The first post you quoted by yourself, yes you'd be right. But that post was the last in a series that was arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union would never surrender because they knew from the very beginning that they were fighting for their very existence.
Would the USSR sign a peace treaty or continue fighting beyond the Urals in a Nazi victory?
- Thread starter Captain Homicide
- Start date
The first post you quoted by yourself, yes you'd be right. But that post was the last in a series that was arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union would never surrender because they knew from the very beginning that they were fighting for their very existence.
Obviously we’ll never know for certain but under the conditions of the OP if Stalin remains in control I think he would retreat past the Urals and continue fighting (though any rump USSR would have its hands full rebuilding and wouldn’t be in any shape to fight Germany again any time soon).
However I believe if Stalin is overthrown (the chances of which increase if he starts more purges and launches wasteful offensives that only help the Heer’s advance) whoever becomes the new leader (Molotov, Beria, Malenkov etc) would be likelier to give in and make peace with the Reich even if the terms were one sided out of sheer desperation and self preservation.
However I believe if Stalin is overthrown (the chances of which increase if he starts more purges and launches wasteful offensives that only help the Heer’s advance) whoever becomes the new leader (Molotov, Beria, Malenkov etc) would be likelier to give in and make peace with the Reich even if the terms were one sided out of sheer desperation and self preservation.
OP mentions that this hypothetical Soviet surrender takes place sometime after 1942. By that time, Nazi genocidal policies should be already up-and-running, perhaps even earlier if they're emboldened by the capture of Moscow and Leningrad (two cities they planned to completely raze IOTL). The Soviets would almost certainly be aware of this through both escaping refugees/POWs and their own NKVD agents infiltrating resistance guerilla movements behind enemy lines (which also happened ITOL).
It won't take long ffor them to put 2+2 together and realise Hitler's demented ramblings in Mein Kampf are actually the base of the system of governance his has in stock for his newly acquired eastern territories.
The soviets would fight on, no doubt about that. Considering the unimmaginable suffering the fascist invader are inflicting on their people in the occupied territories, It'd be pollitical suicide for any soviet government to make peace with this horrible foe (let alone paying "reparations" and allowing nazi inspectors in the rump USSR).
Moreover, once the Wehrmacht reaches the A-A Line, the war would actually be a lot less ressource intensive for the soviets, compared to the germans. The nazis can not realistically advance much further (an offensive east of Archangelsk and Astrakhan would be a logistical nightmare), and Red Army forces can regularly launch ambushes on under-supplied german forward division. Furthermore the soviet government can easily smuggle cheap light weaponry over the porous frontlinie (considering the distance between Archangelsk and Astrakhan, the frontline would innevitable be quite porous), enabling the hundreds of thousands of partisans to cause a lot of havoc in the german-occupied rear areas.
If the nazis manage to secure their grip over Europe for the decades to come, I could possibly see the soviets making peace with Germany by the 60s or 70s. However that's very speculative, and even if it happened the soviets would certainly not pay any tribute, let alone allowing german inspectors in their country. Even if peace was made, relations would be icy. You don't have good relations with a regime that mass murders tens of millions of your people.
Moreover, once the Wehrmacht reaches the A-A Line, the war would actually be a lot less ressource intensive for the soviets, compared to the germans. The nazis can not realistically advance much further (an offensive east of Archangelsk and Astrakhan would be a logistical nightmare), and Red Army forces can regularly launch ambushes on under-supplied german forward division. Furthermore the soviet government can easily smuggle cheap light weaponry over the porous frontlinie (considering the distance between Archangelsk and Astrakhan, the frontline would innevitable be quite porous), enabling the hundreds of thousands of partisans to cause a lot of havoc in the german-occupied rear areas.
If the nazis manage to secure their grip over Europe for the decades to come, I could possibly see the soviets making peace with Germany by the 60s or 70s. However that's very speculative, and even if it happened the soviets would certainly not pay any tribute, let alone allowing german inspectors in their country. Even if peace was made, relations would be icy. You don't have good relations with a regime that mass murders tens of millions of your people.
nbcman
Donor
The Soviets knew about the Commissar order by the fall 1941 which is why it was rescinded in May 1942.
Commissar Order - Wikipedia
I can't see how the average Soviet soldier or citizen would have thought that they would get lenient treatment after surrender after knowing that the Germans were willing to kill Commissars out of hand.
Good point but yet IOTL around 2.5 million Soviet troops were captured between 1942 and 1945 even when it became apparent how awful Nazi policies were (plus the 2+ million Soviet troops that died in Nazi captivity in 1941 certainly was a major lesson on what the Reich was capable of). They’re not fanatical robots. Think of the hundreds of thousands of Allied troops (Chinese, American, British etc) that surrendered to Japanese forces throughout WW2 despite knowing of Japanese atrocities (there’s numerous other historical examples just from WW2 I could use to prove my point).
However comforting the idea may be the reality is that the Red Army was a far cry from the IJA and valued living (as most people do) more than going out in a blaze of glory against the monstrous Reich (though some units would do that).
If there’s a breakdown of order due to Moscow and Leningrad falling in 1941 and unimpeded German advances in 1942 and a civil war breaks out it the Red Army would lose combat effectiveness, order and discipline (even better if Stalin begins purging military officials for “failure”). In AANW an eight sided civil war broke out in 1943 leading to the deaths of Stalin, Malenkov and Beria.
In these chaotic conditions Red Army units would either surrender, flee, attempt to blend in as civilians, make suicidal last stands or attempt to fight on as partisans. The same would happen if Stalin died and someone like Molotov or Beria took charge and made a deal with the Reich and ordered the Red Army to surrender/stand down.
Last edited:
As long as something like a central leadership AND places to relocate to exist, there will be no official surrender, nor a cease fire. It was pretty evident from the start of the war in '41 that the Germans are aiming for the total destruction of not only the Soviet Union, but its peoples. That provides enough common ground for the remaining parts of whatever administration surviving in places like Kuibyshev the initial onslaught to keep going. I'd also say that conquering Moscow AND Leningrad is pretty much a suicide operation conducted by the Heer; that's pretty much the reason why Hitler decided to siege the crap out of Leningrad. He was aware an assault on the city would destroy the units participating in it. These are cities six to eight times larger than Stalingrad and they will consume Germans like an oven consumes firewood. I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans were too exhausted to go advance much further than that. Adding to that is the equivalent of an entire army of partisans in the conquered territories.
Honestly, if you ask me, I would say that much like the KMT fought on from their new redoubt in Sichuan during the Second Sino-Japanese War as large portions of China fell to the Japanese, the Soviets would fight on in a grim struggle, even with relatively little chance of pushing out the Germans like the Chinese during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Yeah, no. Why should the surviving Soviet leadership surrender if they knew they'd be pretty much safe behind a line of natural fortifications and strongpoints, being aided by the rough weather and the partisan movement behind German lines? And even if the Germans marched beyond the Urals, what would they find there? More of the same gruesome fighting, more Rattenkrieg, more partisans and after a while thousands of their comrades frozen in position at -50° C. The Soviets know all of this very well, they know their country and people and what's at stake here. There'd be no surrender, no cease fire. Sure, perhaps a heated dicussion about how and when to call it a day, but I doubt the people advocating for it would survive very long.
TDM
Kicked
Different situation, and players entirely
Firstly the soviets considered themselves new management and had little investment in continuing the fight it being seen as largely the previous management's folly. On top of that Russian foreign policy and other active choices played more of an active role in Russia being in WW1 and that was obvious to Russians. Compare that to WW2 which was a surprise attack by Germany. The new regime (naively) thought they could extricate themselves from the war by dint of just not being there. Brest-Litovsk actually shocked everyone in it's harshness and it's very unlikely the New government considered it to be the likely outcome prior to the "negotiations". It would have in fact severely destabilised the regime, and certainly would not have relieved Russian hunger. Luckily for the the new regime it didn't matter because of what happened next.
Secondly the Soviets had basically campaigned and promised an end to the war i.e in 1917 /18 their entire modus operandi is ending the war and seeking peace. They had largely come to power on the back of strong anti war feeling, civil and army revolts against it, None of this is true in 1942
Thirdly, Imperial Germany was not Nazi Germany, because....
The deaths, and mass murder started pretty much instantly, the food being taken started pretty soon after that. There was a constant stream of refuges from occupied Russia fleeing east who told the rest of Russia exactly what was going on. On top of that there was active reporting back by Partisans and other soviet agents still present
They knew OTL and they'll know here as well. The Germans will leave the Russian little choice but to fight, in whatever capacity they can. As already mentioned imagine the largest insurgency action you can think of, likely backed by outside powers with a vested interest in keeping the Germany tied up in Russia)
If you think the killing were either just in the death camps, POW camps of planned after the war, you are wrong. The Germans made it very clear, very early on what they were all about in Russia (and elsewhere come to that).
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
I don't get the self preservation argument, if it's just a matter of personal safety then generally speaking the guys who would be in charge and in this position are going to be able to flee. I.e. the choice won't be "make peace or death", because they'll pretty much always have a third "get the hell out of dodge". Even if they wanted to dress it up as "rightful Government in exile" (or what have you, and of course any self respecting Gov in exile really does need some working capital and really should keep some national treasures out of the occupiers hands...).
if someone was determined to remain in charge of something then yeah OK, but again that involves a Soviet leader trusting the Nazis (even if purely in the short term with no illusions about long term relationships)
The Nazi plan did not have any room for any negotiated relationship with any kind of remnant USSR, it was going to be a subjugated and thinned out slave race, and bandit lands in the depths of wildest Siberia to hone combat skills in with a heavily manned fortifications along the A-A line separating the two, i.e. they'll be no Soviet Petain, because they'll be no Soviet Vichy.
Last edited:
Would Stalin be able to stay in power in this scenario? Unlike the bolscheviks and WW1 this isn't a conflict that Stalin suddenly found himself in without warning, he had been in charge for many years by the time the war started and it was his responsibility to make sure the country was prepared. Not only that but he had made secret deals with the nazis and ignored intelligence reports about German preparations. If Barbarossa goes well he would be considered incompetent at best and a traitor at worst. Personally I think this is why he decided to stay in Moscow in late 1941 after evacuating his government.
how do you think the struggle for power would play out? who was more likely to come out on top?
how do you think the struggle for power would play out? who was more likely to come out on top?
TDM
Kicked
It going to depends on just what's left in the east. If it really ends up being splintered remnants scraping by in Siberia, I think you get factionalism and warlords. Stalin did inspire fear but also loyalty (well in some anyway) so I can see him running one of those even if he's one of several. The thing is the more cohesive a surviving soviet organisation/resistance there is the less likely the Nazis will tolerate it's existence. Which ironically will bolster it cohesiveness and need to rally around a known leader (assuming it survives the Nazi attention)!
Plus it's not like there is nothing East of the AA line, Mongolia and China are out there, they could end up being bases for resistance in exile especially when they're facing threats of a shared nature
Last edited:
I give it at least a 50% chance Stalin is killed as things only fall further apart for the USSR. The chances only increase if Stalin throws away massive amounts of lives, fuel, vehicles and equipment in wasteful offensives.
I think Stalin’s death would be virtually guaranteed if he did the above as well as purging the military, civilian and political leadership in a fit of rage. Skilled survivors like Molotov aren’t going to wait around for Stalin to order them and their families to be lined up against a wall and shot for “treason” and “incompetence” when it’s his fault for the way things are falling apart.
I referenced this in an earlier post but I’ve read an argument on this site that if the surviving Soviet leadership fled and refused to make peace with the Reich in the event of a Soviet collapse they would likely be killed by members of their personal guard whose families were being slaughtered by German forces.
I’m sure there’s other arguments but make of it what you will. I can easily imagine what’s left of the Soviet military/NKVD leadership in the middle of the chaos only offering their vital support to the likes of Molotov, Malenkov, Beria etc (or whoever takes over after Stalin’s overthrow) on the condition that they negotiate a peace deal with Germany and put an end to the horrific fighting.
Last edited:
These very same guards are much more likely to slaughter the Politrubo if they make peace with the Germans after all this happened.
The idea is that the surviving Soviet leadership making peace with the Reich would mean the families of the guards (and other officials) get to live and are allowed safe departure from Nazi occupied territory (as one of the conditions of the treaty).
Otherwise they could kill the Politburo out of rage since they could have prevented the needless loss of their loved ones by making peace and ending the war.
Last edited:
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Why would Hitler agree? They wanted the Russians all (well , 90%+ dead) and knew to kill the leadership to make control easier, like the Comissar order. It takes 1 to make war, but 2 for peace, and Hitler won't agree.
I know this may be surprising to some people but Hitler (as fanatical as he was) was capable of reason at times especially when everyone around him was advising him to make a certain decision and the facts on the ground gave no other option. Being a fanatical ideologue doesn’t mean complete psychosis as the historical record shows.
The goal of Barbarossa was the A-A Line. If Germany reaches it or is offered it by the Soviet leadership why wouldn’t he accept it? It isn’t like the Reich wouldn’t be able to expand further up to the Urals in the future.
The German High Command (and Hitler’s inner circle) would make it perfectly clear to Hitler that the Wehrmacht wasn’t able to continue fighting past a certain point due to issues of logistics, fuel and manpower and remind him of the reality that there’s still the WAllies to worry about so the sooner the Eastern Front ends the sooner Germany can allocate resources (as planned) to fighting the increasing industrial might of the US and Britain and extract resources (oil, minerals, grain slave labor etc) from the occupied USSR.
One of the major reasons for Barbarossa (and Case Blue and Kursk) was to finish off the USSR so Germany can be sufficiently powerful for the “war of continents” against the WAllies. IOTL Hitler explicitly knew this and often based his decisions around this goal so why wouldn’t he be anything but ecstatic when the likes of Molotov offers him a peace deal where he gets basically everything he wanted (especially since everyone around him would be encouraging him to do so and the Wehrmacht desperately needed the break)?
I don’t understand why the tired trope that Hitler was nothing but a gibbering moronic lunatic that never made any pragmatic decision ever and was incapable of seeing reason or listening to the advice of trusted officials continues to exist despite massive amounts of historical evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
@Captain Marvel I never stated Hitler was a moron, but you have missed that he wanted warrior farmers in the East to avoid getting soft, that he thought Judeo-Bolshevism was a thing (meaning all Jews must die), and , and that the "German High Command" you claim would calm his tendencies failed to in (for France, they supplied WW1 reheated, Hitler refused and got Sickle Cut; or how Hitler ordered the troops to stay in winter 1941 when High Command wanted to retreat). The Commissar Order and the Barbarossa Decree which Hitler and others used to dehumanize the Russians, in case you didn't know of them.
The problem is that a Hitler that is winning feels no need for compromising, since he believes the Jews would just regroup. And he never compromises if he felt he is winning- look at Hitler's actions at the Night of the Long Knives- sure, he compromised with the Heer, but still executed 2 generals that he felt wronged him, or how he humiliated Vichy France and never gave them a peace treaty to sign. *That* is your underlying issue- it takes a Hitler willing to settle his goals, realizing the Heer is at the breaking point, to finally offer a real peace treaty, when his instinct is to keep pushing.
The problem is that a Hitler that is winning feels no need for compromising, since he believes the Jews would just regroup. And he never compromises if he felt he is winning- look at Hitler's actions at the Night of the Long Knives- sure, he compromised with the Heer, but still executed 2 generals that he felt wronged him, or how he humiliated Vichy France and never gave them a peace treaty to sign. *That* is your underlying issue- it takes a Hitler willing to settle his goals, realizing the Heer is at the breaking point, to finally offer a real peace treaty, when his instinct is to keep pushing.
Last edited:
Your telling me the guy who renamed a bunch of Russian and Ukrainian places with German names was not worthy of absolute suspicion from the Soviet Slavs. Yeah right. Commissar Order, Mein Kampf and the renaming all point in one direction which isn't hard to piece together for any Slav on the eastern front.