what if Germany captured Leningrad?

[Broek]

first they were not going to relocate, any facilities in Leningrad were to be an addition not substitution.

second, we have the example that KM employed the Baltic Sea for their testing and training on new Elektroboote under much more dire conditions than ITTL.

An additional Shipyard and repair facility when Germany was already pressed for resources?
Let's assume that the capture of Leningrad gives a boost to the German offensive due to shorter front, better supply line due to Docks in/near Leningrad and the disruption of lend Lease though Murmansk. This will only increase the demand for oil and steel for the ground forces and put preasure on the supplies for the Kriegsmarine.

As for the second point testing in the Baltic is a small scale operation (one that OTL was only possible due to a massive minefield blocking much of the soviet Baltic Fleet movements) but if the KM moves its production and repair outside of allied bomber reach then the allies will make sure than anything afloat in the Baltic has a seriously hard time making its way into the North Sea and the most cost effective way is by expanding the already extensive minefields.

In the end large scale production and repair in the Baltic ports may simply not be worth it.

 

[goalieboy82]

Berlin would end up eating a nuke instead of Hiroshima.

no i think it might be Dresden or some other city (since Hiroshima had not been bombed yet).

 

[sloreck]

The Allies cannot simply increase their mining at the Baltic exits and Kiel over and above what they did OTL. Doing so would mean diverting heavy aircraft from other bombing missions, and also redirecting resources to making mines rather than something else. Any of the light units in the Baltic that the Germans had that could be utilized out of French bases won't be too inhibited by the mines, and most of the subs operational in the Baltic are not really suitable for open ocean work.

 

[Broek]

The Allies cannot simply increase their mining at the Baltic exits and Kiel over and above what they did OTL. Doing so would mean diverting heavy aircraft from other bombing missions, and also redirecting resources to making mines rather than something else. Any of the light units in the Baltic that the Germans had that could be utilized out of French bases won't be too inhibited by the mines, and most of the subs operational in the Baltic are not really suitable for open ocean work.

But that's the thing, if ship building and repair is allocated to Leningrad (it will be a relocation and not an addition due to available resources) then it moves up the list of priority targets quite a bit and those heavy aircraft will be made available.

 

[thaddeus]

The Allies cannot simply increase their mining at the Baltic exits and Kiel over and above what they did OTL. Doing so would mean diverting heavy aircraft from other bombing missions, and also redirecting resources to making mines rather than something else. Any of the light units in the Baltic that the Germans had that could be utilized out of French bases won't be too inhibited by the mines, and most of the subs operational in the Baltic are not really suitable for open ocean work.

But that's the thing, if ship building and repair is allocated to Leningrad (it will be a relocation and not an addition due to available resources) then it moves up the list of priority targets quite a bit and those heavy aircraft will be made available.

this is nonsensical, the Allies are flying twice as far to? bomb? mine? German construction of MRPs/AFPs and conversion of some captured ships to icebreakers?

historically the Germans DID make use of Nikolaiv/Mykolaiv yard, an indication that, if captured they likely would have done the same at Leningrad.

as for resources, yes they were starved across the spectrum but still were constructing ships (of course not Plan Z) until last days of the war.

 

[DrakonFin]

German construction of MRPs/AFPs and conversion of some captured ships to icebreakers?

Icebreakers are pretty specialized vessels. The Germans best hope that they capture some Soviet icebreakers intact, or at least in such a state that they can be repaired into working condition with reasonable effort. If they need more icebreakers, building one or two according to the most recent Finnish or Swedish plans (based, say, on the Sisu or the Ymer) would be better use of resources than trying to convert ships built for other purposes - that, I'd say, would only produce poor icebreakers.

EDIT: In fact, it seems IOTL Germany ordered or built the total of four new icebreakers for the Kriegsmarine during the war, Castor (1939), Eisbär (1941), Eisvogel (1942), and Pollux (1943). It is not easy to find info on them online, but it appears that the Eisbär and Eisvogel were "port icebreakers" rather than bigger sea-going vessels, while only the Castor and the Pollux, at c. 90 meters length, were stronger and more capable vessels.

On balance, ITTL you might see the Germans ordering bigger icebreakers instead, and then in bigger numbers.

 

[thaddeus]

(speculative) German construction of MRPs/AFPs and conversion of some captured ships to icebreakers?

Icebreakers are pretty specialized vessels. The Germans best hope that they capture some Soviet icebreakers intact, or at least in such a state that they can be repaired into working condition with reasonable effort. If they need more icebreakers, building one or two according to the most recent Finnish or Swedish plans (based, say, on the Sisu or the Ymer) would be better use of resources than trying to convert ships built for other purposes - that, I'd say, would only produce poor icebreakers.

EDIT: In fact, it seems IOTL Germany ordered or built the total of four new icebreakers for the Kriegsmarine during the war, Castor (1939), Eisbär (1941), Eisvogel (1942), and Pollux (1943). It is not easy to find info on them online, but it appears that the Eisbär and Eisvogel were "port icebreakers" rather than bigger sea-going vessels, while only the Castor and the Pollux, at c. 90 meters length, were stronger and more capable vessels.

On balance, ITTL you might see the Germans ordering bigger icebreakers instead, and then in bigger numbers.

thanks for the info!

was mentioning icebreakers as a throwaway line simply to indicate there were numerous ships of KM being constructed outside of large capital warships.

whatever could be captured or salvaged of Red Banner Baltic Fleet first priority

 

[knightdepaix]

I think capturing Leningrad benefited Estonia and Finland more than Germany and removed a throne on their side. Finland could concentrate its effort reaching the White Sea and Murmansk, and striking a long term ceasefire with the Soviet Union to secure territorial gain.

 

[thaddeus]

I think capturing Leningrad benefited Estonia and Finland more than Germany and removed a throne on their side. Finland could concentrate its effort reaching the White Sea and Murmansk, and striking a long term ceasefire with the Soviet Union to secure territorial gain.

do not think Finland would attempt a formal cease fire with USSR but likely just decline any operations or territories beyond their pre-Winter War borders? (and it has been mentioned here already they were stretched as far as they could go)

 

[knightdepaix]

do not think Finland would attempt a formal cease fire with USSR but likely just decline any operations or territories beyond their pre-Winter War borders? (and it has been mentioned here already they were stretched as far as they could go)

May I not agree with this observation... Some Finnish leadership could go beyond restoring pre-Winter War borders. However, the issue was that Soviet leadership would just veto any previous ceasefire. With Hindsight, Stalin leadership invaded Manchuria in August 1945 against Japan. How could Finland keep any extra territorial gains from Soviet Union? Also Finland in before the end of ww2 was a quite predominately agrarian.

 

[DrakonFin]

May I not agree with this observation... Some Finnish leadership could go beyond restoring pre-Winter War borders. However, the issue was that Soviet leadership would just veto any previous ceasefire. With Hindsight, Stalin leadership invaded Manchuria in August 1945 against Japan. How could Finland keep any extra territorial gains from Soviet Union? Also Finland in before the end of ww2 was a quite predominately agrarian.

Like I mentioned above, there would be no real motivation to go beyond the areas the Finnish military conquered IOTL, unless a specific politico-military decision is made to help the Germans against the Murmansk railway and Murmansk. Committing troops for conquering more land than the area the Finns occupied IOTL would not be worth it unless the Finnish leadership decides that it wants to go over and above the OTL efforts to help the Germans prevail over the USSR.

If the USSR wins the war in the end, it is very hard to see an independent Finland keeping anything more than the OTL post-1944 borders. Keeping the post-Winter War borders might be the very best possible outcome.

Also Finland in before the end of ww2 was a quite predominately agrarian.

While this is true, I don't know what you're getting at. The extra land the Finns could conquer from the USSR would be mostly poor farmland, and Finland most likely would not have the resources and workforce to effectively develop and utilize it anyway.

 

[knightdepaix]

In regards to the situations for Finland and Russia in Karelia and Kola Peninsula, would the development under either government be very differently with hindsight. I dont think so. So the question about Germany capturing Leningrad rests in the long term on the relation between Germany and Soviet Union and in the short term Germany and Finland but The USSR would not tolerate a short term disadvantaged solution to a long term...

 

[knightdepaix]

The question of the topic is more political than economical. Even without Leningrad in OTL and Murmansk in ATL, Lend Lense were and would be still going strong to Archangel. Iceroad was built across Lake Ladoga when the city was under siege. Taking the city meant removal of industrial capabilities in the long term and hurting in the short. Stalin leadership had been moving the capabilities to the rear or east of the Ural Mountains. As long as Stalin leadership was not given up, the accumulation of weapons before a major battle would take longer but the mass of them would not be much less in ATL than in OTL. Were there speculations that Stalin leadership wanted to yield large landmass to Germany? Maybe the question shall be understood as how much German pressure -- and also Finnish, Romanian --- the German capture on the Stalin leadership to get what the three co-belligerents wanted.

 

[History Learner]

The question of the topic is more political than economical. Even without Leningrad in OTL and Murmansk in ATL, Lend Lense were and would be still going strong to Archangel. Iceroad was built across Lake Ladoga when the city was under siege. Taking the city meant removal of industrial capabilities in the long term and hurting in the short. Stalin leadership had been moving the capabilities to the rear or east of the Ural Mountains. As long as Stalin leadership was not given up, the accumulation of weapons before a major battle would take longer but the mass of them would not be much less in ATL than in OTL. Were there speculations that Stalin leadership wanted to yield large landmass to Germany? Maybe the question shall be understood as how much German pressure -- and also Finnish, Romanian --- the German capture on the Stalin leadership to get what the three co-belligerents wanted.

Archangel will not be available to make up for Murmansk until sometime in 1943; it was undergoing capacity expansion in order to increase the amount of Lend Lease that could be sent to it.

 

[sloreck]

No matter what it will take fewer German resources to control the Leningrad area than used for the siege, freeing up resources for other uses. This is a bad thing for the Russians and a good thing for the Germans. To the extent Leningrad contributed to the Soviet industrial effort outside of Leningrad itself, that goes away as any factories etc were not going to be relocated during the siege - the ice road, as an example, could not be used for this. Furthermore once the siege was lifted, the industrial plant of Leningrad was now available to contribute to the war effort, as was the population. If the Germans hold Leningrad for any length of time and are eventually pushed out, you can be sure they will be quite thorough in destroying any industry and infrastructure not trashed already - a negative for the USSR.

IMHO it is important to state how long it takes the Germans to take Leningrad - if after months of siege, the Soviets have had plenty of time to prepare demolitions, block the harbor etc. If taken early on, this will be substantially less allowing for things like shipping to Leningrad for supply purposes much sooner.

 

[thaddeus]

No matter what it will take fewer German resources to control the Leningrad area than used for the siege, freeing up resources for other uses. This is a bad thing for the Russians and a good thing for the Germans.

IMHO it is important to state how long it takes the Germans to take Leningrad - if after months of siege, the Soviets have had plenty of time to prepare demolitions, block the harbor etc. If taken early on, this will be substantially less allowing for things like shipping to Leningrad for supply purposes much sooner.

my scenario would be that the Soviet naval forces are prevented from escaping Tallinn in the earliest stages of the invasion (so that any changes or PODs to other aspects of Barbarossa are kept to minimum)

and that this would start a ripple effect to eliminate the rest of Soviet Baltic fleet, prevent the naval forces being landed, etc.

do think the politics of losing Leningrad would be the strongest effect at least initially.

 

[knightdepaix]

To the extent Leningrad contributed to the Soviet industrial effort outside of Leningrad itself, that goes away as any factories etc were not going to be relocated during the siege - the ice road, as an example, could not be used for this. Furthermore once the siege was lifted, the industrial plant of Leningrad was now available to contribute to the war effort, as was the population. If the Germans hold Leningrad for any length of time and are eventually pushed out, you can be sure they will be quite thorough in destroying any industry and infrastructure not trashed already - a negative for the USSR.
IMHO it is important to state how long it takes the Germans to take Leningrad - if after months of siege, the Soviets have had plenty of time to prepare demolitions, block the harbor etc. If taken early on, this will be substantially less allowing for things like shipping to Leningrad for supply purposes much sooner.

In an OTL, the siege of Leningrad hurt its population and refugees therein so much. Even if the the siege would be lifted, the much hampered industrial and human resources in the city would at least be difficult to help Soviet Union significantly to affect negatively against Germany or positively for the Soviet Union. Both bombing the city or rebuilding factories took time. So I agreed that how long the effort shall be mentioned; however, the duration was related to German and Soviet war effort in the Baltic and Arctic and thus brings another complex dimension to this topic. In short, more complexity...
Based on geographical proximity, the siege will affect the war efforts in the proximity of the city. That means those of Estonia and Finland and lines of communications of Germany and Soviet Union. Consequently, in an OTL these influences could effect objectives. In short, what were the objectives of Mannerheim, Stalin and German leadership.
Two minor notes were that Italian sent ships to help and German leadership. Instead of in OTL Italian effort in southern Russia, could that effort in an ATL be concentrated in a major German lead siege of the city? In OTL, Erich von Manstein had been first assigned to the Army Group North before his leadership in the capture of Sevastopol. In an ATL, could he design a plan to take the city? His track record in OTL in the Battle of France proved his capability already...