When is the earliest that Leningrad could have plausibly fallen in 1941? Sometime in July, if the Germans break through the Luga Line sooner or if the Soviet Northwestern Front collapses?
What If: Leningrad falls in 1941
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
OTL the US air bases were in East Anglia. There were established RAF bases in Northern Scotland, and I'm sure the Americans would be able to cope with being based north of Hadrian's Wall. Who knows, they might even be able to build one or two new ones; I think they managed to do that once or twice 39-45 around the world.
However I agree with you that fighter coverage of Southern Norway would be difficult to maintain, and it leaves Central & Northern Norway out of range unless a foothold is established in (say) Bergen. I don't see this as very likely but would be the only Allied point of entry to Scandinavia.
Just be honest with the maps.
History Learner
Banned
Which leads to logistics issues and takes time. Again, there is a reason why every single military and political leader besides Churchill was against invading Norway and specifically cited the issue of air support.
Where was I not?
Deleted member 1487
Probably late-July. They'd have to basically cut lose a 2 division panzer corps from the 4th Panzer group and any supporting infantry divisions and have them race ahead once Pskov is breached and supply it entirely via air. That would be before the Luga Line is even set up and it would be a HUGE gamble given OTL forces, as it would be relying on surprise and speed to push into Leningrad before any defenses are set up or militia organized and devoid of any ground support if they run into trouble. IOTL no one wanted to risk two divisions, one panzer one motorized, being wiped out in the gamble. Hitler even ordered the advance to halt to secure the flanks of 4th Panzer Group before attacking Leningrad, which meant waiting until August until Estonia was secured.
Ленинградская стратегическая оборонительная операция — Википедия
They'd basically have to rely on shock and captured supplies to keep them going until eventually the rest of the army group was able to catch up. It could work, but it is at a best flipping a coin about it's success.
Assuming it does work then the entire Soviet scheme for defense of the region IOTL would effectively be destroyed and the Baltic Fleet would have to either try to break out of the Baltic, surrender, or try and fight to recapture the city ASAP, which I'm not sure if they can given that Tallinn is still going on. IOTL they apparently had orders to scuttle if the city fell.
It might well prompt the Finns to rush to their assistance though, given that Leningrad would have effectively surrendered while they were advancing in Karelia:
Continuation War - Wikipedia
That would free up a ton of their own forces if they supported the Panzer corps in the city, as it would mean not having to really defend Karelia from Soviet counterattacks at all or even station troops there to screen the Soviets. Maybe the overloading of the Soviet defenses by the Finnish attacks in Karelia starting July 10th and the German advance ITTL from Pskov starting July 10th would be enough to shock them into surrender. Hardly guaranteed of course, but may work given how jumpy Voroshilov was IOTL:
The Leningrad Blockade, 1941-1944
Based largely on formerly top-secret Soviet archival documents (including 66 reproduced documents and 70 illustrations), this book portrays the inner workings of the communist party and secret police during Germany's horrific 1941–44 siege of Leningrad, during which close to one million citizens...
books.google.com
Assuming that all works out for the Axis, then it is pretty much a nightmare scenario for the Soviets, because once AG-North secures Estonia and Leningrad (and it's war industries that haven't had a chance to be evacuated at all yet) and with that wipe out the Soviet Baltic Fleet, while also gifting them plenty of Soviet trains, which means no need to covert the rail system, and they can either advance further north to help with Murmansk or turn 4th Panzer Group, part or most of it's air support, and it's truck supply units over to AG-Center and change the entirety of August-September along the Moscow axis of advance. For one thing VIII Flieger Korps and half of 3rd Panzer Group won't be sent to AG-North to help with capturing/isolating Leningrad in August-September, so they can either refit or attack Soviet armies and wipe them out before the advance on Moscow (which could well happen sooner ITTL, say mid-September at the latest, just minus Guderian), while 4th Panzer Group focuses on wiping out the Soviet armies that launched the Staraya Russa offensive IOTL in August.
Not only that, but if Leningrad's port even partially falls intact and Kronstadt could be dealt with quickly, then Leningrad might even be a supply hub which could then rail supplies down to AG-Center or failing that at least supply AG-North and let AG-North's rail lines from Germany instead supply AG-Center. Stalin would either have to send forces he couldn't afford against Leningrad to take it back or would have to accept the morale and prestige hit that would come from losing the city of the Bolshevik revolution. Either way isn't great. It might well cause him to abandon Moscow with the rest of the government in October, which probably means Moscow falls when the OTL panic hits.
Basically Leningrad falling in July is extremely bad for Soviet prospects of surviving the invasion.
How do you imagine the occupation of Leningrad to proceed? Would there be some European version of the Rape of Nanjing which occurs to the unfortunate people of Leningrad?
An interesting POD could be Germany keeping Lithuania as the original Molotov-Ribbentropp dictated. Thus putting them much closer to Leningrad from the start.
Of course, the original document gave the SU a bigger portion of Poland, so that would have some ripple-effects as well.
In order to negate those, another POD could be officially putting Northern Bukovina in the Soviet sphere (since they ended up occupying it regardless), and having the Germans drive a slightly harder bargain in August, so that they keep roughly the same part of Poland as in OTL.
Of course, the original document gave the SU a bigger portion of Poland, so that would have some ripple-effects as well.
In order to negate those, another POD could be officially putting Northern Bukovina in the Soviet sphere (since they ended up occupying it regardless), and having the Germans drive a slightly harder bargain in August, so that they keep roughly the same part of Poland as in OTL.
Hitler explicitly said he wanted Leningrad razed to the ground and all the inhabitants killed through starvation, disease and exposure. German troops/officials were too disciplined and methodical to do anything like what the Japanese did during Nanking.
If Leningrad is captured a certain percentage of the population would likely be sent to Germany as slave labor and the rest worked to death by making them dismantle their own city. Anyone who is incapable of working is either shot or left to die from starvation and exposure.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
Probably not as the Germans never really did that with any captured city. They did some awful things to large segments of the Soviet population of course and certainly destroyed cities in combat, but there was never a 'Rape of Nanking' moment that I'm aware of. Nanking was seriously next level heinous.
Leningrad IOTL probably got it the worst other than Stalingrad, but ITTL because it would fall so soon, before Hitler decided on his 'starve the population to death' strategy, it is probably treated more like Smolensk or Kiev for a while. That said given the history of the city and it's relevance to the Soviet revolution I'd imagine at some point Hitler would have the treasures brought back to Germany and much of the ideologically and culturally relevant sites blown up. Probably as soon as convenient much of the population would be evacuated and the industrial workers brought to Germany for forced labor. The evacuees that wouldn't be judged useful would probably suffer a grim fate.
Yes, but not at first. That order only came in September. It was initially planned to capture the city and one Russia historian has claimed it would be renamed after Hitler and be the capital of the region when colonized by Germans. Who knows for sure given the major change proposed by the POD.
Likely though some version of what you state in the second paragraph is what would end up happening.
That really screws AG-Center, which now has worse rail logistics than IOTL and has to fight over the Vistula ITTL to advance into Belarus.
Not sure if Bukowina would compensate for all the parts of Poland transferred IOTL.
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing I can think of that’s comparable to Nanking is what happened in Warsaw during the 1944 rebellion. However that was mostly due to the Dirlewanger and Kaminski units (which were made of criminals, misfits and collaborators that had already been killing and raping in the USSR for years).
Even then the atrocities weren’t as gruesome as what regular Japanese Army units did in Nanking unprompted (live burials, crucifixion, beheading, murder contests, mutilation, cannibalism, freezing, forced incest etc).
Last edited:
The Germans just got a harbor facility much closer to Moscow.
That would solve a lot of German logistical problems, with the troops freed up and improved logistics Moscow and LL shipments would be in trouble.
People make claim that the Soviets would destroy the poor facilities but the Nazis would have no problems working people to death to rebuild them.
That would solve a lot of German logistical problems, with the troops freed up and improved logistics Moscow and LL shipments would be in trouble.
People make claim that the Soviets would destroy the poor facilities but the Nazis would have no problems working people to death to rebuild them.
Last edited:
Einsatzgruppe A, which was attached to Army Group North, would prowl the city rounding up and killing Jews, Communist officials, any individuals deemed "thoroughly Bolshevised," the mentally ill, and other people they considered undesirable or dangerous. And, as mentioned by others, a sizable chunk of the surviving population would be taken as forced laborers. The people of the city would be brutalized, but not in the same way as what happened in Nanking.
Long-term, Leningrad would probably be kept due to its strategic value and rebuilt as a German metropolis, similar to what the Nazis had planned for Warsaw (before the 1944 uprising). Perhaps it would be renamed Hitlerstadt.
If Leningrad falls in 1941 how much does it increase the chances of Moscow falling to German forces as well that same year?
Deleted member 1487
The only issue is the Baltic, especially the Gulf of Finland, freezes in winter, which effectively shuts down the port:
Baltic Sea - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Deleted member 1487
Again depends on when. In September it really doesn't increase the chance by much, but it does spare AG-North quite a bit of suffering over the winter (thinking about the Tihkvin operation), but depending on how it falls it might chew up AG-North to unacceptable levels (not nearly as badly as what the entire siege would do over the years, but bad for 1941). I suppose the only reason it might would be the resulting impact on Stalin's psychology. If he gets his morale broken and he bugs out from Moscow in October then the city might well fall, but he could go the other way and become more resolute given the hit his standing with the public and military has already taken.
In July IMHO it would most likely cause Moscow to fall in 1941. Thing is the July 'option' is unlikely.
Now in 1942 if Leningrad has fallen at some point in 1941, say over the winter due to a better blockade (I had a thread about that option a few years back if you want to search), then things get interesting in 1942. I mean from an alternate history perspective, not for the participants.
Last edited by a moderator:
Logistics were the Germans biggest problem on the Eastern front, it was a major problem even during the spring and Summer. A springtime offencive on Moscow what have more men and fewer logistical problems.The only issue is the Baltic, especially the Gulf of Finland, freezes in winter, which effectively shuts down the port:
.Baltic Sea - Wikipedia
Comrade Stalin would not be happy
Deleted member 1487
Sure, depending on what part of the front we are talking about. I just doubt we'd see a Moscow offensive in 1942 given the importance placed on oil by Hitler and his growing panic about the influence the US would play on the war.
I already referenced Dirlewanger in a previous post.
They were a special unit made up of criminals, sadists, misfits, rejects and mental patients. They weren’t anything like the average Heer division (which I was referencing in the post you quoted). Even other hardcore Nazis were disgusted by their behavior and remarked on their brutality.
German troops captured numerous Slavic cities during Barbarossa yet there weren’t any month long rampages of sadism and horror like in Nanking. Leningrad wouldn’t be any different if it was captured.
Last edited:
BlackDragon98
Banned
The German were too methodical. True.
They just opened brothels and kidnapped women and girls off the street in occupied territories to staff them.
German military brothels in World War II - Wikipedia
Not unlike the comfort women system the Japanese operated.