible accusations of western responsibility for Stalin's death both Britain and more importantly America [since they have the power] have to decide how they will respond to the new leader. If you have someone more hard lined or making even more demands than Stalin then you might have worsening relations, which as said would hurt the Soviets most.

c) The western allies will still attack the continent as its in their interests to. [Just a case of keeping a rein on the US until the forces are capable]. Hence will be 44 in France unless a more professional approach is taken to action in the Med. Italy, with a little more forces and less errors could be cleared markedly earlier, especially if some amphibious shipping is freed up for turning the German flanks. The Balkans are more difficult and would raise Russian hackles but if done would hurt the Germans a lot more and possibly drastically affect the post-war situation.

d) If Roosevelt is less certain of his strange belief that he can trust Russia without Stalin the US might seriously look to Britain as an ally and seek to do less damage. That could also make a big difference post war, both for Britain and Europe as a whole.

Steve
 
Stalin in 1943 was just as likely to die as Churchill and Roosevelt - he was a very heavy smoker and had already had one massive stroke...

Agree with Lord Roem - politburo to go into meltdown somewhat but Molotov to emerge victorious on the grounds that he was just as ruthless as Stalin. He's also there at Tehran so he can continue negotiating with the Allies.

A situation not unlike the USSR described in the Worldwar series of books is quite likely - an almost triumvariate of Beria, Molotov and Zhukov could govern until Molotov tired of them or they tired of Molotov. I think that Molotov would push harder for Russian occupation of Finland but I don't know how he'd consider China and Korea.
 
You are over-eager. On July 18 the Soviets were still fighting for pskov or Kovel. And the attack that shattered HGM had started not early than the last decade of June.
Don't forget Kurlandia where nazi defended until May 12 1945. Some little town Kovel.
Anyway Nazi Army Group Centre nave no chance anyway to the end of June.

That only highlights another downside. If the Soviets decide to wait and see if the Germans redeploy more troops West, they are throwing away good summer weeks, the weeks in which one can advance quickly, not hampered by weather and bad roads.
Soviets can attack in any weather. And in winter not less successfully.
Anyway after moving through soviet border roads are much better than in swampy Bielorussia.

There's more to that than what you seem to think.
Which alone invalidates the comparison, sorry.
I know but letting Army Krayova to control Warsaw means to lose control of post-war Poland.

Then you can too compare number of german divisions in France.

I doubt that. The USA would not worry a lot about that 3rd-rate army, given that they could exact a surrender somewhat more directly. Had there been three 1st-rate armies in Kwantung and no Soviets to engage them, the nukes would have obtained Japan's surrender all the same.
So you don't know number of nukes and their radius of destruction? - low production rate of nukes and radius destruction 1 km.

Kwantung army was well-trained army that contolled China, great industry of Manju and was the last hope of japanese.

And nazi had a chance to stop Overlord and WAllies until autumn if only Rommel was in full power of french divisions and posessed 2 more tank divisions from the start (12th SS tank division and training tank division) .
I know about 25:1 air dominance, effect of capitalships cannons BUT it less severe further from shoreline.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget Kurlandia where nazi defended until May 12 1945. Some little town Kovel.
Anyway Nazi Army Group Centre nave no chance anyway to the end of June.


Soviets can attack in any weather. And in winter not less successfully.
Anyway after moving through soviet border roads are much better than in swampy Bielorussia.


I know but letting Army Krayova to control Warsaw means to lose control of post-war Poland.

Then you can too compare number of german divisions in France.


So you don't know number of nukes and their radius of destruction? - low production rate of nukes and radius destruction 1 km.

Kwantung army was well-trained army that contolled China, great industry of Manju and was the last hope of japanese.

And nazi had a chance to stop Overlord and WAllies until autumn if only Rommel was in full power of french divisions and posessed 2 more tank divisions from the start (12th SS tank division and training tank division) .
I know about 25:1 air dominance, effect of capitalships cannons BUT it less severe further from shoreline.


Yes, I forgot about Kurland. Probably because I unconsciously did not class it as "former Soviet territory". There must be some reason for that, eh?
For the same reason, you can remove Kovel (which may be small but I can see it on a map of the whole Europe).
So let's say we're left with Pskov. It was Soviet territory before 1939, and it was fought for on July 18. That is enough to show that your claim that by June-July 1944 the Soviets had retaken all of their territory... well, is wrong. It would be elegant of you if you just admitted that.
By the way, Romania doesn't come along until the last decade of August, either.

You are wrong when you state that the Soviets can attack in any weather.
It is true they could and did attack in winter, but summer and winter are not the end of the weather types. The rasputitsa is the other type, and if it is totally prohibitive in spring, when there's the thaw of the winter's snow, it's quite bad in autumn too. Indeed, both side's offensives stopped moving, or at least stopped making any significant headway, in autumn.
As to the roads being better outside of the Soviet Union, that was generally true but not so much true when one talks about Eastern Poland and Eastern Romania.

As to the nukes, I know about their numbers and radius of effectiveness, thank you. What you seem to think is that I'm suggesting they could or would be used in Kwantung. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that they would be used exactly as in OTL, against Japanese cities, and that this would bring about the Japanese surrender within a couple of days, even if nobody lifted a finger against the Kwantung Army. I know that because, you see, we have OTL's example. Nobody gave a damn about what was happening in Kwantung. It was the nuke that settled things.
In any case, calling the Kwantung Army the last hope of the Japanese is ridiculous. It wa stranded where it was, it had been stripped of good manpower and equipment, and what kept it from starving in place was the fact that it was starving the Chinese instead. Had the Japanese tried to shift it to the defense of the homeland, it would have been sunk en route. It was basically irrelevant.

As to the logic behind letting the Armia Krajowa being defeated in Warsaw, sure. I disagree its survival would have meant no Soviet control of Poland, but it would have certainly made that much more difficult to achieve.
That said, it is one thing to stop in September, at the end of a breakneck advance with your logistics in shambles and your units attrited; it is another thing not to start the offensive at all.
The point is, however, that the logic in attacking in June and waiting outside Warsaw is the same: the objective is Soviet control of the areas assigned to the USSR. The Yalta agreements were fine, but boots on the ground were better and more secure. So, for exactly the same reason why the Soviets can and should stop outside Warsaw, they cannot and should not twiddle their thumbs in June 1944.

As to containing Overlord, yes, the Germans can achieve that – temporarily. For a longer time than they did in OTL if they have more reinforcements, yes. But certainly not until the fall. You seem to have forgotten Dragoon/Anvil. In OTL, it was little more than a cakewalk. In this ATL, it would be contested; but the outcome would be to have the Germans fighting on two fronts _in France alone_ (not to mention Italy). They can't hold that.

As to air superiority getting less important as you move away from the beaches, you are probably referring to CAS missions only. The Allies were still carrying out the strategic bombing of the French and German rail lines, and a sizable percentage of the losses incurred by German units took place in transit, way before seeing the first enemy soldier on land.
 
Originally posted by yyz
Do you think soviets are fools ? Just recall how they slow down offence when polacks rioted in Warsaw - they just stopped and let Germans to kill them all.
Here is the same except scale.
Please rephrase that: AFAIK term "polacks" is offensive to the Poles (which means to me too). Also, calling Warsaw Uprising "riots " is at least improper.
 

well, is wrong. It would be elegant of you if you just admitted that.[/FONT]
FONT]
No problem, I admit.

But let's not forget about name of this site and let some imagination to events.


Originally posted by yyz

Please rephrase that: AFAIK term "polacks" is offensive to the Poles (which means to me too). Also, calling Warsaw Uprising "riots " is at least improper.
My excuses, too. I just use it as French Polaque, German Polack or Russian поляк.
OK, Warsaw Uprising is better.
 
That said, yes, if we pit say 10 German armored divisions and 40 infantry divisions against what the Allies had landed by D-Day +10, onto an ideal, open, limitless battlefield surrounded by vacuum, the Germans would win. But that's not what would have happened. The battle wouldn't be fought in a vacuum.[/FONT]
For starters, the German reinforcements would have to be shipped West. And, not coincidentally, the French rail network was in shambles, the German one not much better off, and both still under Allied strategic bombing attack. The situation was bad enough with the reinforcements the Germans actually sent in OTL, increase them, and you won't have more German troops on the frontline; you'll have more German troops on sidings and marshalling yards from Smolensk to Paris, waiting for rolling stock the Germans did not have. And while there, they'd be bombed together with the rail lines.
Of course, the same goes for the supplies these units would need. It's no good to have Koenigstigers around if you aren't getting fuel and spare parts for them.
Once the units reach the vicinity of the frontline, already whittled down by these problems, there's the Western Allied tactical airfleet, which had not a lot to do in OTL due to a shortage of suitable targets. In this ATL, they get what they'd call a "target-rich environment".
And once the survivors get close to the shores – naval bombardment. For a few hours in each case, the Germans had thought they had half a chance both at Gela and Anzio the year before; the battleships' guns melted that half chance.

So in the very best case the Germans can contain the landing, for longer than they did historically, and at an accordingly much higher price. But I very much doubt they'll be able to do away with it.

While I agree with you about the implausability of the scenario, I have to disagree with this proposed outcome. Allied airpower and German logistical weaknesses are certainly key issues, but they are not completely prohibitive. I am not entirely convinced you can substantiate the claim that Germany's capacity to move forces around by '44 was being entirely used up, certainly if there has been an effective peace deal in the east. Obviously though shifting fifty divisions together would probably be impossible at any speed, but getting ten to twenty across sounds doable, wouldn't drastically reduce German strength on the Eastern Front, and more could arrive each week.

Fuel and logistics is a major concern, but if Germany is taking the risk on the Russians then nominally they can prioritize fuel and spare parts to western divisions, rather than the opposite which largely happened in OTL. No matter the extent of the damage to the German and French networks, it wouldn't be more difficult than moving resources through Poland and further east would it?

All in all if Germany can secure an advantage of numbers (in real terms, not scattered somewhere throughout France and having no actual effect on the battles) I have a hard time seeing the Allies advancing and it is quite possible they could be driven into the sea. I don't believe tactical airpower can make up for that. If need be the Germans can hold on the defensive, being more accepting, due to increased numbers, of attrition to slow the allied advance and then counter attack whenever weather intervenes against allied airpower, something which is more or less a given in a few months time. It just seems too much of the airpower obsession which holds any changes on the ground are irrelevent and can be constrained without significant changes in the combat on the ground. Inflicting an additional quarter to half a million casualties on the Western Allies in '44 would have a major impact on the war, probably ending the capacity of the British and Commonwealth to operate independently and putting significant strain on American front line forces. The allies might be able to dig in, survive the winter and then push on to victory in '45, but I don't think its a concrete certainty and it would be a very changed war.

That said the USSR-Nazi peace deal in 44 is just implausable so it doesn't matter much either way.
 
originally posted by yyz
My excuses, too. I just use it as French Polaque, German Polack or Russian поляк.
OK, Warsaw Uprising is better.
Apology accepted but...Actually Polaque in French and Polack in German are as offensive as Polack in English. Correct terms are Polonais and Pole. Funny thing is, word Polack comes from Polish word for a Pole: Polak; however, AFAIK, versions Polaque and Polack usually serve as pejorative terms.
Just so you could avoid similar misunderstandings in the future:)
And now I'm shutting up and let you continue your interesting discussion.
 
No matter the extent of the damage to the German and French networks, it wouldn't be more difficult than moving resources through Poland and further east would it?

Well, I'd say that the answer to that is yes, it would be more difficult, which also answers your other points.

Nobody was bombing the rail lines across Poland. Additionally, little if any sabotage was done by the Polish resistance, if compared to the French one; nor that they could be blamed, operating under much more ruthless reprisals and having received, during the whole war, under 1,000 tons of air-dropped supplies, as opposed to more than ten times that for the French resistance.
In other words, moving troops East from Germany was a breeze, when compared to moving them West.

In April 1944, Bomber Command alone flew 3,785 sorties against French, Western German and Belgian marshalling yards and railway depots. Note I've done this count quickly, so I've not included harassment follow-on attacks by handfuls of Mosquitoes, nor am I counting the traditional area bombing missions carried out in this month, which also, by their very nature, did damage the railway yards of the German cities involved.

And, this is in preparation, two months before the invasion, by the RAF. I could do a quick count for May and June. Then one would have to add the USAAF heavies.
And, once again, this is at the strategic level. Then one would have to add the light bomber, attack aircraft and fighter-bomber missions, which tended to be significantly under-used in June.

There is a reason if the Germans waited short daylight hours and bad weather for their last offensive in the West.

On top of that, sure, a few divisions (or, better, a few nominal divisions which would actually be the equivalent of less divisions) would make it through, piecemeal, as you suggest – and as they did in OTL. This would give the Allies the time, of course, to build up their beachhead – as per OTL. And the German units arriving piecemeal would be defeated in detail.

Assuming, finally, that things go better than the above, then the Germans are hit in the belly by Dragoon/Anvil. And they won't be able to redeploy to face that second threat, and hold both sides of the French front, plus Italy. Regardless of whatever happens in the East.
 
Top