WI: No Barbarossa?

What Hitler said.. Interesting you mean like the necssity to avoid a two fron war at all cost? And guess what.. If they knew about the T-34 a crash program that dropped all the tanks under development (except for the Tiger) wouldnt have happened. So explain those of us that are slow why can you put off the Soviet war for Ploand but not to finish the war in the west?
 
Yes, holding action. And that was a pre-agreed on murder of Poland and because Hitler wasn't retarded, he was insane, but not an idiot as you've just had France and the UK declare war on you over Poland. Or did you forget that?

The truth is the Soviets supplied the Germans with a huge amount of food and other resources, that were being paid for. If the Germans don't go to war in the east, then they are in debt and their econimy would collapse upon itself as it was dependent on conquest and 'guest workers' to sustain itself.

And this dependence was another major factor in driving the decision to launch Barbarossa. The fundamental issue with the idea that the M-R Pact could continue in the long term or that the Nazi's could bring the USSR into the Axis is that the Nazi's correctly concluded they would soon be reduced to the status of junior partner with Stalin calling the shots. Soviet industry, resources and manpower made that inevitable. Even worse the export of the machine tools and other technology the USSR demand for its raw materials meant that the Soviet military would steadily improve in quality as well as quantity. Germany would end up in the same position as Britain did vis a vis the USA IOTL.

Should also be remembered that there were no German plans for war in the Middle East or Southern Europe, both interventions were simply reactive, efforts to dig the Italians out of the messes they got themselves into in Greece and Egypt.
 
Are you suggesting that is Germany can dedicate even half the resources they put into Barbarossa into attacking the British position and has a free flow of trade from the East because Stalin won't start a war, as the claim I was countering specifically stated, Britain would be in a position to remotely as well continue the fight, especially if their diplomatic overtures to the USSR get a blatent "no"? Especially since a German army with no offensive intentions sent to want the border would be able to use more resource efficent defensive tactics? London will either have to basically begger itself to Uncle Sam or maitain some semblence of influence by reaching accommodations with Hitler, who has no desire to destroy the British Empire.

Yes? Even with the resources put into Barbarossa freed up, building a Navy capable of bringing the British to heel is something that would take the Germans years even if it was a pure Britain vs Germany contest... which it isn't: the US is gonna be in by '42, and the Germans will be able to economically match the US right around approximately never. London having to begger itself to Uncle Sam to continue the war is precisely what happened, what was already happening in fact, IOTL, so obviously it wasn't a political obstacle to the continuation of the war like you make it out to be. The Brits also weren't counting on the Soviets at all (they shared the Germans underestimation of it), so how the Soviets respond to their diplomatic overtures just don't really matter itself. While a political flinching at the blood price might happen, it is in no way guaranteed, it will be years down the line if it does happen, and the result would be a still-hostile Anglo-American power bloc locking Germany out of world trade and ready to pounce if it does something stupid... like attack the USSR.
 
You (and Hitler) said it yourself, 'England is not our enemy' and apparently he didn't want to destroy the Empire (probably bullshit said to try and make folks believe and trust him, which is an impossibility at this point).

Also how are they going to know about the T-34 and KV-1? And know how effective it was (with a good crew anyhow..) So you're assigning them foresight, anything else you want to do in this sloppy titwank? And please don't say 'Ahh but the Abwehr...' it was a useless organisation mostly staffed at its higher levels by people who didn't like the Nazi's and one who had a pretty darn useless time of getting people into other countries to learn things.

And Hitler put it off because he needed to destroy the threat to Germany and the Rhur in the West first. The Anglo/French armies are much closer to Germany than the Russians (further still now thanks to Poland's 'donation' of land) and they needed to be dealt with. And as was pointed out earlier, the Germans could barely supply Rommel's forces, how are they going to supply and ship the forces earmarked OTL for Barbarossa if you move them into Africa? You're still limited by shipping at the end of the day and Italy would probably be sweating cold buckets as well even if there was nothing they could do if the Germans decided to also go "You know what Benny...what's yours is mine right?"

And Hitler also put off anything because the Soviets were helping keep the German econimy going with grain, oil and other materials that they needed, albeit at a significant cost which would start running out once the Germans start running out of places to conquer, loot and pillage. Egypt and the like probably didn't have much in the way of gold reserves the Nazi's could yoink after all, nor is it exactly grain breadbasket territory either. The oil's good yes, but most of that infrastructure was very very poorly developed at the time and there's the issue of building it up, shipping it out etc as you'd have to go all the way into Iran and Iraq to do that. And this all takes time, years to get going. Giving the Soviets, your declared enemy for 10 odd years in news, writing, school and propaganda more and more time to build up, to modernize and fortify. And you're at the short end of the manufacturing and numbers stick.
 
Last edited:
What Hitler said.. Interesting you mean like the necssity to avoid a two fron war at all cost? And guess what.. If they knew about the T-34 a crash program that dropped all the tanks under development (except for the Tiger) wouldnt have happened. So explain those of us that are slow why can you put off the Soviet war for Ploand but not to finish the war in the west?

They didn't put off the Soviet war for Poland, they put it off because Hitler was willing to postpone it precisely so he could concentrate on eliminating the French and ending the war in the west first. People keep losing sight of the fact that destroying the French threat was very high on the Nazi to do list, indeed it was seen as a prerequisite before Germany turned east. The assumption was of course that with France defeated Britain would be 'sensible' and make peace. Stalin was aware of this and was only too happy to sign a deal that would see the Germans strike west first, because he was expecting a rerun of 1914-18 that would end with Germany, France and Britain exhausted, leaving the way clear for the USSR to dominate Europe. As it was both Hitler and Stalin got it wrong, with catastrophic consequences.
 
In June 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the USSR and effectively doomed themselves. What would have happened to the war if the Nazis decided "This ain't worth it", and left the Soviet Union alone, focusing instead on Southern Europe and North Africa?

The problem is that the Nazis can't really leave the Soviets "alone", they're still going to have to be a major factor in German policy and it's likely that any continued relationship is going to tilt more in Stalin's favour as a the war progresses and gradually turns against Germany. Despite the resources freed up by avoiding Barbarossa the Germans probably can't radically alter the North Africa campaign but they can make it bloodier and more prolonged, especially if a Med Strategy is prioritised earlier and Spain and Vichy can be brought on board (a lot of if's there) but ultimately the WAllies will eject them from Africa and face the unenviable task of liberating Europe on their own. The following years will likely see a broad stalemate as the Luftwaffe and subsequently the Heer are incapacitated in France, possibly with some peripheral campaigns and Atomic Bombs along the way, before the main event. The casualties of the drive east will resemble those of, well, the Eastern Front. That is presuming the Soviets don't jump in at an opportune moment, which is possible, but a devastated and partially irradiated Europe is also going to be ripe for spreading revolution.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Stalin says здравствуйте with a large number of T34s a year or two later.
How well would the Soviets fight on a purely offensive war? Nato had serious doubts. Especially when it came to non ethnic Russians. Without crazy German abuses, there might not be much motivation to fight hard
 
How well would the Soviets fight on a purely offensive war? Nato had serious doubts. Especially when it came to non ethnic Russians. Without crazy German abuses, there might not be much motivation to fight hard

The Poles will be abused as bad as OTL in German occupied territories. The Germans fought to the death OTL. Saying the Russians wouldnt be motivated is unsubstantiated propaganda AFAIK
 

elkarlo

Banned
The Poles will be abused as bad as OTL in German occupied territories. The Germans fought to the death OTL. Saying the Russians wouldnt be motivated is unsubstantiated propaganda AFAIK
No, I am not sure why you're saying that. The Soviets on a purely offensive war, without suffering their own abuses wouldn't be as motivated as OTL. Nato had the same conclusion . Soviets would fight hard in a defensive war, but not as much in an offensive war. That is a clear and substantiated opinion
 
No, I am not sure why you're saying that. The Soviets on a purely offensive war, without suffering their own abuses wouldn't be as motivated as OTL. Nato had the same conclusion . Soviets would fight hard in a defensive war, but not as much in an offensive war. That is a clear and substantiated opinion

Um, wot? Setting aside the fact that its very easy to create a defensive war out of an offensive one with propaganda, I have literally never seen it claimed that the Russians were unwilling to fight. Cite sources, then Ill take a look at them as something to be substantiated.
 
Rather ignores that Britain is still at war with Germany (and later Japan) and America is bound to get sucked in. A Germany already committed against those two powers isn't in any position to threaten Stalin. I don't entirely rule out the possibility of Stalin jumping Germany in 1943 or so, but it's more his style to let the Americans and British do the bloody work of beating Germany to a pulp and then reaping the rewards at minimal cost.

It seems that Stalin tended to minimize risk. With most of the German army not being engaged against the Brits, risk associated with an attack seems to be quite high. As for the ideological side of an issue, it should not be forgotten that on both sides you have “the workers party” and “I felt in Moscow as among the old party comrades”. Which, of course, does not mean that there was a blind trust but British imperialism as a common enemy was quite plausible and in OTL there was Soviet - Japanese trade cooperation through WWII.

Of course for Stalin joining anti-Hitler Coalition was quite possible (and he tried to do so but without success) but to go to war he would need a more serious backing than just British sympathy.
 
What would they really do if they don't go through with Barbarossa? Technically an alliance could happen if you have a more strategic/less stupid Germany, but that would probably be to take care of the rest of the Allies first before turning their attention to the USSR when they're done.
 
Last edited:
"And this dependence was another major factor in driving the decision to launch Barbarossa. The fundamental issue with the idea that the M-R Pact could continue in the long term or that the Nazi's could bring the USSR into the Axis is that the Nazi's correctly concluded they would soon be reduced to the status of junior partner with Stalin calling the shots. Soviet industry, resources and manpower made that inevitable. Even worse the export of the machine tools and other technology the USSR demand for its raw materials meant that the Soviet military would steadily improve in quality as well as quantity. Germany would end up in the same position as Britain did vis a vis the USA IOTL."

This is the best comment on the thread.

Actually this comment describes what would have happened. Germany becomes a weird junior partner in a Soviet led Eurasian bloc, sort of like the role London (or Paris) played to Washington later, or Rome played to Berlin in the smaller Axis.

If this winds up happening, one interesting consequence is that World War 2 winds up as a stalemate. Even assuming that Japan still attacks Britain and the US, the Japanese now have Soviet support instead of just neutrality. The Royal Navy and US Navy are enough to keep the US and UK from losing to a Soviet backed Axis, and they do get to keep the lend lease they gave to the USSR, but they can't win. Eventually the hot war turns into something of a cold war, maybe after nuclear weapons are mixed into the occasion.

There is a good chance the Eurasian bloc would have fallen apart later, the same way the Sino-Soviet split happened IOTL and for similar reasons. By the way, in this timeline the People's Republic of China consists of only a few Chinese provinces if it exists at all.

Obviously I don't think that Stalin would have attacked Germany, nor do I think this would have allowed Germany to defeat the British, as the Americans would come in anyway before that happened, particularly against a Germany allied with the Commies.

As for the AHC, to do this you would have to get Nazis willing to make the needed concessions to Moscow making the decisions. Such people existed, but Hitler wasn't one of them so the POD probably has to involve Hitler dying in 1940. Germany losing/ getting into a stalemate in 1940 in something along the lines of the "Blunted Sickle" scenario and becoming dependent on the Soviet Union after Hitler is removed from power would also work.
 
Stalin actually made out pretty well from OTL. He went from an international pariah to one of only two states that could claim to be a superpower. Sure, he broke a lot of eggs, some of which he probably didn't have to, but dang if he didn't get a big omellet out of it.
Eh, not really, the German invasion devastated the Soviet Union and it's woes were compounded by trying to pretend to be a super power and maintain an expensive and worthless empire in Eastern Europe. Stalin didn't live long enough to see the consequences but he laid the groundwork for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. He would have done much better if he had fought the Germans in 1939 instead of making a pact with them. Sure the Red Army was in a sorry state at the time but the Germans were in no way capable of fighting a protracted war without their subsequent conquest and looting of the rest of Europe that Stalin enabled
 
Eh, not really, the German invasion devastated the Soviet Union and it's woes were compounded by trying to pretend to be a super power and maintain an expensive and worthless empire in Eastern Europe. Stalin didn't live long enough to see the consequences but he laid the groundwork for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. He would have done much better if he had fought the Germans in 1939 instead of making a pact with them. Sure the Red Army was in a sorry state at the time but the Germans were in no way capable of fighting a protracted war without their subsequent conquest and looting of the rest of Europe that Stalin enabled
The Sovits had their own "Operation Paperclip" after the war (rocket tech is just the most famous part), they shipped entire modern factories to Russia, whole research and development teams and trainloads of skilled workers to Russia to rebuild Russian scientific power from the ashes. Without that treasure trove the Soviet Union wouldnt have made it as far as they have because WW1, the revolution, the civil war and collectivization had destroyed the Russian sciences just like the Cultural Revolution did in China decades later with the same devastating effect from which it still has to recover. And had Stalin, lacking the stress of the war, lived some years longer he would have exterminated the last remnants of Russian academia.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Um, wot? Setting aside the fact that its very easy to create a defensive war out of an offensive one with propaganda, I have literally never seen it claimed that the Russians were unwilling to fight. Cite sources, then Ill take a look at them as something to be substantiated.
Will have to look around. My source is a person who was involved in command and general staff exercises in the 80s. Will Google later and see what I can find.
Again, without widespread brutality Soviets aren't going to be motivated on the attack. Much like they weren't against Finland, propaganda only works so much. Especially when it's an obvious lie.
Same with Afghanistan, Soviets were fairly demotivated there as well.
 
The Sovits had their own "Operation Paperclip" after the war (rocket tech is just the most famous part), they shipped entire modern factories to Russia, whole research and development teams and trainloads of skilled workers to Russia to rebuild Russian scientific power from the ashes. Without that treasure trove the Soviet Union wouldnt have made it as far as they have because WW1, the revolution, the civil war and collectivization had destroyed the Russian sciences just like the Cultural Revolution did in China decades later with the same devastating effect from which it still has to recover. And had Stalin, lacking the stress of the war, lived some years longer he would have exterminated the last remnants of Russian academia.
They possibly could have gotten all that if Stalin went to war with Hitler in 1939, without 20 million Soviets dying and having some of the most economically valuable regions of the Soviet Union devastated by the Nazis.
 
No, I am not sure why you're saying that. The Soviets on a purely offensive war, without suffering their own abuses wouldn't be as motivated as OTL. Nato had the same conclusion . Soviets would fight hard in a defensive war, but not as much in an offensive war. That is a clear and substantiated opinion

NATO never made such a conclusion, nor does the historical evidence show much agreement. Roger Reese analyzes the Red Army's "military effectiveness" (a term which is defined, at least in this case, as the ability of a military to motivate it's men to fight) in not just the Second World War, but the Winter War and found that Soviet soldiers fought incredibly hard in a offensive war against a liberal democracy that had done almost nothing to the USSR.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Sovits had their own "Operation Paperclip" after the war (rocket tech is just the most famous part), they shipped entire modern factories to Russia, whole research and development teams and trainloads of skilled workers to Russia to rebuild Russian scientific power from the ashes. Without that treasure trove the Soviet Union wouldnt have made it as far as they have because WW1, the revolution, the civil war and collectivization had destroyed the Russian sciences just like the Cultural Revolution did in China decades later with the same devastating effect from which it still has to recover. And had Stalin, lacking the stress of the war, lived some years longer he would have exterminated the last remnants of Russian academia.
In the long run the Soviet empire proved to be a massive resource sink, just like the effort to match NATO militarily. Certainly in the short run looting occupied Europe was a major help to recovery from WW2, but then the USSR, realizing it had to make the Soviet regimes in occupied Europe work, had to start investing resource into it's empire, which created the inevitable problems it faced after the 1960s. Of course the choice of where to invest it's own resources internally certainly were very poor as well, like neglecting agriculture modernization.

NATO never made such a conclusion, nor does the historical evidence show much agreement. Roger Reese analyzes the Red Army's "military effectiveness" (a term which is defined, at least in this case, as the ability of a military to motivate it's men to fight) in not just the Second World War, but the Winter War and found that Soviet soldiers fought incredibly hard in a offensive war against a liberal democracy that had done almost nothing to the USSR.
How much of that effort was to avoid the punishment that would come from shirking? In 1939 the Great Purge was had just ended and hit the army hard, so it isn't as if it was safe not to fight as hard as possible.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/stalin-s-gift/305779/
The NKVD’s main military function was to keep Red Army soldiers facing rather than fleeing the enemy, a task it carried out in its customarily sanguine fashion. The Soviets executed more than 158,000 soldiers for desertion. “In the Red Army,” noted Marshal Georgi Zhukov, “it takes a very brave man to be a coward.”

Also Reese wrote another book about Soviet willingness to fight before WW2:
https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Relu...DWGETMBDNEE&psc=1&refRID=AYT979Y18DWGETMBDNEE
Under Joseph Stalin's iron-fisted rule, the Soviet state tried to forge an army that would be both a shining example of proletarian power and an indomitable deterrent against fascist aggression. In reality, Roger Reese reveals, Stalin's grand military experiment failed miserably on both counts before it was finally rescued within the crucible of war.

Reese greatly expands our understanding of the Red Army's evolution during the 1930s and its near decimation at the beginning of World War II. Counter to conventional views, he argues that the Stalinist state largely failed in its attempt to use military service as a means to indoctrinate its citizens, especially the peasantry. After 1928, the regime's recruits became increasingly disenchanted with Stalin's socialist enterprise—primarily due to the disheartening changes brought on by collectivization and dekulakization. In effect, these reluctant soldiers turned their backs on both the army and Communist Party leadership, neither of which regained credibility until after World War II.

The soldiers' alienation and hostility, Reese demonstrates, was most clearly manifested in the highly volatile tensions between officers and peasant recruits following the military's chaotic expansion during the 1930s. Those tensions and numerous internal conflicts greatly undermined the regime's effort to create a well-trained, cohesive, and politically indoctrinated army. In place of this ideal, the regime stumbled along with a disunited and ineffective fighting force guided by outdated doctrines and led by an undeveloped officer corps. All of those elements made the Soviet Union particularly vulnerable to the devastating military disasters of 1941.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How much of that effort was to avoid the punishment that would come from shirking? In 1939 the Great Purge was had just ended and hit the army hard, so it isn't as if it was safe not to fight as hard as possible.

You can dispute why they were effective fighters in a purely offensive war, but not that they were.
 
Top