WI Barbarossa had failed early

Let's say that Stalin was smarter, the Red Army not purged, or whatever the circumstances needed for Operation Barbarossa to be repelled in its early stages occured. What would happen?
 
Will Japan attack the allies if the situation in Europe is clearly going against Germany?

It might be that Japan recognizes that there is no hope of winning a war against the Allies and therefore is forced to break the allied embargo, which it could do in this counterfactual, and therefore struggles with its massive China incident...
 
Well the Japanese government seemed hell bent on doing whatever it wanted regardless of what was actually happening in the real world, so you may very well have events play out as in OTL, except that the pacific wars ends a year or two early as the US concentrates all of its efforts on Japan in stead of Germany.
 
We might snatch France or Italy.
A "Red Europe' will just lead to a faster USSR collapse anyway.

Debatable--with all that extra industry and agriculture, it'd give the now continent-wide Warsaw Pact a big boost, and the butterflies would certainly have an affect on post-Stalin Soviet government. But yeah, depending on how things go, this'll either lead to a Soviet wank into the 21st century or an early collapse.
 
Although a less successful Barbarossa is certainly very good for Russia in the long run I doubt it will lead to them taking any more of Europe than they did IOTL. Although far more of their manpower and industry will be preserved, they will get vastly less lend lease, which means they won't have the logistics for OTLs sweeping advances. It also means that the bulk of the German armies need to be defeated much closer to Germany, where the Germans are advantaged.

We're likely to see a grinding positional battle in Poland/Belorussia for years, an early victory for the British in North Africa, an early defeat for Japan in Malaya leading to their entire offensive unravelling, with the Chinese then being given Lend-Lease to finish the job, Hitler being overthrown and an early Allied return to mainland Europe.

The war ends a year early with the only difference being a western allied Greece and much less war damaged Soviet Union.
 
Alratan, it also hugely reduces the need for lend lease. I really cant see how they would only perfom as well as IOTL with this enourmous devestation removed form the situation.
 
The Germans were very luckly OTL, a huge number of breaks went their way, if Soviet leadership done things a little differently Barbarossa would've been harder for the Wehrmact.


The puges get a lot of press, but higher levels of command were relatively easy to replace with men like Zhukov & Konev ready to move up in rank. Far more serious was the shortage of officers at mid-level the Red Army had expanded rapidly and new officers had to be trained most of those men had been sent on 6 month courses and were then expected to take command & train others.

Also if the Red Army had been deployed better then perhaps most of the early encirclements wouldn’t have been possible for the Germans. Also if Stalin had believed some of the months old Intel that the Germans were massing to attack the troops at the border could’ve been in a far far higher state of readiness, also millions of reservists could’ve begin mobilize/train before the war even started.

Then you'd still have the million-odd well equipped Soviet troops in the Far East.:eek:

Thaking a;; that into account the Germans would’ve still pushed deep into Soviet territory at least taking the territories the USSR had taken back from Poland in 1941 (I just like to make the point the Poles took land from Russia by force themselves in 1920 and aren’t always the world’s hapless victims:p) But it's likely the German momentum will have been sapped and their losses far greater than OTL..

By the time winter sets in the circa 1941 Red Army would still be mostly intact & battle-hardened(rather than the Red Army having to be rebuilt) and millions of fresh Soviet reserves will have poured intp the front-lines while the Germans are already near-fully mobilized.

The Soviet winter counter-attacks could be far more deadly.


We might snatch France or Italy.
A "Red Europe' will just lead to a faster USSR collapse anyway.

Not at all the USSR would be in much much better shape in this scenario particularly if it takes both France and Germany the biggest economies in Europe, it also means the French overseas empire will be liberated earlier and red factions in those nations will be that much stronger ‘’Uncle Joe’’ will be a popular guy in say Syria & Algeria, Vietnam may also come under Ho Chi Minh’s.

The US will also lose it's most valuable trading partners in Europe unless it comes to terms with Stalin, Britain would be a de-facto 51st state by 1950. Also the USSR itself will be in a much better shape as I don’t think the Soviets ever fully recovered from WW2.

I dont see the USSR ever collipsing in this case it'd domantie Euaisa, with hardly any direct threat by on it's borders & no NATO. Soviet efforts could focused to building the civilian economy, with it’s military simply looking to keep the satellite states in line. (Through France, united Germany & Italy had big enough home-grown Commie-movements to take care of themselves)
 

Neroon

Banned
Not at all the USSR would be in much much better shape in this scenario particularly if it takes both France and Germany the biggest economies in Europe, it also means the French overseas empire will be liberated earlier and red factions in those nations will be that much stronger ‘’Uncle Joe’’ will be a popular guy in say Syria & Algeria, Vietnam may also come under Ho Chi Minh’s.
I agree with the 1st part of that. But I think you are very wrong about the French Colonial Empire. Ho Chi Min may very well be pro-American in TTL where the U.S. will have no reason to support a French attempt to re-claim the colony. With Vietnam then following a path akin to South Korea and Taiwan in TTL.
Whereas in the French African Colonies the White administrators and colonists will probably attampt to do a Rhodesia/South Africa. And at least in Algeria they'll probably succeed. For how long in another matter.
 
Alratan, it also hugely reduces the need for lend lease. I really cant see how they would only perfom as well as IOTL with this enourmous devestation removed form the situation.

The issue is that it will reduce the availability of Lend-Lease more than it reduces the need for it. Without the Russians in their OTL dire straits they won't get the aluminium they need, the high octane fuel, the trucks they need, and the countless other strategic supplies required to produce the tremendously powerful motorised combined armed force the Red Army was in 1944/5.

Without the devastation the army they produce will be powerful, but it will also be a lot slower than it was IOTL. The Allies will also be significantly ahead. Without sending Lend-Lease to Russia, the Japanese will be effectively defeated within six months, and that paired with a disastrous Barabarossa means that North Africa will be over by the end of 1942. Together this means that means the Western Allies will be invading Europe a year earlier, when the Atlantic Wall not built, and even more troops than diverted to the Eastern Front.

This will be a massive net advantage for Russia in the long run, but if the Germans are doing worse in the East, you'll just see the an earlier Allied invasion.
 
The issue is that it will reduce the availability of Lend-Lease more than it reduces the need for it. Without the Russians in their OTL dire straits they won't get the aluminium they need, the high octane fuel, the trucks they need, and the countless other strategic supplies required to produce the tremendously powerful motorised combined armed force the Red Army was in 1944/5.

Without the devastation the army they produce will be powerful, but it will also be a lot slower than it was IOTL. The Allies will also be significantly ahead. Without sending Lend-Lease to Russia, the Japanese will be effectively defeated within six months, and that paired with a disastrous Barabarossa means that North Africa will be over by the end of 1942. Together this means that means the Western Allies will be invading Europe a year earlier, when the Atlantic Wall not built, and even more troops than diverted to the Eastern Front.

This will be a massive net advantage for Russia in the long run, but if the Germans are doing worse in the East, you'll just see the an earlier Allied invasion.

Japan being defeated in six months? Unless the Americans develop teleportation, I really can't see that happening. Furthermore, who's to say they can't get lend-lease simply by begging to the Allies and exagerrating the situation? Also, there'll still the fact that the Allies would both need the same time to produce the necessary equipment for the invasion, planning, and so on. Furthermore, if Barbarossa is defeated soundly, then it won't be long before the Russians will be able to plough into west Poland and Germany via the east. However, I'm not saying that the Allies would just sit there--but just how effective any move they make is debatable.
 
The issue is that it will reduce the availability of Lend-Lease more than it reduces the need for it. Without the Russians in their OTL dire straits they won't get the aluminium they need, the high octane fuel, the trucks they need, and the countless other strategic supplies required to produce the tremendously powerful motorised combined armed force the Red Army was in 1944/5.

Without the devastation the army they produce will be powerful, but it will also be a lot slower than it was IOTL. The Allies will also be significantly ahead. Without sending Lend-Lease to Russia, the Japanese will be effectively defeated within six months, and that paired with a disastrous Barabarossa means that North Africa will be over by the end of 1942. Together this means that means the Western Allies will be invading Europe a year earlier, when the Atlantic Wall not built, and even more troops than diverted to the Eastern Front.

This will be a massive net advantage for Russia in the long run, but if the Germans are doing worse in the East, you'll just see the an earlier Allied invasion.

There's no reason for lend-lease to be lowered it dosnt strain the US in any way to give such aid to the Soviets, and it'll take the US years to build up the fleet the US used to beat Japan.

It also seems like you underestimate the capacity of the USSR they can produce most of the stuff the US gave it themselves, and without the need to rebuild and replace their entire army/airforce during 1942, they can shift more production into things like trucks. It should also be noted that lend-lease didn’t begin to arrive in earnest until 1943-4.
 
This will be a massive net advantage for Russia in the long run, but if the Germans are doing worse in the East, you'll just see the an earlier Allied invasion.
Allies invaded IOTL only once German garrison in France had been turned into sanatorium for German units in near-death condition after East Front fighting. Any invasion bedore that would make Dieppe look like Allied success.
 
Top