WI: Soviets Invade Germany in 1941

Speaking of imports which was mentioned here, how was German-Soviet trade? When Barbarossa was launched, I assume the Germans were in quite major debt and unable to pay it off in the short term (well, at least unwilling since they would shortly be invading the Soviet Union)?
 
Then it appears the perfect storm is for the USSR to invade first and Japan decides to take a shot at a war with the USSR in the East rather than seek resources South and by their assumptions a mandatory first strike at the USA. As far as I understand public sentiment at the time, the USA could not enter the war without some major provocation, i.e. Pearl Harbor, the UK was fading in its ability to prosecute the war and thus the Eastern Front grinds to a stalemate with a much weaker RAF Bombing campaign, increasing U-Boat war, Lend-Lease or cash purchases keeping the USSR afloat but now fighting a two front war. The arguments must run to why Japan would forgo a war with the USSR and still attack Pearl Harbor or if the USA's aggressive neutrality could provoke a war with Germany. There appears a possibility of a coup or assignation of Hitler as the war grinds on, can we say the same with respect to Stalin? How badly does the UK or USA want to support either of these regimes if they are contained to mutual slaughter?
 
Actually considering that both the USSR and Reich could survive in relatively stable shape, this would be a rather terrifying and fascinating TL.

Although I do not accept Suvorov's arguments wholesale, I found the premise to be a fascinating point of departure to spin a rather different world.
 
Lend Lease would only be extended to the Soviets at the point when it looks like Hitler might actually win. Lend Lease will be significantly delayed compared to OTL. Nobody will want to give any aide to the Soviets so they can conquer Europe. There's going to be several stages as to how the war is seen.

Stage 1, Initial Soviet Invasion - "Ha, we knew this would happen. Good to have Commies and Nazis killing themselves. Give neither of them aide."
Stage 2, German Defeat of the Soviet Invasion - "Excellent. The Red Army got a bloody nose, and now Hitler has a second front. This will help Britain."
Stage 3, Initial German Counterattack - "We knew this was going to happen. Weather is still good. I bet the Germans will make some limited progress."
Stage 4, the German Attack Continues deep into Soviet Union - "This is unexpected. Maybe we should start selling supplies to Stalin."
Stage 5, Germans drive towards Leningrad and Moscow - "This should not be happening. We want a prolonged Nazi-Soviet War that weakens both sides, not a German victory. What can we do to prevent this?"

At that point, and not before, will the US begin talking about providing aide to Moscow. I imagine there won't even be sales of materials to Moscow until sometime in stage 4 (which IOTL occurred from June to September 1941 before Lend Lease proper). And it will be much tougher to get it passed, and when Lend Lease is passed for the Soviets, it may come with all sorts of restrictions of what can't be provided. Furthermore, there may be demands that before any aide is given that Stalin repudiate all gains made during the MR Pact - that he'll free the Baltics, recognize Poland's eastern border, agree to surrender his annexations of Finnish and Romanian territory (even if he is at war with those countries as a result of his invasion.)

If Japan is at war with the Soviets, then that closes down the Pacific Route which IOTL handled 50% of all the traffic. Therefore any aid is going to take longer to reach the Soviets.

Also, the major reason the US passed the Oil Embargo on Japan in July 1941 was to discourage them from attacking the Soviets, not just in response to a move into southern Indochina. ITTL, things are so different that the US may not establish the oil embargo until quite later, delaying American entry into the war.

This will have a great impact on the Soviet war effort. It may drop them back anywhere from 6-12 months from OTL.
 
The question remains as to how Churchill perceives it. We know he wanted the USSR at war with Germany and up until Barbarossa there seemed a solid pact between the Third Reich and the USSR, we know the UK contemplated bombing the oil supplied by Stalin to Hitler, but if Stalin launches his attack, even spun as a pre-emptive defensive one, does Churchill support Stalin as the enemy of my enemy? We know they were braking into German communications at the highest levels so they would get at least a good idea that it was a genuine attack. I agree with Blackfox5 on the likely lukewarm support for Stalin so long as Hitler is in charge and pursuing world domination but the weight would still be to get Hitler defeated. And how much effect do the Soviet sympathizers inside the FDR administration influence a pro-Soviet stance? And how much does one buy into the arguments that FDR was totally committed to getting the USA into the war? That shapes the pressure on Japan.

Without Lend-Lease, especially the trucks, phone cable and tires that gave the Red Army strategic mobility, the USSR would likely falter into a thick defensive stance that points to stalemate. If the USSR cannot secure this aid the war is either lost by the USSR or it is pushed back to a point that it concedes to an armistice rather like at the end of WWI. Most fiction has Hitler agree to a truce, does anyone accept that?

And if the Red Army makes progress to cut the oil from Romania Germany is doomed. Does that precipitate a coup? Or how does the West keep Stalin from conquering Europe to the Channel?

Fancy damned butterflies.
 

Deleted member 1487

The question remains as to how Churchill perceives it. We know he wanted the USSR at war with Germany and up until Barbarossa there seemed a solid pact between the Third Reich and the USSR, we know the UK contemplated bombing the oil supplied by Stalin to Hitler, but if Stalin launches his attack, even spun as a pre-emptive defensive one, does Churchill support Stalin as the enemy of my enemy? We know they were braking into German communications at the highest levels so they would get at least a good idea that it was a genuine attack. I agree with Blackfox5 on the likely lukewarm support for Stalin so long as Hitler is in charge and pursuing world domination but the weight would still be to get Hitler defeated. And how much effect do the Soviet sympathizers inside the FDR administration influence a pro-Soviet stance? And how much does one buy into the arguments that FDR was totally committed to getting the USA into the war? That shapes the pressure on Japan.

Without Lend-Lease, especially the trucks, phone cable and tires that gave the Red Army strategic mobility, the USSR would likely falter into a thick defensive stance that points to stalemate. If the USSR cannot secure this aid the war is either lost by the USSR or it is pushed back to a point that it concedes to an armistice rather like at the end of WWI. Most fiction has Hitler agree to a truce, does anyone accept that?

And if the Red Army makes progress to cut the oil from Romania Germany is doomed. Does that precipitate a coup? Or how does the West keep Stalin from conquering Europe to the Channel?

Fancy damned butterflies.
IMHO it is likely that the Brits wait and see if the Soviets are going to defeat the Germans and when the Soviets start losing then start sending aid to keep them in the war; I think they might wait a while to do so once it is clear the Soviets are in serious trouble. Churchill I think might treat it initially as a parallel war to keep options open in case the Germans start collapsing so he can fight the Soviets if needed to keep them as far east as possible.

It is very unlikely the Soviets could make much progress in Romania and it will trigger Italian entry into the Balkans, as they needed Romanian oil too. If somehow the Germans take massive stupid pills and ASBs give the Soviets abilities beyond their OTL 1941 ones then the Brits would invade France and probably try and work with the Germans and liberated powers in the West to hold the Rhein and perhaps fight on further East on the condition that the German military removes Hitler and the Nazis and turn suriviors over for war crimes trials.
 
Speaking of imports which was mentioned here, how was German-Soviet trade? When Barbarossa was launched, I assume the Germans were in quite major debt and unable to pay it off in the short term (well, at least unwilling since they would shortly be invading the Soviet Union)?

It was very much a case of "unwilling" as opposed to "unable". What the Soviets were asking for payment was nothing compared to the cost in capital goods the Germans sunk into the invasion in 1941 alone, let alone the rest of the war. The problem the Germans had with full payment (they provided some payment, but the balance was still not even halfway fulfilled) was not financial but strategic - that is, they intended to invade anyway, so why let the enemy become stronger?

Hindsight shows us that it would have been economically better for Germany to maintain their trade relationship with the Soviet Union then invade, even assuming a total German victory, but this ran in total contradiction to the narrative that Nazi ideology had woven about Germany's economic interests in the east.
 
Last edited:

iddt3

Donor
If America embargos Japan, it needs to go south. Otherwise it can't stay in China, let alone attack Russia. It might do both (because hey! Imperial Japan!), but it's logistical situation was perilous in OTL. I don't remember the exact details, but losing access to American oil (the rest hurt like hell, but the oil was crippling) basically put Japan on a timer of around a year or two, after which they would run out of oil and the forces in China would collapse. Russia can't supply that oil the DEI can.
 
Although I do not accept Suvorov's arguments wholesale, I found the premise to be a fascinating point of departure to spin a rather different world.
The problem about Suvorov is that he picks and chooses information, much of it out of context, to suit his narrative like there's no tomorrow. If you only read his book, everything seems super convincing, especially since his writing is very lucid and engaging, and more importantly, because he does have a valuable understanding of the political and military culture of the Soviet Union, having served in it.

I think that the premise of Suvorov's argument is correct in principle—Stalin was not a passive actor in the opening stages of World War II, but was highly engaged in the dynamic surrounding the Nazi-Allied conflict. I agree with him that it is naive to imagine that the Soviets would just sit around on waiting to be attacked, and that more research ought to be done into what the leadership was thinking and trying to do at the time. But the way Suvorov did it completely undermined this fascinating and IMO crucial premise in the eyes of WWII academics, in favor of writing a sensational narrative. And this was intentional: Suvorov's work is the best-selling popular history in Russia.
 
If America embargos Japan, it needs to go south. Otherwise it can't stay in China, let alone attack Russia. It might do both (because hey! Imperial Japan!), but it's logistical situation was perilous in OTL. I don't remember the exact details, but losing access to American oil (the rest hurt like hell, but the oil was crippling) basically put Japan on a timer of around a year or two, after which they would run out of oil and the forces in China would collapse. Russia can't supply that oil the DEI can.

If the USSR attacks they will go north as they are too obsessed with honor and "saving face". Not declaring war when their ally is attacked looks weak, particularly to themselves. It would look like they were too scared to back an ally that has been directly attacked.
 
The US media had pretty much just as much access to Nazi Germany in mid-41 as they did the Soviet Union. Given the speed with which Germany will smash the Soviet invasion and the delays of the time, the only difficulty in spinning it in the west will really stem from what the Soviets themselves say in the initial days before it comes a wholesale catastrophe. If they claim it was Germany who attacked first or was a pre-emptive assault against a German invasion, then they'll garner rather more sympathy then if they proclaim their attacking to liberate the workers of Europe or what not before trying to backpeddle when things go south.

Very much this, if they go in saying they are liberating the workers of Europe they lose massive amounts of sympathy. Most likely Stalin would be cautious enough to find out what was happening before he said much of anything.
 
Speaking of imports which was mentioned here, how was German-Soviet trade? When Barbarossa was launched, I assume the Germans were in quite major debt and unable to pay it off in the short term (well, at least unwilling since they would shortly be invading the Soviet Union)?

It was very much a case of "unwilling" as opposed to "unable". What the Soviets were asking for payment was nothing compared to the cost in capital goods the Germans sunk into the invasion in 1941 alone, let alone the rest of the war. The problem the Germans had with full payment (they provided some payment, but the balance was still not even halfway fulfilled) was not financial but strategic - that is, they intended to invade anyway, so why let the enemy become stronger?

Hindsight shows us that it would have been economically better for Germany to maintain their trade relationship with the Soviet Union then invade, even assuming a total German victory, but this ran in total contradiction to the narrative that Nazi ideology had woven about Germany's economic interests in the east.

they cut off the route to Iran and China (Manchukuo) as well any real collaboration with Japan?
 
Last edited:

iddt3

Donor
If the USSR attacks they will go north as they are too obsessed with honor and "saving face". Not declaring war when their ally is attacked looks weak, particularly to themselves. It would look like they were too scared to back an ally that has been directly attacked.
Are you sure? After all, they did back out OTL, and didn't jump in even when it looked like the Soviets would be easy. I'd they go North, where are they getting the oil from? Well unless they decide to go South too. Japanese planners were nuts, but it was a special kind of nuts; They backed down over the border incidents, but declared war on the US. The critical difference between the two is they actually had something to gain with war with the US, (Resources) and there was really nothing to be gained by war with Russia.
 
Are you sure? After all, they did back out OTL, and didn't jump in even when it looked like the Soviets would be easy. I'd they go North, where are they getting the oil from? Well unless they decide to go South too. Japanese planners were nuts, but it was a special kind of nuts; They backed down over the border incidents, but declared war on the US. The critical difference between the two is they actually had something to gain with war with the US, (Resources) and there was really nothing to be gained by war with Russia.

In one case it was clear that Germany was the invader so Japan was under no obligation in a defensive treaty in this case the USSR is the invader which makes a big difference unless they can finesse it by agreeing with the Soviet version but that seems somewhat unlikely.
 
Top