Strategy for a Reverse WWII

General Zod

Banned
This thread is a shameless fishing for strategic ideas (I'm at ease with developing the political aspects, but I welcome suggestions about the military aspects of the war) about the following scenario, which I'm presently developing: a post-Hitler moderate fascist-authoritarian Germany and Britain ally to fight the URSS. USA may stay neutral, or may fight a later separate war with Japan (they may provide land-lease to the Allies). France and Japan may stay neutral, or provide a limited support to the Allies but then they may switch sides and backstab the Allies to some point. Italy, Sweden, and Turkey are loyal allies of the anti-communist coalition.

Throw ideas.
 
Russia loses big time.
Germany has an additional 50 divisions, plus probably 15 or so UK ones (assuming a 1941 kickoff), plus RAF air support, plus Britains industrial production amd logistics support.
Plenty of oil for Germany.
Russia doesnt have any lend lease, or have Germanys industry disripted by bombing.

Barbarossaa succeeds to take Moscow and the Caucasus, then next year Russia gets pushed back to the Urals, quite possibly collapsing in the process. Since no Nazi racial intolerance, they probebly get way more help from the local populace, and far fewer partisans. Russian trans-ural industry gets taken apart by RAF heavy bombers.
After 1942 it just gets worse for the Russians.
 
Russia loses big time.
Germany has an additional 50 divisions, plus probably 15 or so UK ones (assuming a 1941 kickoff), plus RAF air support, plus Britains industrial production amd logistics support.
Plenty of oil for Germany.
Russia doesnt have any lend lease, or have Germanys industry disripted by bombing.

Barbarossaa succeeds to take Moscow and the Caucasus, then next year Russia gets pushed back to the Urals, quite possibly collapsing in the process. Since no Nazi racial intolerance, they probebly get way more help from the local populace, and far fewer partisans. Russian trans-ural industry gets taken apart by RAF heavy bombers.
After 1942 it just gets worse for the Russians.

On the other hand, the German industry will probably be that much slower to optimise for total war mobilisation. Britain, its safety not directly threatened, will also be less likely to put its economy on total war footing. And it's not like they can strip the West bare if they need to defend the border against a potentially hostile France with a fully armed military.

As for Barbarossa, it's the nasty word "logistics" that pops up again. The forces the Germans can send forth are limited by the transportation infrastructure.

Since it's the point of the scenario, I'm willing to accept that the Germans can defeat Russia, given the set-up. But it won't be quick or easy. And German racism won't go away entirely either; even if you don't accept that food resources were too scarce for feeding in full the Slavic population, you have the very real racism of a large number of highly placed German officers (von Manstein is the best-known example) to consider.
 

General Zod

Banned
I'm not entirely sure I can stretch the scenario to prevent eruption of general war in Europe until 1941, possibly it might explode in 1940 when the British say "enough" to Stalin's pre-emptive expansionism and/or he sees momentarily weakness in Germany (reverse SS Walkuria) and strikes. Then again, The Red Army was a mess in 1939/40, so it may be that Finland with Swedish help manages to stall the Red Army for the better part of 1940, and he might go for limited invasions (Finland, Romania, bullying Bulgaria and Turkey) instead of total reverse Barbarossa in Poland. After all, the Red Army was not really ready for a major war in 1940 (neither the Germans or the British were).
 

General Zod

Banned
On the other hand, the German industry will probably be that much slower to optimise for total war mobilisation. Britain, its safety not directly threatened, will also be less likely to put its economy on total war footing.

Oh, eventually all of them (including Russia) will go for total war footing (including Britain, Communists on the Channel were their worst nightmare), but here the war starts as a frontal clash of paranoid suspicions, mutual subversion, and pre-emptive strikes from both sides rather than grandiose plans for conquest of Europe, so all countries will have some time to build their economies to total war footing.

And it's not like they can strip the West bare if they need to defend the border against a potentially hostile France with a fully armed military.

Oh, the French *might* eventually do something stupid, but that's where the alliance with Britain will save the butt of Germany.

As for Barbarossa, it's the nasty word "logistics" that pops up again. The forces the Germans can send forth are limited by the transportation infrastructure.

Attrition war, a losing game for the Russians when the Germans have a sane Fuhrer at the helm and a good coalition on their side. And if nothing else would suffice... which side do you think will develop nukes first ???

Since it's the point of the scenario, I'm willing to accept that the Germans can defeat Russia, given the set-up. But it won't be quick or easy.

Absolutely, that's an ATL World War II after all, a "home before Christmas" scenario would not fulfill.

And German racism won't go away entirely either; even if you don't accept that food resources were too scarce for feeding in full the Slavic population, you have the very real racism of a large number of highly placed German officers (von Manstein is the best-known example) to consider.

Hmm, good point, but let's say something happens in post-Hitler Germany (Himmler sooner or later decides to make a shoot for the Fuhrer's mantle) that makes extreme Hitlerite racism politically unpopular in the Fatherland by the time the war is in full swing, and the wise and pragmatic (such as von Manstein) clue up (the fanatic go against the wall). So some wartime harsh deprivation, yes, but no deliberate racist harassing of the Slav populace in the liberated areas, here the supreme leadership is saner and sees the huge potential benefits of successfuly summoning the downtrodden subjects of Stalin to the anti-Communist flag.

Also take into account that here Britain is an ally (and past a point, the USA will become sympathetic), so international commerce is widely available to Germany, and foodstuff from Ukraine will be nowhere as essential to fill plates in Berlin.
 
The racism will be held a lot in check by the fact that Britain will probably be supplying a lot of vital resources to Germany.

Also, I give you Russian logistics were a nightnare, but now you have all those british trucks and plenty of petrol for them. And Russia DONT have those resources.

Even without any British military involvement, Barbarossa is going to work.

I dont see a 1940 start as being any better for Russia. Fewer German tanks, but no t-34's, and the russian militay is in even more of a mess.

On the longer term, Britain + German GDP during WW2 was 2-3 times that of Russia...and their factories arent being overrun or in suitcases being shipped behind the Urals...
 
Oh, eventually all of them (including Russia) will go for total war footing (including Britain, Communists on the Channel were their worst nightmare), but here the war starts as a frontal clash of paranoid suspicions, mutual subversion, and pre-emptive strikes from both sides rather than grandiose plans for conquest of Europe, so all countries will have some time to build their economies to total war footing.

So you're eschewing the massive surprise attack scenario per Barbarossa? Were you thinking of something like skirmishes or proxy wars around border states like Finland or Romania?

Oh, the French *might* eventually do something stupid, but that's where the alliance with Britain will save the butt of Germany.

No, I just meant that as long as they're fully independent with a large army, you'll need to keep forces in the West for defence "just in case", even if they're friendly. Especially if they get to upgrade and adapt modern tactics.

Attrition war, a losing game for the Russians when the Germans have a sane Fuhrer at the helm and a good coalition on their side. And if nothing else would suffice... which side do you think will develop nukes first ???

I suppose you're butterflying away the Nazi uninterest for atomics early on, the faulty premises (bad calculations for the critical mass, etc) and Heisenberg's bad management? Perhaps a dedicated military effort, with a Brigadier Groves analogue to keep him on the right track? And Meitner staying, with less anti-Semitism, providing better calculations to start with?

Absolutely, that's an ATL World War II after all, a "home before Christmas" scenario would not fulfill.

Then there might be trouble mobilising opinion and what have you. Still, it makes the military contest more even. But this also depends on how you pose the initial attack, and when; the Soviets will have time for massive build-ups and reorganisations if you postpone the major hostilities for too long.

Hmm, good point, but let's say something happens in post-Hitler Germany (Himmler sooner or later decides to make a shoot for the Fuhrer's mantle) that makes extreme Hitlerite racism politically unpopular in the Fatherland by the time the war is in full swing, and the wise and pragmatic (such as von Manstein) clue up (the fanatic go against the wall). So some wartime harsh deprivation, yes, but no deliberate racist harassing of the Slav populace in the liberated areas, here the supreme leadership is saner and sees the huge potential benefits of successfuly summoning the downtrodden subjects of Stalin to the anti-Communist flag.

Might have negative consequences for logistics, as the forces can't "live off the land". OTOH, it reduces interference from partisans etc. Another note to consider might be what this does for German discipline. The OTL Heer's soldiers got more and more unruly as the war progressed, and there appears to be agreement that this was in large part due to the general lawlessness in the East; the brutalisation and disregard for law spread from just terrorising the populace to causing general disciplinary problems.

Also take into account that here Britain is an ally (and past a point, the USA will become sympathetic), so international commerce is widely available to Germany, and foodstuff from Ukraine will be nowhere as essential to fill plates in Berlin.

Hm, point. Though neither country will be able to pay for full imports indefinitely in any case, without Lend-Lease.
 
Hitler is assasinated before Anschluss, leaving Göring as his successor.

Goring pursues a slightly less radical agenda, allowing minorities such as Jews limited rights without going so far as to deport them to extermination camps.

In the late-30's, Western public opinion of the USSR and communism in general takes a turn for the worse as news of famine and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union reaches them.

This sparks an early "Red Scare," originating in Germany and spreading throughout other Germanic and Fascist countries, without falling on deaf ears in the rest of Europe and North America.

Throughout the late 30's and early 40's, communist rebellions sprang up throughout Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, fueling the western crusade against communism.

Late in 1939, Stalin made a mad grasp for Finland, but was ultimately thwarted by his own purge of the Soviets' best officers, and was utterly humiliated to gain only a few strips of near-worthless land by March.

In April 1941, Poland began to intern communists, sympathetic to its own red rebellion or not, in isolated prison camps. The Soviet Union strongly criticises this action and withdraws its embassy, which had been receiving threats of bombings for some time now.

June 3, 1941. A telegram from Stalin himself to the leader of the militant People's Army of Poland was intercepted by Germany. The Soviet Union had agreed to supply the rebels with arms and other supplies. To Germany this was an act of war.

On June 5, 1941, Göring declared war on the USSR. The next day, Germany's faithful ally Italy and Poland, the center of the conflict, followed suit. Within a week, Sweden and Austria, both experiencing their own communist insurgencies, joined the Allies to protect themselves from the Red Menace. Great Britain, barely a generation ago pitted in "the Great War" against Germany, sought to end Communism once and for all and joined in. France and the United States, for the time being, remained neutral, though nominally supported the Allies.
 
Hitler is assasinated before Anschluss, leaving Göring as his successor.

Goring pursues a slightly less radical agenda, allowing minorities such as Jews limited rights without going so far as to deport them to extermination camps.

In the late-30's, Western public opinion of the USSR and communism in general takes a turn for the worse as news of famine and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union reaches them.

This sparks an early "Red Scare," originating in Germany and spreading throughout other Germanic and Fascist countries, without falling on deaf ears in the rest of Europe and North America.

Throughout the late 30's and early 40's, communist rebellions sprang up throughout Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, fueling the western crusade against communism.

Late in 1939, Stalin made a mad grasp for Finland, but was ultimately thwarted by his own purge of the Soviets' best officers, and was utterly humiliated to gain only a few strips of near-worthless land by March.

In April 1941, Poland began to intern communists, sympathetic to its own red rebellion or not, in isolated prison camps. The Soviet Union strongly criticises this action and withdraws its embassy, which had been receiving threats of bombings for some time now.

June 3, 1941. A telegram from Stalin himself to the leader of the militant People's Army of Poland was intercepted by Germany. The Soviet Union had agreed to supply the rebels with arms and other supplies. To Germany this was an act of war.

On June 5, 1941, Göring declared war on the USSR. The next day, Germany's faithful ally Italy and Poland, the center of the conflict, followed suit. Within a week, Sweden and Austria, both experiencing their own communist insurgencies, joined the Allies to protect themselves from the Red Menace. Great Britain, barely a generation ago pitted in "the Great War" against Germany, sought to end Communism once and for all and joined in. France and the United States, for the time being, remained neutral, though nominally supported the Allies.

Thats not too unbelievable. Might need a bit better treatment of the Jews to help public opinion in UK/USA.

I dont think the UK would actually join the war, but I can see them supplying equipment and resources, maybe coming in later depending on what Russia does - for example, Russian sub raids in the Atlantic would annoy them - in fact, very much as the USA was involved in the war in OTL
 

General Zod

Banned
So you're eschewing the massive surprise attack scenario per Barbarossa? Were you thinking of something like skirmishes or proxy wars around border states like Finland or Romania?

I'm thinking of the following scenario: both Stalin and Goering are expecting and preparing for a major war sometime around 1941-42, Britain wishes peace in Europe but is growing more and more disillusioned. Since Germany ITTL didn't invade Bohemia-Moravia, has worked hard to build British sympathy for his position in Poland, and goes for a moderate peace settlement in Poland (annexations and satellization), London gets Berlin get away with a limited Polish war.

Afterwards Germany lies relatively low (greater political moderation), Stalin gets more aggressive (he does not get either a M-R pact nor a Western alliance, and war with Germany is only narrowly avoided over the partition of Poland, so he sees the need to expand Soviet power base and prepare for a preemptive war). Soviet encroachments and limited wars in Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey gradually shift British opinion towards seeing Stalin as the main threat to peace in Europe (reverse OTL scenario). Eventually, Stalin (like Hitler OTL) overreaches himself and Britain goes for war. This plunges Germany into war before Berlin expected it to (in a way, I reverse the 1939 Poland scenario and let it occur sometime in 1940-41 over Finland/Romania/Turkey). Like 1939 OTL, ITTL all major powers expected the war to erupt eventually and planned for it but it occurs before their preparations were any really complete.


No, I just meant that as long as they're fully independent with a large army, you'll need to keep forces in the West for defence "just in case", even if they're friendly. Especially if they get to upgrade and adapt modern tactics.

Yep, that's why I expect the conflict to be relatively bloody and prolonged, and the Allies to wear down the Soviets gradually, not through a swift successful Barbarossa.


I suppose you're butterflying away the Nazi uninterest for atomics early on, the faulty premises (bad calculations for the critical mass, etc) and Heisenberg's bad management? Perhaps a dedicated military effort, with a Brigadier Groves analogue to keep him on the right track? And Meitner staying, with less anti-Semitism, providing better calculations to start with?

I'm (tentatively) posing the following scenario: since the political distance (and distrust) between British conservativism and an moderate fascist-authoritarian Germany are not as great as between UK and URSS, and the USA are neutral, once UK and Germany are full wartime allies, to some degree the same kind of data-sharing that occurred between UK and USA OTL occurs between British and German teams. This jump-starts the German team back on the right track, but since the two Allies don't trust each other THAT much, TTL Project Manhattan occurs as a joint effort. Since neither UK nor Germany can afford to expend as much as the USA on the project, they are slightly delayed, but this is partially compensated by the fact that both teams share data at any step.

Since I've picked a relatively late PoD for Germany, for various reasons (Hitler dies soon after Munich, Goering takes over and gradually steers the regime back from extreme genocidal racism to moderate fascist-authoritarian imperialism), I've been so far unable to provide any decent solution to the "Jewish problem", which is realistic for the gradual political evolution of Germany, within the TL's constraints before WWII, other than "they bribe the British to dump their Jews in some corner of the British Empire". So Meitner is sadly probably an emigree now. However, since the leadership is saner, they may be willing to make some exceptions for people like her, or the vagaries of war mean that Meiner becomes a member of the British teams (most ex-German Jews are British subjects now). Granted, things happen in the scenario that make radical Nazist views, including extreme antisemitism, fall out of favor more and more with the regime (the British alliance itself is one, another is a reverse Nazist Valkuria). But I strive to make things realistic for Germany, and walk back from Hitler's extremism one step at a time on a tighttrope walk spurred by hard realities, not Goering and co. wake up one day and are Jew-hugging democratics for no good reason.


Then there might be trouble mobilising opinion and what have you.

"Let's keep Europe free from Bolshevism" once the war erupts is IMO a rallying cry that, with Hitler and the Lebenstraum safely in the grave, works fine from London to Berlin. It almost worked OTL, until Hitler's genocidal racism put the lie to it.

Still, it makes the military contest more even. But this also depends on how you pose the initial attack, and when; the Soviets will have time for massive build-ups and reorganisations if you postpone the major hostilities for too long.

Discussing such issues is the very reason I started the thread. Let's say that in all cases it does not go beyond early 1941. But the critical issue over the DoW schedule is when the British get fed up with Stalin's aggressions and choose war (they must do so by their own free choice, or the scenario won't work). Germany's greater political savy makes Stalin's brutish approach get stark by contrast, and OTL Western opinion got quite nagry at him for Finland, but ITTL Britain has just let Germany beat Poland down (although the scenario provides plenty of justification like Poland's fate was somewhat well-deserved), so it probably takes some steps in the chain of Soviet aggressions to make the UK build up the resolution that THIS dictator needs to be brought down by whatever means (although I assume some leeway by the fact that to the 30s Britons moderate polite fascism does not look as alien as Stalinism).

Let's assume Finland, then Romania, then encroachments in Bulgaria and Turkey, sprinkled with some good old Communist subversion in India. When the UK says enough ?

Might have negative consequences for logistics, as the forces can't "live off the land". OTOH, it reduces interference from partisans etc.

And encourages the natives that would be partisans, to enroll for the Allies instead.

Another note to consider might be what this does for German discipline. The OTL Heer's soldiers got more and more unruly as the war progressed, and there appears to be agreement that this was in large part due to the general lawlessness in the East; the brutalisation and disregard for law spread from just terrorising the populace to causing general disciplinary problems.

Yep, I suppose that might eventually become a problem for any army (Iraq, anyone ?), only compounded by the fact that the Wehrmacht can only become realistically "nice" to a degree (although the sane leadership acknowledges the huge value of native collaboration, so it reins extreme abuses in). OTOH, I point out to the fact that ITTL, the Germans have plans to win the allegiance of the natives, not exterminate them, so there will be way less of a partisan problem, and this greately reduces the vicious cycle that causes the brutalization you mention. Also be mindful there will be plenty of British, Italian, Swedish, Turkish etc. boots on the Russian ground.

Hm, point. Though neither country will be able to pay for full imports indefinitely in any case, without Lend-Lease.

Who says there won't any American Land-Lease ITTL ??? Think, for one, without a war in early 1940 in Europe, Roosevelt's whole justification for claiming a third term melts away and the more Britain and Germany close ransk to contain Communism, the more his anti-fascist, anti-German foreign policy agenda alienates the American public. He loses the 1940 nomination or election to some Republican or moderate Democrat, and the new Administration will be most happy to shower heroic anti-communist crusader Britain with Land-Lease. True, given extreme American isolationism in the period, it is IMO extremely difficult to visualize a Pearl Harbor like scenario that would bring the USA to DoW Stalin (he was paranoid, not megalomanic, so while it's easy to make him unwittingly forge just the anti-communist alliance he feared, I really do not see him DoWing the USA for no good reason like Hitler did) so I see the USA staying neutral, maybe fighting a separate war to Japan and just sending Land-Lease and financial help to Europe.
 
Top