What if the Germans in 1942 only seized Stalingrad in 1942 and did not go south.

[Deleted member 1487]

Kursk i would say is the moment that they can't even get stalemate in the East. After Stalingrad the Germans could have fought the Soviets to a bloody standstill.

But victory would have been impossible for the Germans, you are correct on that.

I don't even think that pre-Kursk, post-Stalingrad the Germans could have stalemated the Soviets with the US in the war. Without Kursk the Soviets would have been given a bloodier nose than OTL, but would still have won.

 

[BlondieBC]

Maybe Hitler is successfully assassinated due to butterflies?

1945 sees the Russians still outside of Germany and maybe even Poland, while the W-Allies are still outside of Germany. Probably no Battle of the Bulge. Fighting drags on, as German infrastructure is ground apart and by the end of the year the bombing of German oil by the W-Allies collapses German resistance. The Soviets don't make it as far west, but the W-Allies turn over Eastern Germany to Russia after the war. Maybe there are some revisions of where the border falls, perhaps Bohemia is in the West, but Germany is still occupied.

The interesting question is whether the German civilian population is as brutalized when they are shipped out of Prussia and Eastern Europe after the war, rather than during the war.
The Soviets are probably in much worse shape with the German strategic attacks on their oil and power stations; Ukraine is probably much worse off if the 'scorched earth' retreat is used in 1943-44. More people die in a longer holocaust, more Soviets die, and Germany is probably punished worse in the aftermath....maybe a delayed Cold War?

While butterflies can be odd, wouldn't Hitler listening more to the Generals make it less likely he is assassinated?

Why do you see the USSR still getting East Germany (Berlin)? The USA/UK have a sporting chance of being the one who has to take Berlin and the Soviets doing a lot worse in a lot of battles, maybe the USA/UK drive harder terms with the Soviets?

On the German relocation, IMO East Prussia and the Germans in Romania are pretty much a given, but I am not so sure we can assume Poland has the same Western or Eastern border. Now with an extra year + on the holocaust, the odds of much more vicious reprisals rises.

Off the top of may head, Germany was rapidly running out of Jews to send to the camps. I can't see Germany shutting down or slowing down the death camps, so the question becomes which minority the SS focuses on. Perhaps there would be enough extra Jews/Roma that could be found by the Nazi controlling parts of Russia longer, but I doubt it based on initial impressions. If the next group mass sent to death camps happens to be Russians, it likely becomes a lot nastier in East Prussia.

And the implications to food from the USSR holding less land each year and having less fuel are large, but I can't quantify. It would have to be at least a million more dead and at least another million more Soviets who die in battle. It could be ten times higher. And with the additional deaths, it will greatly weaken the long term power of the Soviets. And it could have interest effects on resettlement patterns after the war.

For example, if Belarusians are the next minority to go to the death camps (possible) and the Nazi deny food to Belarusians (almost certain), then could see less drive to move the Polish border west.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

While butterflies can be odd, wouldn't Hitler listening more to the Generals make it less likely he is assassinated?

Not necessarily, as they pretty much hated him for Nazifying Germany and were trying to kill him for years. Also Hitler wasn't one for negotiating peace and I'm sure the resistance thought they could have negotiated a favorable peace if only Hitler was dead.

Why do you see the USSR still getting East Germany (Berlin)? The USA/UK have a sporting chance of being the one who has to take Berlin and the Soviets doing a lot worse in a lot of battles, maybe the USA/UK drive harder terms with the Soviets?
.

Tehran in 1943 pretty much ensured the Russians were going to get parts of Germany and would get a seat in Berlin. Just as the Russians gave the W-Allies parts of Berlin, the Soviets would get some too if the W-Allies took it.

 

[BlondieBC]

We're all aware that Hitler would never allow your plan.
What you get is a defensible line, the possibility to pull back some significant reserves for active defence and some time to reorganise you logistic structure.

"We are all aware" is a strong phrase. With the right POD, IMO, it is possible. Hitler actually ordered a retreat from Narvik, but was talked out of it by Jodl. This changes his behavior. Now take a scenario for Narvik such as in the Whale Has Wings, where the unit sent to attack is defeated. Instead of making Hitler more likely to attack (OTL), he is more likely to understand overreach (ITTL). Roll forward to winter 1941/42, Hitler using a plan like Wiking has laid out. Note, I am not talking about the full Whale has Wings TL with a massive buff of the RN, but simply one where a little different UK action gets enough forces to Narvik to hold it, until it is eventually abandoned after France falls.

The defensible line gets you much higher Russian casualties for each dead German. And it prevents the loss of a full German Army. These are big helps when combined much lower Soviet fuel levels.

 

[BlondieBC]

Tehran in 1943 pretty much ensured the Russians were going to get parts of Germany and would get a seat in Berlin. Just as the Russians gave the W-Allies parts of Berlin, the Soviets would get some too if the W-Allies took it.

Tehran was late 43, almost 1.5 years after the POD. ITTL, Stalin does not have the Stalingrad win. In fact, if it goes badly enough, the Winter 1942/43 could be perceived as a costly indecisive battle. The Nazi 1943 attack could be seen as a Nazi win. So instead of negotiating from 2 strong victories (Stalingrad Kursk), Stalin could be on a losing streak (Summer 42 German win, Winter 42/43 tie, Summer 43 German Win). To me, this seems like Stalin might not be able to achieve as favorable a deal as he did IOTL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Tehran was late 43, almost 1.5 years after the POD. ITTL, Stalin does not have the Stalingrad win. In fact, if it goes badly enough, the Winter 1942/43 could be perceived as a costly indecisive battle. The Nazi 1943 attack could be seen as a Nazi win. So instead of negotiating from 2 strong victories (Stalingrad Kursk), Stalin could be on a losing streak (Summer 42 German win, Winter 42/43 tie, Summer 43 German Win). To me, this seems like Stalin might not be able to achieve as favorable a deal as he did IOTL.

It also increases the desire of the W-Allies to keep him in the war by promising an equal or greater share of the spoils. The Soviets signing a separate peace would be a body blow to the W-Allies.

 

[BlondieBC]

It also increases the desire of the W-Allies to keep him in the war by promising an equal or greater share of the spoils. The Soviets signing a separate peace would be a body blow to the W-Allies.

I was thinking the Allies promise more aid, less spoils. And a Stalin that feared he might lose or his country might collapse could see such an offer favorably.

There are a lot of smaller things the Allies could have agreed to help the war in Europe. Use all the strategic bombers in Europe. The B-29 would have aid with their numbers and they would have been able to hit targets farther east than the B-17. Or Transfer extra divisions from the Pacific to Europe. The Italian campaign slowed down as units were transferred from Italy to the UK for D-Day. But units like the 1st ID were not the only experience amphibious units, you could have brought in the 1st Marine division. Or if the TOE of the 1st Marine division is not right, you could still transfer the units from Italy to the UK and send units from the SW Pacific theater to Italy. Or, the forces used to the the Mariana Island could just a easily been used to open another front in Greece.

While it is possible Stalin would pull out, he understood what Hitler remaining on large chunks of Soviet soil would mean for the Russian people and world communism.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

No Blair, not buying it.

The already inadequate truck component was already dedicated to the 4th PzA, and the advance to Stalingrad, there is no rail line until the Stalino/ Stalingrad line is put into use. other mobile formations were operating on organic truck companies and in the case of AGB close to a useable rail line but they needed them. If you are taking transport companies from other formations they are horse and cart units and the parent is not moving. Adding that to an otherwise mobile formation just slows it to a crawl for no benefit.

And as previously stated taking away the organic transport locks the formation into about half a days walk from the depots and manpacking supplies for weeks. Strengthening an armoured attack towards Stalingrad without logistics organisation that simply did not exist just means the formations run out of gas somewhere on the steppe with what is actually an undefeated soviet army on their front and flanks and the infantry support up to 500km behind them. The lesson of 41 was that until the infantry armies caught up Pz Formations could hold but suffered disproportionate attrition of their inadequate infantry.

By 15 July 4 PzA is reporting major POL shortages. The general German situation is they only have on hand enough POL and ammunition until mid July anyway everything else is dependent on stocks arriving without the infantry closing up the truck columns are wandering unescorted across the steppe. The German constant problem is that the logistics are inadequate outside a rail line and a diminishing asset, the serviceability of motor transport outside a repair yard is appalling. Turning south before the infantry have closed up and the rail line is in use (at best at 20km per day for the infantry) is not feasible.

Operationally given that the reason for the ‘extended’ fighting around Voronezh there is a soviet armoured counterattack its difficult to see what Hoth could have done except divert his armour to both capture the city and fight off the attack. The fact that Hitler later uses it as an excuse to fire Bock (but not Hoth) is an excuse, noone criticised the action at the time. Even a speeded up capture still leaves 5th Tank army on the flank and if you have immobilised 2nd and maybe 6th army, oh joy.

The whole of Blue - well nothing wrong with it as long as the Germans have 1000 tanks 100,000 infantry and 10,000 trucks they did not have.

Even if it all works the way you suppose it leaves the bulk of the panzer forces deeper into Russia when OTK Don and Southwestern front forces attack and that does have to be along the Don.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

No Blair, not buying it.

The already inadequate truck component was already dedicated to the 4th PzA, and the advance to Stalingrad, there is no rail line until the Stalino/ Stalingrad line is put into use. other mobile formations were operating on organic truck companies and in the case of AGB close to a useable rail line but they needed them. If you are taking transport companies from other formations they are horse and cart units and the parent is not moving. Adding that to an otherwise mobile formation just slows it to a crawl for no benefit.

And as previously stated taking away the organic transport locks the formation into about half a days walk from the depots and manpacking supplies for weeks. Strengthening an armoured attack towards Stalingrad without logistics organisation that simply did not exist just means the formations run out of gas somewhere on the steppe with what is actually an undefeated soviet army on their front and flanks and the infantry support up to 500km behind them. The lesson of 41 was that until the infantry armies caught up Pz Formations could hold but suffered disproportionate attrition of their inadequate infantry.

By 15 July 4 PzA is reporting major POL shortages. The general German situation is they only have on hand enough POL and ammunition until mid July anyway everything else is dependent on stocks arriving without the infantry closing up the truck columns are wandering unescorted across the steppe. The German constant problem is that the logistics are inadequate outside a rail line and a diminishing asset, the serviceability of motor transport outside a repair yard is appalling. Turning south before the infantry have closed up and the rail line is in use (at best at 20km per day for the infantry) is not feasible.

Operationally given that the reason for the ‘extended’ fighting around Voronezh there is a soviet armoured counterattack its difficult to see what Hoth could have done except divert his armour to both capture the city and fight off the attack. The fact that Hitler later uses it as an excuse to fire Bock (but not Hoth) is an excuse, noone criticised the action at the time. Even a speeded up capture still leaves 5th Tank army on the flank and if you have immobilised 2nd and maybe 6th army, oh joy.

The whole of Blue - well nothing wrong with it as long as the Germans have 1000 tanks 100,000 infantry and 10,000 trucks they did not have.

Even if it all works the way you suppose it leaves the bulk of the panzer forces deeper into Russia when OTL Don and Southwestern front forces attack and that does not have to be along the Don.

 

[AdA]

"We are all aware" is a strong phrase. With the right POD, IMO, it is possible. Hitler actually ordered a retreat from Narvik, but was talked out of it by Jodl. This changes his behavior. Now take a scenario for Narvik such as in the Whale Has Wings, where the unit sent to attack is defeated. Instead of making Hitler more likely to attack (OTL), he is more likely to understand overreach (ITTL). Roll forward to winter 1941/42, Hitler using a plan like Wiking has laid out. Note, I am not talking about the full Whale has Wings TL with a massive buff of the RN, but simply one where a little different UK action gets enough forces to Narvik to hold it, until it is eventually abandoned after France falls.

The defensible line gets you much higher Russian casualties for each dead German. And it prevents the loss of a full German Army. These are big helps when combined much lower Soviet fuel levels.

It's strong because abandoning the drive to the caucasus means renouncing an economical (ressources) objective and Hitler was very set on those!

 

[Urban fox]

Please note that I said 'the only reason I would want the Germans to better....' not that 'I want the Germans to do better' which is not the same thing at all.

Seems like a cop-out to me, but meh.

I also said ideally. That the Baltic states and parts of Finland, Poland, Roumania etc should be taken by force of arms by Russia and against the will of their people is wrong - the fact that the Germans tried to do worse does not make the Soviet action right. The Allied powers were right to eventually reverse the German land grabs (they should have responded to the first Nazi actions but thats another argument) but that does not justify doing the same things themselves.

Finland and Romania were members of the Axis and the former was lucky only to lose the land taken by the Soviets in 1940. Poland was screwed hard but it's own pre-war diplomactic stance wasnt helpful. As for the rest only Axis action made Soviet expansion possible, and to expect the Soviets to tolerate anything other than subservient governments on their borders given the circumstances in 1945 is ASB.

As soon as you started the sentence with 'Aside from the looting & raping' the rest lost most of its value. Such treatment of enemy (and in some cases neutral or even allied) civilians is a war crime plain and simple. The fact that the other side did it - even that the other side was worse does not change that. The mothers, wives and daughters are not guilty of the atrocities.

Which shows how much you miss the point. The fact is that unlike the Germans such actions taken individual or groups of Soviet troops were not approved of by their government. And although the Soviet regime was fairly passive about dealing with excesses by their own troops to begin with, they did start to view this as counter-productive & made efforts to correct the situation.


Also given the degree to which Hitler's regime and his policies was genuinely popular and the degree to which popular support by the German poulation
sustained the Nazi war-effort and made Hitler's crimes possable. Then there was a degree of ''collective responsibly'' on the part of the German population.
The German people willingly allowed themsevlves to be dragged in a moral abyss they paid the inevitable price for their ,mass-stupidity.

Those who commit war crimes, German, Russian, British or American should have been tried and if found guilty punished. That in no way minimises or excuses the actions of the Germans in occupied territory - but the German actions do not excuse revenge against German civilians either.

Given that the Germans started wars of extermination and the general population of Germany didnt raise an eyebrow much less a protest, and at the time only regreted the fact they lost. It's very hard to sympathize with their plight.


Also the idea that the Western Allies (never mind the Soviets) will arrest tens of thousands of their own troops at a time when they had just Nazi libarated death camps and were wrangling over the prosecution of Nazis who had commited colossal crimes is frankly insane.

Urban Fox, the Germans would still lose the war; but the Soviets so totally fucked themselves at 2nd kharkov that if they (the Germans) rolled 7's that they could have achieved case blue's objectives (hold the volga and the oil producing regions)

then again they could be attacked on the northern flank and be totally broken as well (a scenario that OKH 1946 and I created in the desert god)

The problem is your premise (the Germans do better) always seems to require an insane amount of luck & everything going right on the German side, while their opponents are unlucky & f**k everything up to boot.


Frankly the Germans have no chance whatsoever of fulfilling Case Blue’s objectives with a single Army Group (they could barely supply). Even if they cut it in half & rebrand the halves as per OT.


They also have little chance of taking Stalingrad ''off the march'' an idea you've latched onto, but seem to ignore the fact that the Wehrmacht never favoured attacking a major city directly as they would be forced to do at Stalingrad. And the Soviets did have just enougth troops in the area to delay any German assault.

 

[BlondieBC]

It's strong because abandoning the drive to the caucasus means renouncing an economical (ressources) objective and Hitler was very set on those!

While Hitler often tried to accomplish tasks with inadequate resources, there are many case of him delaying objectives due to reality. He also wanted to take Moscow and Leningrad in 1942, but he chose not to. In 1942, he only partially executed his racial plans. He chose to begin the extermination portion, but not the new "ideal German village resettlement" portion. Even on his most strongly held beliefs, he was able to prioritize.


He could have chosen a different defensive line in 1942. Hitler was not a General with 30 years experience who had been through various training academies. In 1940, He was a 50 year old man with 4 years experience as a corporal who was learning as he went along. By the time of 1942, Hitler had learned that aggressive military actions and bold attacks always work - Poland, Norway, France. If you change one of these battles so he also sees one can be over extended - Poland Win, Southern Norway -Expensive Win, Northern Norway - Humiliating losing the UK media pushes, France Win; you can end up with a Hitler who still is overconfident enough to invade the USSR but who will occassionally listen to advice that individual objectives are too aggressive.


He could have chosen to prioritize the Baku oil. It is really nothing more than accepting it will not be captured in a functional state, so bombing it does not really harm Germany in any way. It will take about the same amount of time to rebuild it under either scenario - several years.

 

[dwalters]

The better juxtaposition is "what would of happened had the Germans gone south and ignored Stalingrad?".

This is a more plausible scenerio. While it would of opened up a longer supply route, They could of seized Baku, gotten the oil (or at least sat on it) and prevented the Russians from having it. Then move up the Volga...