WI Germany declares war against the Soviet Union during the Khalkhin Gol incident.

There are two components of this discussion. One is plausibility of the scenario (which I covered in the above post), the other is the actual what if? part.

To dropbearabroad: I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you are not actually a troll even if I find your ideeas absurd.
So here is what I think you got wrong:

-The Soviet Union can't fight a high intensity war on two sides of the world at once. Even in 1945, with a much more powerful and experienced army they did not try that.
In the East:
-Manchuria is rough terrain, just look at a map. And Korea is even rougher. It's not good terrain for maneuver warfare
-August Storm only worked because the Soviets had 4 years of experience with maneuver warfare, a huge technological advantage, and powerfull logistigs courtesy of lend-lease. In 1939, they don't have that.
-An offensive into Manchuria won't be one continuous Blitzkrieg like you imagine. It's more likely to be a series of short advances separated by long periods of buildup.
-The Japanese will most likely have local superiority of numbers, since they have shorter supply lines.
-By attacking an entrenched enemy, the Soviets give up most of their advantages. The Japanese proved to be very good at defending strategic positions, as the Pacific war showed.
-In time, even the Japanese will be able to learn and adapt to Soviet tactics, even in battles of maneuver.
-The Japanese air-force can bomb the advancing enemy, thus interfering with it's offensive.
-The Japanese fleet can raid all along the Far East coast. And the soviets will have to detach troops to deal with any landings.
In the west:
-If the Soviets attack through the Baltics, like you suggested, they must advance on a narrow front between the Baltic coast and the Polish border, so they can't use any numerical superiority.
-The terrain will have poor infrastructure an will have lots of forests and swamps, creating logistics problems
-the locals will be hostile and this has nothing to do with any SS or CIA involvement. Read about the July uprising in Lithuania.
-It's the Soviets who will be having logistics issues, because land transport was less efficient then sea transport.
-there is no way the Soviets can starve out East Prussia. It would be something with no correspondence during the actual ww2
- The comparison with Sealion is unwarranted: the Germans would not be conducting an overseas invasion, they only have to ship supplies from one friendly harbor to another friendly harbor in close proximity; they don't have to worry about a huge enemy fleet bearing down on them and have air cover over the entire route
-If everything else fails, they can ship reinforcements and supplies overnight, like the Japanese did on Guadalcanal
-If the Red Air Force goes on the offensive, they will be quickly attrited, since OTL proves that Bomber offensives are costly things, especially without adequate fighter support
-If the Red Army goes on the offensive, it will suffer heavy losses and morale will drop, since this is not the Great Patriotic War.

If the SU doesn't attack neutrals, then it doensn't mean that Germany has to immediately go and invade Poland. If they want to attack the soviets ine Europe, the best thing would probably be to ask for an alliance with Turkey, since Turkey was willing to cooperate with the western allies for operation Pike.
 
The point of appeasement was to keep Britain and France out of another war. As long as Hitler is not attacking Britain, France or one of their allies (like Poland) there is no point for these countries to go to war. They know that Germany, and any of it's allies, is too busy fighting the SU to be a threat to then. So the British and French governments won't be able to sell a war to the public even if the combined Axis fleet parades through the Straits of Gibraltar twice a day.


We know this. Stalin doesn't know. All he knows is that these two countries have been appeasing Hitler for the last years. Maybe they let him get away with it again. Stalin, being paranoid as usual, would asume that there is a real threat of German invasion through Poland and be forced to keep some troops in Europe to counter this.

However, this does not mean that Germany should actually invade. I see that even after numerous clarifications, people still believe this thread is about a German invasion of Poland. No! I will say it again:
The Germans are not supposed to attack Poland.
That's not the point of this scenario. The point is for Germany to avoid a two front war by not attacking Poland and it's western allies. So stop bringing that up.
So what the hack are the Germans suppose to do to hurt Soviets? germans lack cash to trade with rest of the world. They can do nothing. Japanese will get their asses handad back to them plus Soviets could even more support Chinese.
 
If the SU doesn't attack neutrals, then it doensn't mean that Germany has to immediately go and invade Poland. If they want to attack the soviets ine Europe, the best thing would probably be to ask for an alliance with Turkey, since Turkey was willing to cooperate with the western allies for operation Pike.

And why would Turkey oblige them? They did not join Germans at the height of their power, and you would have them do that in a scenario where Germany is entangled in a dead end campaign that cannot bring about decisive defeat of the Soviet Union.

You misunderstood appeasment. The aim of Allied leaders was to avert any sort of European war. British specific aim was to have no continental power able to ascert hegemony. French aim was to have Germany that cannot turn with all her strength on them. Allies had a number of oportunities to allow Hitler to deal with Soviet Union, yet never did it. They knew that once Germany deals with Soviets, it will be their turn. And there won't be Soviet Union to draw German forces to the East. Allied leaders were naive, but never cynical.
 
I'm not entirely sure about what you're point is. You have excellent knowledge of the situation but I assure you that I'm not as ignorant about it as I might appear, I do have knowledge of this info. :p

The point is that while the timing does mean that the M-R pact was not a factor in the initial grounding of the Japanese airforce, the pact may have played a role in keeping the Japanese from responding to the Soviet air escalation with one of their own, especially after the Japanese realized the size of the Soviet attack.

The rest of the post was mostly caveats-if the pact was a factor it was probably not a major one in terms of the fate of 23rd division, because the size and speed of the Soviet escalation caught the Japanese by surprise. Where it did play a role was in the Japanese response once they realized the extent of the Soviet escalation.
 
dropbearabroad;6138462 [COLOR=black said:
As mentioned above, it would be a major undertaking but so was the transfer of Soviet factories behind the Urals IOTL. If Stalin wanted something badly enough he had a track record of making it happen. It will take time, there will be heavy losses, but the Red Army would raise a sufficient army to beat the Japanese.[/COLOR]

Somebody, and the quote has been attributed to half a dozen people, including Churchill, said "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks."

If you look at Russian wars over the last several hundred years, Russia tends to under-perform expectations when they're waging wars that don't involve threats to the homeland, and massively over-perform expectations when and shortly after the homeland has been invaded in a major way. If you want to make Russia strong, invade it without major provocation. It's not just the geography. It's not just the police state terror. It's also Russian nationalism. Soviet citizens fought hard against the Germans even when they hated Stalin more than they feared him.

If Japan managed to get that kind of hatred going against them, then yeah, I think the Soviets would eventually find some way to overcome logistics limitations and beat the Japanese in Manchuria. A war that escalated from border skirmishes and didn't appear to threaten the motherland would probably not have that same fervor. I think the Soviets would win a marginal victory if they didn't have other commitments, but the logistics of supporting a major force at war using a single railroad across Siberia is beyond tough and into nightmarish.

dropbearabroad;6138462 [COLOR=black said:
The Japanese can't hurt the Soviets, they have even worse logistics on land, plus of course they can't beat the Soviets in a major land battle in Mongolia (Khalkhin Gol shows them that). [/COLOR]

It's true that the Japanese would have lost a war against the Soviets at almost every point from maybe 1934 on, but Khalkhin Gol didn't convince them of that, at least not at the Kwantung army level. Kwantung army was getting ready for a counter-offensive when the accord ending the border war was signed, and was bitterly disappointed when they weren't allowed to follow through on it. If they had followed through on the offensive they would have almost certainly lost, but they didn't accept that and were still looking for a chance to get their revenge as late as mid-1942.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but to some extent the Japanese reaction to Khalkhin Gol/Nomonham (same battle, different names) was the result of internal Japanese politics. There was a strong go-north faction, predominant in the Kwantung army and a major force in Japanese politics at home. There were also factions that realized that the Japanese already had more than enough war on their hands in China and an initially weak faction that wanted to go South--initially weak because going south was not practical until Britain and France were embroiled in war in Europe.

The Japanese factions were heavily influenced by self-interest. Going North favored the army over the navy in terms of access to limited finance, while going south favored the navy. Basically, the destruction of the Japanese 23rd division at Nomonham/Khalkin Gol when combined with the M-R pact, offered the "Go South" and "We already have enough war" factions a chance to weaken the "Go North" faction, and they took major advantage of it, purging the Kwantung army and reining it in hard.

Without that purge, the Kwantung army could well have started a war with the Soviets on their own in late summer of 1941, regardless of the wishes and needs of the home government. They were that out of control at the height of their power and independence, and the home government feared that they might still try something on their own in 1941.
 
Hi DaleCoz,

I concur with everything you said. I've heard the quote before but also can't remember who it's attributed to. The point about the OP is that at some stage it will supposedly lead to a major conflict between the Axis and USSR, with the specifics being the subject of debate. Now I certainly disagree with Easterling about how I would see this playing out, for me the main problem with the OP is the strategy behind it which also comes back to the points you have discussed.

ITTL, the Go North (Army dominated) faction presumably retain Tojo's ear and they keep Japanese ambitions focused on Siberia and northern China. If Japanese politics followed OTL then the whole issue becomes moot because no matter what the Germans do then nothing much beyond the border squabbling in the Far East you discussed will happen and it's all rather lowkey until Stalin eventually decides he wants Manchuria. Whether that's in 6-12 months (roughly, as I think from a major Red Army offensive) or six years as in OTL the Soviets would eventually win, time is on their side. So, if Japan does declare war with Germany pitching in we have to assume (I think) that the Axis has somthing bigger than petty border disputes in mind, otherwise it's a pointless declaration. So, if Japan does declare war it makes sense that they will want something out of it, plus it's entirely in the Japanese military's character to fight an aggressive, not submissive low-key, conflict. The problem is what do they do? As you and others have discussed elsewhere and OTL shows, Japan needs oil above anything else. Vladivostock and Siberia won't give them that, so if Japan declares war on the USSR she is committing to a land war in Manchuria and their China/Korea holdings for little potential reward. Regardless of how poor the Red Army is in 1939 that means most of the Japanese army is going to be sent to the mainland, there will not be sufficient forces to pursue any attempt to grab Borneo and Sumatra. Even if Stalin was content to just defend the Siberian border Japan has pretty much consigned itself to a long slow defeat as her oil reserves run out in a few years.

Plus of course any attempt by the Japanese to wage an aggressive war in Siberia is doomed by their lack of tanks and mechanization, and any operational doctrine in this area. So what does Japan do in this scenario?

Germany have a similar problem. If they declare war on the USSR in July or so of 1939 then there goes the element of surprise they used to such good effect in OTL. And their main trading partner too of course. Germany is protected by neutral Poland from direct invasion, but how does this help Germany in the long run? At some stage Germany would have to try to defeat the USSR, but in this scenario they've snookered themselves. Easterling may disagree with me about the fate of East Prussia but even if it holds on somehow it's no threat to the Soviets as it's too small to serve as a base for a major offensive. Plus Easterling says several times he wouldn't have the Germans try to launch an offensive in Euroipe, but are somehow suppsoed to help the Japanese in manchuria (exactly how is unclear). Even if everything went wrong for the Red Army all they need to do is defend the East Prussia-Lithuania border in depth and they will block any threat from there. There's no way that Germany can launch a major amphibious operation, Finland is too small and primitive (logistically) to provide a base for an invasion. A strike from Roumania into the Ukraine breadbasket? By itself it's too small a front as the Soviets will be able to contain a limited attack more easily than they did the Barbarossa of OTL. The Nazis are too brutalto raise the Ukrainians in some sort of sustained popular revolt. Plus a long hook from Germany through Hungary and Roumania is an unattractively long supply line.

To have any hope of conquering the USSR, Germany has to go via Poland. Of course, that's the approach Hitler took IOTL and he had a year and a half to build his logistics on the Eastern front in preparation for Barbarossa. He still failed of course but in terms of his twisted ambitions the strategy makes some sense. The OP here throws even that limited logic away. If Germany don't try to invade and defeat the USSR then eventually they'll lose the war of attrition as the German economy collapses or the Soviets eventually build up a bomber fleet (many years) or they launch their own invasion somewhere etc etc. And the only hope for Germany to successfully invade even in their minds is via Poland, but as soon as they do that then France and Britain declare war, Germany has it's dreaded two front war. And this is a Germany with far fewer resources than IOTL, against a Poland with greater room to maneuvre than IOTL and with the Red Army right behind them poised to flood the Polish plains with more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Even if the French prosecute another Phoney war, Germany has to keep sufficient troops watching them just in case. Germany won't last two years in this situation.

Always happy to hear your thoughts if you think I've missed something but it's not just the OP's tactical and operational assumptions that I disagree with, it's the strategic problems which I think make it a death trap for both Germany and Japan.
 
So what the hack are the Germans suppose to do to hurt Soviets?
Just read the rest of the thread.

And why would Turkey oblige them? They did not join Germans at the height of their power
That "Germany at the height of its power" was fighting several great powers at once and was doomed to loose.
Operation Pike proves that the Turks were willing to pick a fight with the Soviets if the odds were even remotely survivable.

You misunderstood appeasment. The aim of Allied leaders was to avert any sort of European war.
The aim of allied leaders was to keep their countries out of a war, because of the bad memories of ww1. As long as Germany and the SU fight eachother, they are no threat to France and Britain, so there is no war.
 
"To dropbearabroad: I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you are not actually a troll even if I find your ideeas absurd."

Gee, thanks. I'm willing to give you the same benefit of the doubt, for now.

In response to your points:

"The Soviet Union can't fight a high intensity war on two sides of the world at once. Even in 1945, with a much more powerful and experienced army they did not try that"

Yes they can, as our history shows. IOTL the Soviets successfully fought the highest intensity conflict in history. This scenario does not even present two simultaneous high intensity conflicts, you don't have your Germans fighting the Soviets, remember? Any Baltic campaign campaign is small scale compared to OTL's operations. Even if the Soviets pursued two simultaneous major offensives in Manchuria and the Baltics they would use fewer troops than they devoted to the Russian front against the Wehrmacht IOTL. The manpower is demonstrably there. The Red Army's capabilities and logistics are undeveloped in comparison to OTL's 1945, which is why I have every time clearly stated that there would be higher casualties and a longer timescale required than OTL's August 1945 operation. But the Soviets have plenty of both.

"Manchuria is rough terrain, just look at a map. And Korea is even rougher. It's not good terrain for maneuver warfare"

Yes, so's France when you look at it (seen any pictures of the Ardennes?). You don't need a tabletop to play with tanks, it helps but is not essential. The obvious illustration is that Zhukov's maneuver units did conquer that very same Manchuria in 1945. In this scenario it would be a slower, but so what? The result will be the same.

"August Storm only worked because the Soviets had 4 years of experience with maneuver warfare, a huge technological advantage, and powerfull logistigs courtesy of lend-lease. In 1939, they don't have that."

Agreed, but that's why I have continually pointed out it would take much longer than the month of August Storm. I've guessed a year or so. Slower, higher casualty rates and more mistakes but the Soviets still win.
"An offensive into Manchuria won't be one continuous Blitzkrieg like you imagine. It's more likely to be a series of short advances separated by long periods of buildup."

I've never said it would be a continuous blitzkrieg. See above, and the many previous references to a much longer timescale. I think I've made that very clear in my posts so I'm not sure where you misunderstanding of these statements comes from?

"The Japanese will most likely have local superiority of numbers, since they have shorter supply lines."

If the Soviets relied only on the Far Eastern Military District (25 divs or so) then yes, but in any large scales invasion I think it's pretty safe to conject that they'll build up a larger force first. Like the 89 divs they used for August Storm (again, it happened historically). Supply lines do affect the number of deployable forces, but so does the total manpower pool. Unless the Japanese decide to abandon China they have to keep the bulk of their army fighting the Chinese. It would take time for the Soviets to build up an invasion force but they have that time, and they sure have the men.

"By attacking an entrenched enemy, the Soviets give up most of their advantages. The Japanese proved to be very good at defending strategic positions, as the Pacific war showed."

Of course, but that's why the Soviets would build up a sufficient force, a la August Storm, first. The Japanese were doughty defenders, and the Soviets would take losses, but there's a lot more room to maneuver in Manchuria than on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. That's why maneuver formations are handy for just this situation, they cut through the gaps into the rear and leave the infantry and artillery to reduce the fortified positions. And again, it happened historically. At Khalkhin Gol Zhukov cut the 23rd ID to ribbons, in August Storm he cut the KA to ribbons in just this way.

"In time, even the Japanese will be able to learn and adapt to Soviet tactics, even in battles of maneuver."

Why do you think that? They didn't IOTL. They didn't develop such tactics after Khalkhin Gol, they didn't learn them after British tanks cut through their lines in Burma, they didn't figure out how to defeat American tanks in the Pacific campaign. When August Storm hit them they had no tactics to defeat the Soviets in 1945. In those 6 years they did not develop their own mechanized units to fight a similar battle or the antitank weapons to stop a tank force or even capable antiarmour infantry tactics. So no, the Japanese showed in OTL that without a new POD (several major defeats even larger than the ones described above maybe??) they weren't going to do this in a hurry. And after a few years it's too late.

"The Japanese air-force can bomb the advancing enemy, thus interfering with it's offensive."

I'm sure they would, but it won't turn the tide. Again I will repeat, it won't be a month long campaign, but a year or so. The Japanese air force will interrupt an offensive but it won't stop it.

"The Japanese fleet can raid all along the Far East coast. And the soviets will have to detach troops to deal with any landings."

Of course they can, good for them. The Japanese can make as many landings on Kamchatka and elsewhere as they like and it will mean nothing. The only strategically important site on the Soviet Pacific coast is Vladivostock, which is a series of fortress. Even if the Japanese took Vladivostock it means little. The Japanese don't gain anything useful to them, and the Soviets will build up an army inland to retake it. That would be expensive and costly to be sure but much less so than any of the major Red Army operations of OTL. So in the course of a major war it won't matter in terms of the outcome.

"If the Soviets attack through the Baltics, like you suggested, they must advance on a narrow front between the Baltic coast and the Polish border, so they can't use any numerical superiority."

Oh yes they can. Not in the same way as in Manchuria where there will be nice big holes in any defensive line the KA can form, but in a battering ram approach. Throw enough men at the defenders and you can win that way. It's brutal and expensive but attrition wins wars too. Plus the Red Army would be able to make use of its mass of artillery in this scenario. Just look at how the Soviets fought IOTL. Soviet losses will still be less than those of many of their operations of 1941 and 1942 IOTL.

"the locals will be hostile and this has nothing to do with any SS or CIA involvement. Read about the July uprising in Lithuania."

Of course they'll be hostile but it takes more than hostility to make partisans effective. This is not going to be any Tito-like miltary force. As I clearly related to you, the vaunted Forest Brothers of OTL killed less than 2000 Soviet troops in a decade, even with active Western support. That's peanuts in terms of the millions that the Red Army suffered. As I told you, the partisans can be everything they were in our history and they will still be irrelevant in terms of the outcome of the war. The partisans didn't stop the Red Army sweeping through and conquering the Baltic states IOTL, it will be the same in your scenario. They will cause some trouble but eventually the NKVD hunt them down, just as happened historically.

"It's the Soviets who will be having logistics issues, because land transport was less efficient then sea transport."

Of course the Soviets will have logistics problems, that's why I keep saying that Red Army operations would proceed far slower than for August Storm. But no, land transport is not less efficient than sea transport. Logistics are far easier to maintain through a land combat zone than a maritime one. The Soviets will have logistics issues, but the Germans in East Prussia have a noose round their necks.

"The terrain will have poor infrastructure an will have lots of forests and swamps, creating logistics problems"

Which is why I said it would be an attritional battle, not one of maneuvre. Yes there will be logistical problems to be overcome, but they will slow down the Soviets, not defeat them.

"there is no way the Soviets can starve out East Prussia. It would be something with no correspondence during the actual ww2"

Of course it happened in WW2. The Japanese starved the Americans on Bataan, the British and Americans starved the Germans in Tunisia, the Americans and Australians starved the Japanese throughout the Pacific, the Russians starved the Germans at Stalingrad. In a military context to starve your opponent does not mean just cutting of his food (which I’m assuming is what you think) but of any essential resource – ammo, fuel, medical supplies, reinforcements. It’s a common military strategy, deprive the enemy of essential supplies, reduce his effectiveness to the point he is not a threat and then crush him. That’s what would happen to any East Prussia garrison.

“The comparison with Sealion is unwarranted: the Germans would not be conducting an overseas invasion, they only have to ship supplies from one friendly harbor to another friendly harbor in close proximity; they don't have to worry about a huge enemy fleet bearing down on them and have air cover over the entire route”

Again you misunderstand a rather straightforward concept. I very clearly said it was adifferent situation to Sealion but the logistics burden is still the problem. There was no way Sealion would work for a number of continually discussed reasons, but the logistics issue is a key one. There simply weren’t enough ships or planes to supply a German invasion force. In this scenario there are not enough ships and planes to keep an East Prussia garrison supplied for an extended period. And the Germans will not have air cover the whole way. The Luftwaffe units based in East Prussia will eventually be degraded by the Red Air Force to the point they can’t protect the ports. As I continually tell you, Soviet losses will be high but numbers combined with better aircraft and experience, plus the German’s untenable long term supply situation, will decide the outcome just as IOTL.

“If everything else fails, they can ship reinforcements and supplies overnight, like the Japanese did on Guadalcanal”

The Japanese lost at Guadalcanal, so yes I agree with you there. The Germans can reinforce by night, but they will still lose in the long run. You seem to be thinking in terms of weeks, this war run for years.

“If the Red Air Force goes on the offensive, they will be quickly attrited, since OTL proves that Bomber offensives are costly things, especially without adequate fighter support”

Of course they would suffer heavy casualties, this is a full scale war we’re talking about. Both sides will be attrited, they question is who can best afford to take those casualties? Once again I remind you of what happened IOTL. In the 1st week of Barbarossa the Red air force was slaughtered on the ground, but three years later they dominated the Luftwaffe. The scenario here is a little different but the basic lesson is the same. The Soviets build far more aircraft, have far more replacement pilots, and they have access to a lot more fuel. Eventually they win.

“If the Red Army goes on the offensive, it will suffer heavy losses and morale will drop, since this is not the Great Patriotic War”

In your scenario the Soviet Union is defending itself against two aggressor states who have declared war on her. Their morale will be just fine, real people are far more complex than cartoon figures. Soviet morale survived the catastrophic defeats that the Nazis thought would make the Soviet Union crumble within a few months, you appear to be suffering from a similar delusion.

“If the SU doesn't attack neutrals, then it doensn't mean that Germany has to immediately go and invade Poland. If they want to attack the soviets ine Europe, the best thing would probably be to ask for an alliance with Turkey, since Turkey was willing to cooperate with the western allies for operation Pike.”

The Turks most definitely refused to join the Axis in fighting the Soviet Union IOTL even when the Wehrmacht was on what looked like a victory parade across the steppes. There is no way at all the Turks will sign up for this ridiculous scheme. They weren’t stupid. Of all the possible ways to strike the USSR this is by some way the most preposterous. Turkey will definitely say no.

Your idea for widening an alliance seems to be that the Germans will ask another state, in this case Turkey, to declare war on the USSR while Germany stays safe behind neutral Poland. Try and think about it from the Turks' perspective for a minute? They are being asked to fight a war against the largest army in the world, at a time before anyone even knew the Red Army was weak, but the Germans won’t even join the battle? And any suggestions of a German expeditionary force as making the difference would be laughed at by the Turks themselves. If you want someone to join this Axis alliance you will need to play on more than historic enmity, they will need to be convinced they aren’t being hung out to dry just to help Germany. And in OTL the Turks clearly showed, even when the Wehrmacht was seen as all-conquering, that they weren’t interested. Like I said, they weren't stupid. In this scenario the Soviets have just whipped the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol, everyone thinks the Red Army is not only huge but strong and the Wehrmacht has not yet even fought a battle. It will take more than empty words to get even friendly countries to sign up to this little adventure, particularly when Germany has done nothing as yet.
 
We know this. Stalin doesn't know. All he knows is that these two countries have been appeasing Hitler for the last years. Maybe they let him get away with it again. Stalin, being paranoid as usual, would asume that there is a real threat of German invasion through Poland and be forced to keep some troops in Europe to counter this.

The key word here being some, the bulk of the Red Army can remain on it's western Front as in OTL in 1939 and 1945.

That's not the point of this scenario. The point is for Germany to avoid a two front war by not attacking Poland and it's western allies. So stop bringing that up.

Outside of the brief period from September-October 1939, Germany avoided a two front war until it chose to enter one willingly on June 22nd 1941. There are easier ways of Germany avoiding a war if that's the point of this silly scenario, but the Third Reich's economy was based entirely around the need for war and conquest, they won't abandon those aims willingly.
 
"Outside of the brief period from September-October 1939, Germany avoided a two front war until it chose to enter one willingly on June 22nd 1941. There are easier ways of Germany avoiding a war if that's the point of this silly scenario, but the Third Reich's economy was based entirely around the need for war and conquest, they won't abandon those aims willingly."

Exactly, Nazi economic policies meant Germany had to plunder their neighbours to keep the economy from collapsing. Without the looted resources and slave labour they took IOTL Germany cannot support the armed forces she did IOTL. As you point out, this scenario just leads to Germany's stagnation if they do nothing to attack the USSR, and eventually the Russians will be coming. Or there's a coup and the new leadership sues for peace.
 
Top