WWII: If the Soviets fold, do the Allies invade?

In a ideal world where we ignore things like the historical organization, beliefs and skills of the Germans, the two possibilities are either the Soviets screwing up worse somehow so that they collapse collapse or the Germans fundamentally alter their entire approach so as to accept they will be fighting a multi-year campaign and prepare accordingly. The problem the Germans had was that they were wedded to doing it in a single campaign season, which not only proved impossible but counter-productive.

But in a practical world where we do factor in the historical organization, beliefs and skills, that just leaves us with the Soviets screwing up worse somehow so that they collapse.

What mistakes would the Soviets have to make for Barbarossa to prove successful to the Germans?
 

Daniels

Banned
How? Magic? The Germans have about the same logistical capacity to take Alexandria, much less Cairo, as they do to take the dark side of the moon.
Lets not be overdramatic. With Malta out of the picture German supplies double and they take the ports at Alexandria and Cairo is just over 200 kilometres from El Alamein. So supply will be tight but managable.

Even with the USSR going down, the Germans are likely still driven out of North Africa by the middle of '43.

How? Magic? OTL the Germans advanced until October and that was with half their supply sunk and with few reinforcements. Add never ending reserves and a far better supply situation and the first battle of Alamein will not be a stalemate but a German victory which will force the British to withdraw. Also the Germans will be able to replenish their losses asap - not giving Monty time to amass a nummerical superiority. They will attack earlier with stronger forces, pushing him backwards continuously.

In reality, the American reaction would be more likely to be "well, it's up to us now",
Would it? I doubt that: The American people favored early action against Japan, In one of the few public opinion polls taken during the war, in February 1943, 53 percent of Americans said that Japan was the "chief enemy" compared to 34 percent choosing Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

OTL Americans wanted to concentrate on Japan. With Germany practically master of Europe and no active fighting against Germany these numbers would only increase.

How they would feel after a further two years of protracted near-stalemate is a open question.

Agreed - However the US population is not the only one to consider. What about the British? By early 1944 they will have been at war for 4.5 years while sustaining defeat after defeat. Even if they somehow manage to win in NA, they will still face an entire continent dominated by Germany and will be much farther from their goal than in 1939.
 

Deleted member 1487

What mistakes would the Soviets have to make for Barbarossa to prove successful to the Germans?
Remove Stalin when he retreated to his Dacha after the encirclement of Minsk. That would likely have resulted in a power struggle or at best running the war by committee without defined leadership roles. Stalin ran the war poorly enough on his own in 1941, not having a chain of command in place early in the invasion would have been a disaster.
 
Lets not be overdramatic. With Malta out of the picture German supplies double

I'm hardly being overdramatic: removing Malta may double the amount of supplies getting to North Africa in general, but it does not at all double the amount of supplies getting to the frontlines North Africa. There were several points during the North African campaign when Axis merchant shipping was getting through more then enough supplies to support Rommel's forces (all the way up to the full capacity of the ports they were shipping through), yet he still kept consistently stalling out within the Egyptian-Libyan border, give or take a few hundred kilometers. The reason behind this was the other issue which plagued the Germans and which they never solved: getting the supplies across 850 kilometers of god awful desert wasteland from the port to the frontline. The trip was so long and over such terrible infrastructure that the truck columns which ferried supplies to the frontlines had to themselves be supplied by other entire truck columns... yet still, Rommel's forces way out in front were not receiving adequate supplies. The Axis (for reasons that remain not entirely clear) never did the one thing that could have solved this, build an adequate railway of sufficient, and thus an advance into the Middle East via North Africa was never a realistic possibility for them.

How? Magic?

Overwhelming force and superior logistics. Unlike the Axis, the Anglo-Americans did identify the aforementioned solutions and built a rail line behind their advance that could supply their forces. Thus, unlike the Axis, the Anglo-Americans actually did have the means to actually support their never-ending reserves in theater.

OTL the Germans advanced until October and that was with half their supply sunk and with few reinforcements.

October was actually one of those times when Axis merchant shipping was able to get through enough supplies to the ports to support Rommel. The problem was that those supplies largely sat in the port warehouses gathering dust since they couldn't be moved to the front.

Would it? I doubt that: The American people favored early action against Japan,

And they got it even with the American commitment to Europe First: Midway happened in June 1942 and Guadacanal started in August and went right on to February 1943. A basic look at the calendar shows that this means the Americans had enough resources to prosecute Torch and the Guadacanal Campaign simultaneously.

OTL Americans wanted to concentrate on Japan.

And they got their wish, in so far as the US was able to concentrate on both theaters. The US military may have given an ear to American public opinion in the conduct of their strategy, but they never let it dictate their strategy.

Remove Stalin when he retreated to his Dacha after the encirclement of Minsk. That would likely have resulted in a power struggle or at best running the war by committee without defined leadership roles.

That's one potential, although the war winding up being run by committee does have the potential to improve Soviet prospects depending on the details. Another potential is Stalin finds out what is coming and attempts a pre-emptive strike (we've had a few threads on this).
 
Last edited:

Daniels

Banned
I'm hardly being overdramatic: removing Malta may double the amount of supplies getting to North Africa in general, but it does not at all double the amount of supplies getting to the frontlines North Africa. There were several points during the North African campaign when Axis merchant shipping was getting through more then enough supplies to support Rommel's forces (all the way up to the full capacity of the ports they were shipping through), yet he still kept consistently stalling out within the Egyptian-Libyan border, give or take a few hundred kilometers. The reason behind this was the other issue which plagued the Germans and which they never solved: getting the supplies across 850 kilometers of god awful desert wasteland from the port to the frontline. The trip was so long and over such terrible infrastructure that the truck columns which ferried supplies to the frontlines had to themselves be supplied by other entire truck columns... yet still, Rommel's forces way out in front were not receiving adequate supplies. The Axis (for reasons that remain not entirely clear) never did the one thing that could have solved this, build an adequate railway of sufficient, and thus an advance into the Middle East via North Africa was never a realistic possibility for them.

In July/August 42 shipping losses of the Axis quadrupled compared to the May-June period. And Axis railways at Tobruk were flooded. Yet despite this they managed to get a stalemate at the first Battle of Alamein. With Malta out of the picture and more trucks, the Germans have a surplus enabling them to win this battle and force the British to retreat. They then get the harbour at Alexandria which enables them to advance to Cairo. Axis supply situation was tight granted - but not that tight that an additional 100 or 200 kilometres would have been impossible.

Overwhelming force and superior logistics. Unlike the Axis, the Anglo-Americans did identify the aforementioned solutions and built a rail line behind their advance that could supply their forces. Thus, unlike the Axis, the Anglo-Americans actually did have the means to actually support their never-ending reserves in theater.

You cant compare OTL to ATL. OTL Rommel avoided combat with the pursuing British troops and retreated as far as Tunisia without a fight. And then the Allies cut of German supply from Italy to Tunisia.
With Malta out of the picture and most likely no Torch, Rommel can stop running and build up a defence at Tobruk. Also German airpower will be twice to thrice the OTL level. Even with their OTL commitment in this ATL the Allies would need at least until early 1944 to clear NA. Without Torch the war would go on for years.

October was actually one of those times when Axis merchant shipping was able to get through enough supplies to the ports to support Rommel. The problem was that those supplies largely sat in the port warehouses gathering dust since they couldn't be moved to the front.
Yeah after loosing much of their supply in July/August and with most trucks allocated to Russia - not happening in this ATL.

And they got it even with the American commitment to Europe First: Midway happened in June 1942 and Guadacanal started in August and went right on to February 1943. A basic look at the calendar shows that this means the Americans had enough resources to prosecute Torch and the Guadacanal Campaign simultaneously.

Resources - yes. Will - most likely not - not after a Russian defeat.

And they got their wish, in so far as the US was able to concentrate on both theaters. The US military may have given an ear to American public opinion in the conduct of their strategy, but they never let it dictate their strategy.

Again you are comparing OTL to ATL. After the fall of Russia, Europe first - or Europe at all becomes impossible. Not just regarding the public but the military as well.

That's one potential, although the war winding up being run by committee does have the potential to improve Soviet prospects depending on the details. Another potential is Stalin finds out what is coming and attempts a pre-emptive strike (we've had a few threads on this).

Wikings quote not mine
 
In July/August 42 shipping losses of the Axis quadrupled compared to the May-June period. And Axis railways at Tobruk were flooded. Yet despite this they managed to get a stalemate at the first Battle of Alamein.

Which was the best he could have gotten given the innumerable problems he was having with the overland transport even before the shipping losses are factored in.

With Malta out of the picture and more trucks, the Germans have a surplus enabling them to win this battle and force the British to retreat.

More trucks means more supplies are still being consumed by said trucks then can be transported. The distances Rommel was operating at is simply unsustainable without a good sized rail line.

Axis supply situation was tight granted - but not that tight that an additional 100 or 200 kilometres would have been impossible.

Yes, yes it was. As it was, the supply problem was so bad that the Afrika Corps was reduced to only a fraction of it's operational tank strength and lacked the fuel to have them every time they crossed the Libyan border, practically irrespective of the situation with the ports. The problems of distance and terrain was simply insurmountable without a railroad.

You cant compare OTL to ATL. OTL Rommel avoided combat with the pursuing British troops and retreated as far as Tunisia without a fight.

Which did nothing to prevent his defeat when the British caught up with him after crossing the same distances he had previously struggled to cross. Why is that? Because they built a rail line behind them.

And then the Allies cut of German supply from Italy to Tunisia.

After the British had already broken through German defenses and were pursuing him into Tunisia.

Rommel can stop running and build up a defence at Tobruk.

And then the British smash through it like they smashed through his defences OTL.

Also German airpower will be twice to thrice the OTL level.

More aircraft that sucks supplies away from the ground forces.

Even with their OTL commitment in this ATL the Allies would need at least until early 1944 to clear NA. Without Torch the war would go on for years.

Yeah after loosing much of their supply in July/August and with most trucks allocated to Russia - not happening in this ATL.

Allocating more trucks to Russia increases the supply consumption of the Korps without increasing supply throughput to the front.

Will - most likely not - not after a Russian defeat.

That is ultimately unknowable, since the Russians never collapsed. We do have solid examples of democracies being willing to pay blood prices akin to what the US would have to pay to defeat the Germans, like in World War 1.

Again you are comparing OTL to ATL. Again you are comparing OTL to ATL. After the fall of Russia, Europe first - or Europe at all becomes impossible. Not just regarding the public but the military as well.

The US military had a mobilization plan which dealt precisely with waging war against the Germans in the eventuality of Russia falling. They certainly thought it was possible to defeat Germany without the Soviets and did not regard it at all as impossible, the only thing that worried them was how much blood it would take.

Wikings quote not mine

Didn't hit the right button.
 
Remove Stalin when he retreated to his Dacha after the encirclement of Minsk. That would likely have resulted in a power struggle or at best running the war by committee without defined leadership roles. Stalin ran the war poorly enough on his own in 1941, not having a chain of command in place early in the invasion would have been a disaster.
Or if it went quickly it would improve Soviet reaction to some events. For example instead of Kiev encirclement Soviets retreat behind Dnieper?
It's like removing Hitler. We have no f idea what would happen next. :D
 

Deleted member 1487

Or if it went quickly it would improve Soviet reaction to some events. For example instead of Kiev encirclement Soviets retreat behind Dnieper?
It's like removing Hitler. We have no f idea what would happen next. :D
Depends on what happens and how well a committee that takes over can work together.
 
Or if it went quickly it would improve Soviet reaction to some events. For example instead of Kiev encirclement Soviets retreat behind Dnieper?
It's like removing Hitler. We have no f idea what would happen next. :D
Depends on what happens and how well a committee that takes over can work together.

This. It's one thing if the committee can hold together and delegates most power involved with military operations to the military, albeit subject to their review. It's another if the committee succumbs to power struggling and/or tries to micromanage Red Army operations.
 

Deleted member 1487

This. It's one thing if the committee can hold together and delegates most power involved with military operations to the military, albeit subject to their review. It's another if the committee succumbs to power struggling and/or tries to micromanage Red Army operations.
There was a committee after Stalin died IOTL and Beria got purged; the whole thing gave way to Khrushchev anyway, but in 1941 there is no Khrushchev figure and the OTL post-Stalin committee hadn't yet evolved from the experiences of OTL. The reason they didn't remove Stalin IOTL because at the time he was indispensible.
 
There was a committee after Stalin died IOTL and Beria got purged; the whole thing gave way to Khrushchev anyway,

The conditions that the OTL post-Stalin power struggle took place in was one of relative security and peace, not one where a murderous enemy with the stated intent of eradicating the Soviet Union was swarming over the border. It's just as possible for the Soviet leadership without Stalin to realize that if they don't hang together then they'll hang separately as it is for them not to.

but in 1941 there is no Khrushchev figure and the OTL post-Stalin committee hadn't yet evolved from the experiences of OTL.

Which doesn't mean much. Pretty much all of the members of the post-Stalin committee (Beria, Khruschev, Molotov, Malenkov, etc) were already within Stalin's inner circle by 1941, many (particularly guys like Malenkov and Molotov, who were old Bolsheviks) of them had already known each other for an extensive amount of time, and they all have just as much experience operating without Stalin as they did in '53. Frankly, it can go either way.

The reason they didn't remove Stalin IOTL because at the time he was indispensible.

Or they at least believed him to be. I was thinking something more outside of Stalin's subordinates control happening to the man anyways, like him committing suicide during his brief breakdown or he trips and breaks his neck
 
Last edited:
Would it? I doubt that: The American people favored early action against Japan, In one of the few public opinion polls taken during the war, in February 1943, 53 percent of Americans said that Japan was the "chief enemy" compared to 34 percent choosing Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

OTL Americans wanted to concentrate on Japan. With Germany practically master of Europe and no active fighting against Germany these numbers would only increase.

I don't think this is true (or at least it's unrepresentative), I think it's part of the myth of American isolationism. A week after Pearl Harbor, the American public overwhelmingly regarded Germany as the greater threat.
http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm

EUROPEAN WAR
Interviewing Date 11/15-20/41
Survey #253-K Question #13

Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?

Keep out of war..................... 32%
Defeat Germany..................... 68


THREAT TO AMERICA'S FUTURE
Interviewing Date 12/12-17/41
Survey #255 Question #6

Which country is the greater threat to America's future — Germany or Japan?

Germany........................... 64%
Japan.............................. 15
Equal threats........................ 15
No opinion......................... 6
 
Malta would help, but not as much as one would think - because, despite everything, the Regia Marina managed to get to North Africa almost everything it sent (~90%). Supplies surely wouldn't double.
 

Deleted member 1487

Malta would help, but not as much as one would think - because, despite everything, the Regia Marina managed to get to North Africa almost everything it sent (~90%). Supplies surely wouldn't double.
Depends on the period. From July 1941-December 1941 less than half of supplies were getting through compared to June 1941. They had to stop sending shipments because Malta was getting so effective at sinking/disrupting convoys, so from the peak of June 1941 where over 120k tons of supplies were sent and received they reached a bottom in December 1941 where less than 30k tons were received. The presence of the Luftwaffe in January completely upended things and it wasn't until December 1942 that Malta started to get more effective at sinking things. And the 90% figure is too high and applied just to Libya. Not sure when that number begins and ends. I'm thinking probably just for 1941-1942 and only to Libya. For a large part of that offensive units were not stationed in Malta due to the Luftwaffe having to be present to suppress the island to stop the bleeding and doesn't really factor in the period in 1942 after Tobruk fell where most supplies were being routed outside of the range of Malta. Also the arrival of supplies doesn't tell the full story, as the existence of Malta forced very costly delays and routing systems to protect convoys that cost the Axis forces in North Africa dearly in terms of supplies that could even be shipped or would arrive all at once and then be back logged in terms of unloading (convoys are very inefficient, as they have a bunch of ships arrive at once, usually more than the unloading capacity of the ports, so ships and cargoes have to wait to be unloaded and waste time waiting). Malta forced all sorts of inefficiencies on Axis shipping AND forced the expenditure of huge effort to suppress it, which while effective, could have been better used offensively in the Mediterranean or in other theaters.
 
The Germans would have at least two years to allow their industries to rebuild their war supplies and have fresh soldiers led by combat tested officers and higher ranking enlisted men and more divisions in Western Europe. Holding Italy becomes costlier than in OTL.
 
Not necessarily. A tweak or three on the Eastern Front could set up a Soviet collapse after a failed Stalingrad counterattack. The Soviets were very, very, very strained at that time. If URANUS fails as MARS did, not only would the Soviets still be physically strained, but morale would suffer - people can only rally from the last ditch so many times.

However, the collapse would not be final till sometime in 1943, too late to help Italy.

Oh, and goddammit, such a change in Allied strategy would not be a butterfly effect!!!!!
Butterflies affect events that are highly contingent and easily altered by any slight change in preceding circumstances (such as one particular sperm out of several million fertilizing an egg). A considered decision by the US/UK leadership would not be such an event.
The allied invasion of mainland Italy did not occur until after Mussolini was temporarily overthrown in a anti-axis coup (in the wake o the Battle of the Kursk) - an event extremely unlikely were Hitler winning the war.
 
The allied invasion of mainland Italy did not occur until after Mussolini was temporarily overthrown in a anti-axis coup (in the wake of the Battle of the Kursk)...

More critically, in the wake of disastrous Italian defeats in Greece, Libya, and East Africa, and mainly Italian-Axis defeats in North Africa and Sicily. In any case, Alled planners were already working on the invasion of mainland Italy well before that.

- an event extremely unlikely were Hitler winning the war.

That would be a knock-on - a highly predictable outcome of a definite sequence of events. Not a butterfly effect.
 
Couldn't the Germans have made the USER collapse if they entered as a liberator which might have gave Germany more soldiers since the locals could hold onto the territory they had and then once Moscow falls the command goes into chaos which then leads the USSR to fall with a bunch of coups?
 
Couldn't the Germans have made the USER collapse if they entered as a liberator which might have gave Germany more soldiers since the locals could hold onto the territory they had and then once Moscow falls the command goes into chaos which then leads the USSR to fall with a bunch of coups?
Politically yes, that could have worked. However, not just Nazi ideology ruled this out. The operational plan for Barbarossa explicitly assumed that the German forces would seize foodstuffs from European Russia, especially Ukraine, to save the logistical effort needed to supply the Heer from German territory. (Where surplus food may not have Ben available anyway.) The amounts needed involved confiscation from farmers and pretty much starvation for city dwellers.

Difficult to pose as Liberators and obtain the people's backing when you do that.
 
Top