The Bait and Diversion of 1941

Thing about Stalin was that, evil and brutal as he was, he tended to follow treaties (unlike his fellow mass murder Hitler, who never signed anything he intended to follow). He would have been more than happy to wait until the Molotov Treaty ran out before he acted. That would have allowed him time to fully reequip and retrain his army, build up reserves, and crush Hitler at his leisure.

Stalin NEVER wanted a war with Germany. He didn't like or trust Hitler, but then he didn't trust the democracies either. As a revolutionary he saw how war agaist Germany ruined the Czar and was very aware that it could happen again. When he was still negotiating with the British and French he always made one point very clear; that the Soviet Union was NOT going to fight Germany alone. It was hie belief that the Allies were trying to manuever them into that position that led to the M-R pact.

Even if two or three years had passed and the Red Army had been reformed and re-equipped Stalin would have continued to see war with Germany as a possible road to ruin. His efforts at appeasement just before Barbarossa show just how far he was willing to go to avoid war.

Stalin would NEVER have chosen war so long as Germany was still strong.

The only way he would have were if British and Americans armies were in the Ruhr and headed to Berlin. As with Japan he would have jumped in against an already beaten enemy to grab some cheap spoils.

He would not have chosen to enter a life and death struggle.

Ok so from what I've gathered Stalin would be very reluctant to attack Germany regardless of anything so the idea should be modified, either we push through to make him attack by creating a big provocation or act of war. (Assassination of Stalin himself probably?) Or we use Stalin passiveness to give Germany more time to prepare for a war against him and allocate more resources to African campaign? What do you think.
 
Or we use Stalin passiveness to give Germany more time to prepare for a war against him and allocate more resources to African campaign? What do you think.

1. The commitment of more resources to the North African campaign will likely change little. The German forces that were OTL there almost broke their logistical tail just reaching El-Alamein. With a larger force, they will be even more hampered by logistic issues.

2. If the Germans attack the USSR in 1942 or 1943, the results are going to be vastly different from an attack in 1941. The Red Army would have finished reforming its command structure, re-equipping its forces, re-training its soldiers to a better standard, and finish the Molotov line. Thus, the German army would be attacking a force that is better equipped, has a vast numerical advantage, are almost their equals in military doctrine, and will be dug-in behind extensive fortifications. Obviously this is a bad thing for the Germans.

3. The reason Stalin was so desperate to not provoke Hitler was because of the unpreparedness of the Red Army... of 1941. If Hitler shows signs of attacking in '42 or '43, Stalin is going to be much more likely to ready his troops for defense against an attack. Attacking a fresh but rebuilt Red Army is bad enough for the Wherhmacht, but attacking a fresh but rebuilt Red Army that has recieved any degree of mobilization for war is even worse.

4. Stalin has more means of putting pressure on Hitler then just military action. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact stipulated trade of Soviet raw materials for German industrial equipment. Despite the German's never really paying up, Stalin kept sending the supplies in a attempt to keep Hitler pacified. Once the fall of 1941 comes around, Stalin is going to start loudly demanding his payment and if the Germans don't, he'll cut-off the flow.
 
The second option is to proceed with the attack despite losing 50.000 or more German troops (Germany lost more men in Stalingrad for largely wasteful operation).
It's less the loss of infantrymen that's an issue, and more the other things that'll be lost if even an intentionally weak Seelowe is launched. I mean for the poms and ruskies to take it as a credible threat you'll need to devote the Luftwaffe to a second Battle of Britain... and given how the BoB went in OTL that'll mean significant losses there. Then you've also got to devote the guts of the Kriegsmarine to cover the invasion (if you send out 50,000 men on Rhein barges with no meanful escort the poms won't be able to take you seriously... and will do in said invasion effort witha single squadron of Destroyers), which is likely to imply the loss of most of the Germans' capital ships and cruisers plus a serious dent in their destroyer force...
 
Not to mention that the Sea Mammal called for the use of Rhine River Barges to be used as transports. The loss of so many of those will impact German industrial production...

And it might also backfire in lulling Stalin. If Hitler tries Sea Lion and fails, the Soviet leader is hardly going to believe any excuse that the German troop build-up along his borders is for the invasion of Britain.
 
Not to mention that the Sea Mammal called for the use of Rhine River Barges to be used as transports. The loss of so many of those will impact German industrial production...

And it might also backfire in lulling Stalin. If Hitler tries Sea Lion and fails, the Soviet leader is hardly going to believe any excuse that the German troop build-up along his borders is for the invasion of Britain.

The first step to convincing anybody would be to utterly destroy the RAF. If the Luftwaffe can manage that (highly unlikely, but possible) a force build up wouldn't be seen as anything but an invasion force. Factor in amphibious assault training and Tauchpanzers (all under the watchful eyes of the British, and an invasion might not be necessary to achieve a pre-emptive strike by the Soviet Union. Convincing the Soviet Union to attack however, is a different matter.
 
The first step to convincing anybody would be to utterly destroy the RAF. If the Luftwaffe can manage that (highly unlikely, but possible) a force build up wouldn't be seen as anything but an invasion force.

No, impossible. If the RAF is getting hammered that badly, they will withdraw north beyond the range of German fighters and rebuild there. If the Germans try an invasion, they are still within range of any potential beachheads and can surge down to deny the Germans air superiority.

Not to mention, if there's no RAF, there's no point in putting troops in the East to protect them from RAF bombing.

Factor in amphibious assault training and Tauchpanzers (all under the watchful eyes of the British, and an invasion might not be necessary to achieve a pre-emptive strike by the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure what you are saying here...

Convincing the Soviet Union to attack however, is a different matter.

A very different matter.
 
@ObssesedNuker: I'm saying in that one point that the German forces in France practice amphibious assault training, such as storming beaches, exiting landing craft (albeit training mock ups), etc. Tauchpanzers were diving tanks Germany developed to assist in invading England. They were later used in very limited numbers during the opening stages of Barbarossa. The British are bound to discover this, be it by RAF recon flights, spies, or even the Germans leaking the data themselves, and it would be pretty convincing evidence that an invasion is imminent.
 

So are you proposing the Germans just fake preparing for an invasion and the invade the Soviet Union anyways (which is kind-of what they did OTL) or they attempt to invade Britain (and inevitably fail) and then invade the Soviet Union?

The former is what they did OTL and obviously it didn't work, the latter would mean Germany is, in fact, weaker when they attack the USSR.
 
So are you proposing the Germans just fake preparing for an invasion and the invade the Soviet Union anyways (which is kind-of what they did OTL) or they attempt to invade Britain (and inevitably fail) and then invade the Soviet Union?

The former is what they did OTL and obviously it didn't work, the latter would mean Germany is, in fact, weaker when they attack the USSR.

I'm proposing they put quite a lot more effort into the deception than they did in OTL. By stationing most of their forces in France, if the Soviets can be made to attack (which as has been said is a different matter), Germany appears vulnerable. Used in conjunction with a vastly improved transportation network, and exercises practicing rapidly moving from one place to another, Germany should be able to handle a Soviet invasion.

Also, if the RAF is so battered it is forced to retreat, wouldn't that present an excellent window of opportunity to at least ramp up bombing?
 
I'm proposing they put quite a lot more effort into the deception than they did in OTL. By stationing most of their forces in France, if the Soviets can be made to attack (which as has been said is a different matter), Germany appears vulnerable. Used in conjunction with a vastly improved transportation network, and exercises practicing rapidly moving from one place to another, Germany should be able to handle a Soviet invasion.

Fair enough. The problem is once the blunt the initial Soviet attack (assuming you can get Stalin to do it), they are still stuck in a war of attrition with the USSR.

Also, if the RAF is so battered it is forced to retreat, wouldn't that present an excellent window of opportunity to at least ramp up bombing?

You mean like they did OTL in revenge for the RAF bombing Berlin? That didn't work out very well.
 
Fair enough. The problem is once the blunt the initial Soviet attack (assuming you can get Stalin to do it), they are still stuck in a war of attrition with the USSR.

True, but if the Germans can maintain the momentum, pushing towards Moscow while difficult, could be possible. Especially if the Germans can incite people to rebel. The last thing a retreating Soviet army needs is military forces and German armed and/or backed guerillas rising up in their rear areas.


You mean like they did OTL in revenge for the RAF bombing Berlin? That didn't work out very well.

Well, if they can get the Fw-190 into production earlier, it would provide a better escort for bombing raids, and if they go for a tactical approach and aim for radar stations, airfields, and military buildings instead of a general terror bombing which was a failure.
 
Well, if they can get the Fw-190 into production earlier, it would provide a better escort for bombing raids, and if they go for a tactical approach and aim for radar stations, airfields, and military buildings instead of a general terror bombing which was a failure.

mmmmm...nope :)

By this point in time Britain was outbuiding Germany by 2:1 in the air. Yes, the FW190 was a better fighter than the Spitfire (at the time...). Wont help, since whil your fighters are shooting down more planes than they lose (however losing more pilots, which the LW can even less afford than planes, since they are now PoW's), the rest of the spitfires (they outnumber you now, remember), armed with cannon, are decimating your bombers.
Plus by now the AAA was considerably improved over 1940 (as in 5 times as effective), losing you yet more bombers.

All of which, bombers and fighters and pilots, you must have in Russia...
 
Meanwhile, given the German and Axis troop levels involved in Barbarossa one wonders if Stalin would even notice two divisions of German manpower lost in a faked invasion of the UK, let alone consider this drop of the Wehrmacht by less than one percent of the total force level to be a sign of weakness.:D
 
Top