Would Operation Barbarossa still be executed if Britain is out of WW2 by then?

[Deleted member 1487]

Again, so? Some extra supplies allowed the USSR to push production and its economy that bit farther... when they were already on the offensive everywhere, less resources would have meant a slight weakening of Soviet offensives at best and, seeing how frequently and bloodily they failed in 1942, that might have been even a good thing for them.

That's the point, it wasn't just 'push it a bit further' it was prevented the economy from imploding and the government being unable to fight the war. In my earlier post I linked to a Russian historian who makes a strong case that the Soviets lied (overinflated) about official output numbers for tanks and aircraft in 1941-42 at least, which meant they were really balanced on a knife's edge by 1942 and Lend Lease really was vital to preventing the USSR from collapsing under the strain of the offensives of 1942. Without being able to recover the territories they did IOTL they'd have suffered even worse, as it was the recovered territories of 1943 that push them back out of the red in conjunction with increased LL, which BTW helped provide the materials to rebuild the damaged liberated territories.

[BVS] Boris V. Sokolov (2007). The role of lend‐lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941–1945. (Peer-reviewed journal). The Journal of Slavic Military Studies: Vol. 7, issue 3, pages 567-586. (Originally published in Russian in 1994).

 

[JAG88]

That's the point, it wasn't just 'push it a bit further' it was prevented the economy from imploding and the government being unable to fight the war. In my earlier post I linked to a Russian historian who makes a strong case that the Soviets lied (overinflated) about official output numbers for tanks and aircraft in 1941-42 at least, which meant they were really balanced on a knife's edge by 1942 and Lend Lease really was vital to preventing the USSR from collapsing under the strain of the offensives of 1942. Without being able to recover the territories they did IOTL they'd have suffered even worse, as it was the recovered territories of 1943 that push them back out of the red in conjunction with increased LL, which BTW helped provide the materials to rebuild the damaged liberated territories.

[BVS] Boris V. Sokolov (2007). The role of lend‐lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941–1945. (Peer-reviewed journal). The Journal of Slavic Military Studies: Vol. 7, issue 3, pages 567-586. (Originally published in Russian in 1994).

From your source:

"We cannot measure the distance of the Soviet economy from the point of collapse in 1942, but it seems beyond doubt that collapse was near. Without Lend-Lease it would have been nearer."}

It is speculation, it is right there.

 

[thaddeus]

the French were a perfect barometer of German success, if the UK is out (or sidelined), what is the policy of the Vichy regime?

their cooperation with Nazi regime to back the Iraqi coup (albeit only opening Syria to the LW) likely more robust under this scenario.

The title of the thread includes the words 'Britain is out of WW2'.
What the heck is the point of an Iraqi coup other than to try to provoke Britain to start fighting again?

the Iraqi situation was a coup (technically) AND at that point Germany and USSR were still cooperating, and my point Germany and Vichy regime likely have some agreement also?

would UK be willing for Germany to start fighting again? or try to wait for German-Soviet clash, even if it cost them control over Iraq?

 

[jonathan hanson]

I am under the impression that Barbarossa a was going to happen regardless

 

[M79]

Zhukov also later acknowledged that a lot of the wartime T-34s were made using American plate steel. Without the US and especially UK helping the USSR as they did, estimates vary but the war may go on for at least an additional year or more.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

From your source:

"We cannot measure the distance of the Soviet economy from the point of collapse in 1942, but it seems beyond doubt that collapse was near. Without Lend-Lease it would have been nearer."}

It is speculation, it is right there.

Given the problems with Soviet sources of the time, especially what was available when that article was written and the uncertainty in world war in general, we can't say for certain, but the situation was a lot worse than even Soviet official history claims. Modern scholarship especially from Russian historians is only confirming the importance of Lend-Lease and how the Soviets authorities covered up how vital it was, going so far as to suppress interviews with Zhukov in the 1960s where he talked about that and other issues.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Zhukov also later acknowledged that a lot of the wartime T-34s were made using American plate steel. Without the US and especially UK helping the USSR as they did, estimates vary but the war may go on for at least an additional year or more.

Don't forget the dependence of the USSR on US aluminum, without which the engines of T-34s weren't able to be made.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

the French were a perfect barometer of German success, if the UK is out (or sidelined), what is the policy of the Vichy regime?

There would be no ' Vichy Regime'. France would get a peace treaty as well, replacing the armistice. The treaty would ensure France is defanged & unable in the near term to attack Germany. A formal system of economic transfer to Germany rather than the haphazard looting of the Armistice. Petain might remain in power for several years, but he's liable to ditch the collaborators & Germanophiles. Petains ultimate goal was restoration of French power, that would mean not sucking up, & doing only the minimumalllowed in the treaty to help Germany.

Of course Petain might be replaced in a few years, so it's difficult to predict anything beyond 1941.

 

[thaddeus]

the French were a perfect barometer of German success, if the UK is out (or sidelined), what is the policy of the Vichy regime?

There would be no ' Vichy Regime'. France would get a peace treaty as well, replacing the armistice.

Of course Petain might be replaced in a few years, so it's difficult to predict anything beyond 1941.

do you think my speculation is backwards, with the UK out of the war, the French left in limbo? at least until Barbarossa concluded?

 

[JAG88]

Zhukov also later acknowledged that a lot of the wartime T-34s were made using American plate steel. Without the US and especially UK helping the USSR as they did, estimates vary but the war may go on for at least an additional year or more.

Given how Soviet armor quality dropped after Barbarossa that statement is either false or at the very least partially false.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Given how Soviet armor quality dropped after Barbarossa that statement is either false or at the very least partially false.

The article I posted before talks about 5600 tons of armor plate sent in 1942 to make good gaps in Soviet production, but that it wasn't a good fit for Soviet production methods; they were desperate enough though that they requested it anyway.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

do you think my speculation is backwards, with the UK out of the war, the French left in limbo? at least until Barbarossa concluded?

Not impossible. Logically a German government would want things in the west well progressed to treaties, stability for at least the short run. But this is Hitler we are talking about. Perhaps he would leave the armistice in place, along with ambigious & inefficient economic arraignments, a oversized garrison, and a French government unable to suppress Communist & leftist unrest

 

[JAG88]

The article I posted before talks about 5600 tons of armor plate sent in 1942 to make good gaps in Soviet production, but that it wasn't a good fit for Soviet production methods; they were desperate enough though that they requested it anyway.

So how did they use it, because Soviet armor quality was terrible, at least in 1942.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Germans can stipulate direct aid, the problem is the majority of the French in tat era disliked Germans to the point of non cooperation. Second, is about a day after the attack on the USSR starts every Communist & leftist in France will be in full noncooperation mode, or plotting revolt. Collaborationist, hard core fascists, Germanophilles will be a minority & a disliked one, much like OTL. The Communist fearing middle class will be split between dislike & fear of both the nazis and the Bolshiviks. That the Germans were actively looting France frequently tipped the hostility towards them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So how did they use it, because Soviet armor quality was terrible, at least in 1942.

Universally terrible or just the majority? That armor plate also needed to be properly welded in place and needed to contest with increased AT weapon strength, which it no quality of plate could necessary deal with depending on the thickness of it. Plus the Soviet made thousands of light tanks in 1942, so it might have gone there.

 

[thaddeus]

Logically a German government would want things in the west well progressed to treaties, stability for at least the short run. But this is Hitler we are talking about. Perhaps he would leave the armistice in place, along with ambigious & inefficient economic arraignments, a oversized garrison, and a French government unable to suppress Communist & leftist unrest

The Germans can stipulate direct aid, the problem is the majority of the French in tat era disliked Germans to the point of non cooperation. Second, is about a day after the attack on the USSR starts every Communist & leftist in France will be in full noncooperation mode, or plotting revolt. Collaborationist, hard core fascists, Germanophilles will be a minority & a disliked one, much like OTL. The Communist fearing middle class will be split between dislike & fear of both the nazis and the Bolshiviks. That the Germans were actively looting France frequently tipped the hostility towards them.

the payment of Belgian and Polish gold reserves stretched into late 1942, my understanding the delay was a stratagem or Ruse de guerre, if you will, and no reason the price for German exit could not have been paid earlier?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

the payment of Belgian and Polish gold reserves stretched into late 1942, my understanding the delay was a stratagem or Ruse de guerre, if you will, and no reason the price for German exit could not have been paid earlier?

Perhaps. What portion of the Polish gold remained in French custody? Britain had part of it & there are descriptions of the Brits frantically transporting bullion across France and aboard their ships during June 1940. I also remember the Brits vetoing the transfer of bullion the Germans claimed as Belgian, which was on the British ledger in the bank of International Settlements in Switzerland.

 

[thaddeus]

the payment of Belgian and Polish gold reserves stretched into late 1942, my understanding the delay was a stratagem or Ruse de guerre, if you will, and no reason the price for German exit could not have been paid earlier?

Perhaps. What portion of the Polish gold remained in French custody? Britain had part of it & there are descriptions of the Brits frantically transporting bullion across France and aboard their ships during June 1940. I also remember the Brits vetoing the transfer of bullion the Germans claimed as Belgian, which was on the British ledger in the bank of International Settlements in Switzerland.

here's an official history of the Belgian gold https://www.nbbmuseum.be/en/2010/03/belgische-goud.htm

the movement of Polish gold closely tracks

 

[SpicyJuan]

When the Finnish advance in 1941 was stopped IOTL, it was not because of the considerations towards the Western Allies, but it was because the Finns had reached the planned extent of their advance and were at the limits of their logistics as well. The Finnish military had conquered the area the Finnish leadership wanted. If Britain is not in the war, the 1941 main Finnish advance would then not extend any further than it did IOTL.

However, it seems that IOTL political considerations played a role in that the Finns did not go against the Murmansk railway with more determination and effort in early 1942. ITTL it might be possible that Britain being out of the war, the Finnish leadership might OK an attack to capture a part of the railway, specifically in and around Belomorsk by the White Sea. This was planned IOTL but the plan was never realized. Should the Germans also allocate enough troops and resources to support this attack (Finnish forces and resources alone would likely not be enough), it could cut the connection between Murmansk and the rest of the USSR for an extended amount of time in 1942 and possibly into 1943. It would also be costly and make Finland more dependent on Germany than IOTL for food, fuels, etc. This could also hurt the USSR dearly in terms of lend-lease shipments.

Even ITTL, Finland would not mount a direct assault against Leningrad or join the siege as an active partner. This is not happening as long as Mannerheim is in charge. Going against the Murmansk railway is the only realistic potential major change in Finnish military activities here, IMHO.

The Finnish advance stopped because the Americans "ordered" it. It's hard to see the Americans making this threat without the British in the war, or the Finns taking it as seriously. From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Aspirations,_war_effort_and_international_relations

On 25 October 1941, the US demanded that Finland cease all hostilities against the USSR and withdraw behind the 1939 border. In public, President Ryti rejected the demands, but in private, he wrote to Mannerheim on 5 November asking him to halt the offensive. Mannerheim agreed and secretly instructed General Hjalmar Siilasvuo and his III Corps to end the assault on the Kirov Railway.[113]

 

[Barry Bull]

From an academic paper by Alexander Hill

Because the Red Army was defeated repeatedly in OTL 1941. Would the better prepared Red Army need that much external assistance in TTL, esp. if the German-Soviet war is postponed to after 1941?