WI: Barbarossa delayed a year?

We all know about Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, how it took place at one of the worst times for the Red Army and how far the Whermhacht got. But lets say that Hitler is forced to delay Barbarossa for whatever reason.

Perhaps he attempts to carry out Operation Certain-Sea-Mammal(that he fails really does not need to be said), perhaps he devotes more resources to Rommel, or maybe the Balkans Campaign goes worse for him.

Let's go with that last one, as it allows much fewer butterflies.

So, due too whatever issue in the Balkans, Hitler has to delay Barbarossa for a year. Obviously the consensus on this forum that I see is that the Red Army will be much better off.

Could this scenario see a Red Europe?
 
Could this scenario see a Red Europe?

No because Berlin is the point about which Nazi Germany turns. If it falls defeat cannot be far away.

Or to put it another way, if the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin, defences in France will have been stripped to the point the British could invade on their own.
 
Well, regardless of the POD, there will be butterflies.
One of the most important being that Hitler will probably not declare war on the US after PH.
Without the US as an ally on the European front, there is no way Britain and her allies can pull of an Overlord. Sure, they could probably manage an invasion of Italy, but that will just be an even worse meatgrinder than OTL, and I don't really see that front going anywhere.

So yea, imo, we would probably see a red Europe.
Of course, since Germany has some time to build up as well, there could be a seperate peace between the USSR and Germany if the Germans are able to stop the bear on their inevitable counter-offensive, but that would require a great deal of luck.
 
No because Berlin is the point about which Nazi Germany turns. If it falls defeat cannot be far away.

Or to put it another way, if the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin, defences in France will have been stripped to the point the British could invade on their own.
Sure, but if the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin, the war will be over before the British can make any sizeable gains on the mainland.

Not to mention the fact that if Stalin doesn't get exactly what he wants, the Red Army might not stop this time.
 
Sure, but if the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin, the war will be over before the British can make any sizeable gains on the mainland.

Not to mention the fact that if Stalin doesn't get exactly what he wants, the Red Army might not stop this time.

If Germany is defeated and the Wehrmacht is headless, what exactly is going to prevent the British making sizable gains on the mainland? The French themselves will have probably risen up against whatever limited German garrison is still in their territory.

Obviously the Russians 'might not stop' but it depends on how the TL goes and what state the Red Army is in. Odds are the fighting for Germany will be more than protracted enough to prevent them swallowing the entire of Germany in only a few weeks. The Red Army will be too busy occupying Eastern Europe and Germany rather than sweeping into France as fast as they can manage it.

Basically short of total defeat for Britain, the Soviets are unlikely to reach France before the allies do. Just as short of total defeat for the Soviets the Allies were never going to reach Poland first.
 
If Germany is defeated and the Wehrmacht is headless, what exactly is going to prevent the British making sizable gains on the mainland? The French themselves will have probably risen up against whatever limited German garrison is still in their territory.

Obviously the Russians 'might not stop' but it depends on how the TL goes and what state the Red Army is in. Odds are the fighting for Germany will be more than protracted enough to prevent them swallowing the entire of Germany in only a few weeks. The Red Army will be too busy occupying Eastern Europe and Germany rather than sweeping into France as fast as they can manage it.

Basically short of total defeat for Britain, the Soviets are unlikely to reach France before the allies do. Just as short of total defeat for the Soviets the Allies were never going to reach Poland first.
Well, first of all, it's not as if the German troops in the west were all transferred east OTL when the Soviets were at the gates of Berlin.

Second, if Germany is defeated (and it will probably have surrendered to the USSR TTL), I don't really see Britain going for a territory grab...unless they really want to piss off the reds.

Third, with the Soviets fighting almost the entire European land war by themselves, they will not be satisfied with what they got OTL.

Fourth, because of the British not really fighting the Germans on land in Europe, communist resistance movements across Western Europe will be a lot stronger than OTL. The Soviets might not need to roll all the way to the Channel to have a red Europe.
 
Well, first of all, it's not as if the German troops in the west were all transferred east OTL when the Soviets were at the gates of Berlin.

Second, if Germany is defeated (and it will probably have surrendered to the USSR TTL), I don't really see Britain going for a territory grab...unless they really want to piss off the reds.

Third, with the Soviets fighting almost the entire European land war by themselves, they will not be satisfied with what they got OTL.

Fourth, because of the British not really fighting the Germans on land in Europe, communist resistance movements across Western Europe will be a lot stronger than OTL. The Soviets might not need to roll all the way to the Channel to have a red Europe.

1. No, but erm.. German forces were busy defending Germany from an allied invasion. Theres little point moving everything east of Berlin to just allow the Allies to occupy all of Germany. Well unless you really buy into the myth that Germany didn't really oppose the allies and was intent on surrendering as much as possible to them before the Soviets could arrive. Defending France is of far less concern compared to the western half of the Fatherland.

2. Going for a territory grab? This isn't some computer game. Germany 'surrendering' doesn't suddenly mean the entire Nazi Empire turns Soviet Red. Britain (and France!) are at war with Germany. Upsetting the Soviets isn't going to be a major concern. Further more, the British are likely to make their move before Germany is actually defeated. A full on battle for Germany without the strategic bombing and the irritant of a western front would be a much more equal and thus protracted contest.

3. I think they shall add all of Germany. Its not a question of 'satisfaction' its a question of what they can take. They are going to have their hands full eliminating people, deporting others and otherwise installing communist regimes.

4. How exactly does that follow? Do you think the British and Americans liquidated communist resistance movements as they went? Its more likely that with less aid these groups accomplish less.
 
1. No, but erm.. German forces were busy defending Germany from an allied invasion. Theres little point moving everything east of Berlin to just allow the Allies to occupy all of Germany. Well unless you really buy into the myth that Germany didn't really oppose the allies and was intent on surrendering as much as possible to them before the Soviets could arrive. Defending France is of far less concern compared to the western half of the Fatherland.
Still, I believe my point stands.
Imo, the Germans would anticipate a British invasion once their forces in the west are spread too thin.

2. Going for a territory grab? This isn't some computer game. Germany 'surrendering' doesn't suddenly mean the entire Nazi Empire turns Soviet Red. Britain (and France!) are at war with Germany. Upsetting the Soviets isn't going to be a major concern. Further more, the British are likely to make their move before Germany is actually defeated. A full on battle for Germany without the strategic bombing and the irritant of a western front would be a much more equal and thus protracted contest.
Actually, since the USA is probably not involved in the European war, I believe not upsetting the Soviets would be a major concern.
While the British would probably invade before the Reich is fully defeated, I don't really see the Germans pulling back almost all of their forces from the west until the very last minute.
Besides, as I mentioned before, I think the likelihood of an Italian front is rather large, given Churchill's obsession with the Soft Underbelly OTL; meaning less troops available for a landing in France.

3. I think they shall add all of Germany. Its not a question of 'satisfaction' its a question of what they can take. They are going to have their hands full eliminating people, deporting others and otherwise installing communist regimes.
It's not so much of a question of what they can take, as one of what they want to take.
I don't think Stalin would be too preoccupied with the capabilities of the NKVD in supressing any revolt in the conquered territories.

4. How exactly does that follow? Do you think the British and Americans liquidated communist resistance movements as they went? Its more likely that with less aid these groups accomplish less.
Because there would probably be a lot more sympathy for the communists, as they are the ones actually fighting the Germans, they are the ones who will probably liberate those resistance fighters' home country, and the British appear to have sat on their asses for several years.
 
Still, I believe my point stands.
Imo, the Germans would anticipate a British invasion once their forces in the west are spread too thin.

They may well 'anticipate' an invasion. If however the Fatherland is being crushed by the Soviets they are not going to leave substantial armies camped in France. Holding the French coast against some hypothetical British invasion is pointless if the Soviets appear to besieging Berlin or advancing upon the Rhine. The only reason to leave them there is there wasn't the infrastructure to bring them to the East. A token force might remain to keep order and fly the Swastika but a token force won't effectively oppose an invasion. Whatever force the British invade with, coupled with whatever native French rise up are not going to be stopped by a handful of under equipped German divisions.

Actually, since the USA is probably not involved in the European war, I believe not upsetting the Soviets would be a major concern.
While the British would probably invade before the Reich is fully defeated, I don't really see the Germans pulling back almost all of their forces from the west until the very last minute.
Besides, as I mentioned before, I think the likelihood of an Italian front is rather large, given Churchill's obsession with the Soft Underbelly OTL; meaning less troops available for a landing in France.

Why exactly would the USA 'not' be involved in the European war? Assuming that the USA isn't involved (a dubious belief in my view but lets go with it) Churchill will realise that Britain alone is not going to penetrate the 'Soft Underbelly'. The aim was to prevent Eastern Europe falling to the Soviets. Britain alone would not have had the manpower for such a venture.

It's not so much of a question of what they can take, as one of what they want to take.
I don't think Stalin would be too preoccupied with the capabilities of the NKVD in supressing any revolt in the conquered territories.

I think Stalin was well aware of the potential for overstretch. As it was he had the NKVD 'policing' around 100 million people. Policing going on double that figure would hardly be a formality. The idea is that Russia fights a brutal war with Germany and then just proceeds into France, running over whatever the British and French have? Unless the battle for Germany has been a walk over this doesn't seem especially likely.

Because there would probably be a lot more sympathy for the communists, as they are the ones actually fighting the Germans, they are the ones who will probably liberate those resistance fighters' home country, and the British appear to have sat on their asses for several years.

Sympathy without guns doesn't translate into much. As I said, the British would be in France before the Soviets so it will be they who receive the flower-strewn celebrations.
 
The british would still have naval and air supremacy, so a landing with commonwealth and free french forces in France would not be that difficult in TTL. What we would probably see is Austria, Denmark, Belgium and the Nederlands in soviet hands. Norway can be taken with a quick landing by the british, as long as the soviets do not decide to go for Finland and Sweden too. Italy had a strong communist guerrilla. Maybe the soviets get there from Austria before anyone else.
Even if the US is out of the war, the british are going to have a lot of planes and tanks from them.
 
Possibly the Russians do a better job of resisting the Germans and the war stalls with minimal gains for either side. Then the US doesn't become involved because they aren't worried about the Germans taking over the world.
Britain keeps sweeping up French, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, and perhaps eventually Spanish and Portuguese territory.
America gets the bomb a year earlier and lays down the law on occupation of other countries. Russia and Germany are not likely to argue after what happens to Tokyo.
On the whole, a good thing.
 
Top