WWII PC & WI: the Allies take Berlin

[CalBear]

Not true. Dont have Stalin as Soviet Leader, dont industrialize east of the Urals in the 1930's, have the Nazi's capture all Soviet Industrial centers in the West and there's not much the Soviets could do to oppose the German conquest. The Western Allies alone could not supply the Soviets with all the equipment they would need to fight the colossal battles that occured on the eastern front and if the Soviet insutrial centers are in Nazi hands with little-to-no industry further east the Soviets will simply lack the means to fight on even if they had the will and would have to capitulate.

I think the "at that point" pretty much covered the scenario under discussion.

If one puts in sufficient POD that the entire world is different, then anything is possible, that, however, isn't how this sort of scenario is reasonably discussed. Given the OP question it is clear that OTL's war is the one under discussion, meaning the POD would have to occur post 1942 if not later.

 

[WSoxfan]

You dan't have the Soviet economy collapse in 1944 or later without an ASB interfering. However, it's possible to collapse the economy before 1941(though that changes this scenario completely) by not moving the industry.

 

[M79]

Have Zhukov die after Stalingrad but before Kursk. His replacement misreads the situation and Kursk is not the devastating victory it is for the USSR in OTL. As a result the Eastern Front is very different in 1944, and Germany buys another 6 to 9 months. The Western armies are thus in a position to overrun much of Central Europe with Prague, Berlin, Budapest, Belgrade, Tirane, and maybe Warsaw coming under Western control.

 

[Julian]

Zhukov? Please, Vasilevsky was just as important, as was Vatutin. They certainly did Zhukov's job with fewer losses. Kursk was such an obvious target that even Voroshilov would have realized its importance. Kursk simply cannot result in a Soviet defeat; every single strategic factor supports them. I would also note that your proposal adheres to the myth that Kursk was a decisive German defeat. It was certainly not. The counteroffensives several weeks-a month later that inflicted losses in armor and manpower 2-4 times those the Germans suffered during Operation Citadel. Regardless of how the defensive phase plays out, the counteroffensive will inevitably result in crushing German defeat.

 

[BlondieBC]

Not to be pedantic but the Allies did take Berlin since the Soviets were part of the Allies.

I take it you mean "what if the Western Allies take Berlin" and it would take huge changes to get them to be able to do it. They (with a couple of exceptions, <cough> Patton <cough>) were perfectly happy to let the Soviets take Berlin and the casualties that were involved. Probably the only POD that I can think of would be to have the Soviets decide they wanted the west to take Berlin and slow down. But that was unlikely to happen since they didn't want the Western powers inside their eventual occupation zone if they could help it - and Berlin was inside their zone.

Agreed, basically you need Stalin deciding that Poland is as far as he wants his sphere of influence to reach. I guess there is some merit in not being overextended, but it would take a really interesting POD.

Or you need the USA to start rearming in 1938, so we can do D-Day a year earlier, but then it is not really anything like WW2.

 

[BlondieBC]

Have Zhukov die after Stalingrad but before Kursk. His replacement misreads the situation and Kursk is not the devastating victory it is for the USSR in OTL. As a result the Eastern Front is very different in 1944, and Germany buys another 6 to 9 months. The Western armies are thus in a position to overrun much of Central Europe with Prague, Berlin, Budapest, Belgrade, Tirane, and maybe Warsaw coming under Western control.

How about a purge? Late in the battle of Kursk, Stalin decides he needs to purge 25% of the generals. The process of replacing the generals and the associated combat pause delays the Soviet advance by 4 months compared to OTL. He could be quite paranoid, I could see him actually seeing some anti-soviet mutiny that did not exist.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not true. Dont have Stalin as Soviet Leader, dont industrialize east of the Urals in the 1930's, have the Nazi's capture all Soviet Industrial centers in the West and there's not much the Soviets could do to oppose the German conquest. The Western Allies alone could not supply the Soviets with all the equipment they would need to fight the colossal battles that occured on the eastern front and if the Soviet insutrial centers are in Nazi hands with little-to-no industry further east the Soviets will simply lack the means to fight on even if they had the will and would have to capitulate.

The butterflies required just to have not-Stalin leading the USSR make a WWII of any sort, let alone one led by Hitler an improbability.

 

[Nytram01]

I'm not sure if this will work:

No Market-Garden. Instead 21st Army Group cleared Antwerp earlier. His will probably butterfly away Wacht am Rhein, since there wasn't a clear Allied epic fail in the west (IMHO MG was a spectacular fail). Hitler had a rare moment of sanity and began pulling all available German forces back home. Garrisons in Norway and northern Italy were recalled, and Luftwaffe assets not expended during the Ardennes Offensive covered the evacuation of the Courland Pocket. Sending all the returning units to the east and you'd get maybe 30% more combat power on the Oder (ballpark number ), I think. Could be enough to hold back Soviet forces for another day or two. With attention focused on the east, Wenck's army won't be able to stop 2nd Armored and 83rd Infantry's advance (IIRC Wenck himself said he couldn't have stopped the Americans if they really made a run for Berlin).

The "pull-out-all-forces" idea came from BlairWitch647, by the way.

Marc A

The Hurtgen Forest Offensive and the Lorraine Campaign were epic fails. They dragged on for months as pointless meatgrinders that accomplished little to nothing for casualties ranging around the 33,000 mark. They were as big a failure as MARKET GARDEN was the difference being that MARKET GARDEN appeared to represent a lost opportunity to finish the war quickly where as the Hurtgen Forest Offensive and the Lorraine Campaign were just routine advances that were poorly hanled and easilly held.

 

[Nytram01]

The butterflies required just to have not-Stalin leading the USSR make a WWII of any sort, let alone one led by Hitler an improbability.

Not really. You overestimate the changes needed to remove Stalin and that Stalin's removal would bring.

Stalin's rise to rule wasn't inevitable. Have Stalin die in the Civil War or in Georgia in the 1920's and someone else would take his place once Lenin died - Trotsky maybe or Kamenev or Zinoviev or even Kirov given sufficent changes.

Communism would still rule the Soviet Union without Stalin, the Germans would still lose the First World War, the Entente would still bring in the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, so there would still exist the bitter feelings amongst the Germans and the opportunity for Hitler to rise to power.

The political situation in Europe would still be hostility between Fascists, Communists, Nazis, etc, and the fear of Communists in Europe was not inexorably linked to Stalin.

You could argue that Stalin dragged the Soviet Union into the 20th Century with his 5 year plans and so on and who knows who else might have had the drive to improve that nations infrastructure as he did but that was kind of the point.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not really. You overestimate the changes needed to remove Stalin and that Stalin's removal would bring.

Stalin's rise to rule wasn't inevitable. Have Stalin die in the Civil War or in Georgia in the 1920's and someone else would take his place once Lenin died - Trotsky maybe or Kamenev or Zinoviev or even Kirov given sufficent changes.

Communism would still rule the Soviet Union without Stalin, the Germans would still lose the First World War, the Entente would still bring in the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, so there would still exist the bitter feelings amongst the Germans and the opportunity for Hitler to rise to power.

The political situation in Europe would still be hostility between Fascists, Communists, Nazis, etc, and the fear of Communists in Europe was not inexorably linked to Stalin.

You could argue that Stalin dragged the Soviet Union into the 20th Century with his 5 year plans and so on and who knows who else might have had the drive to improve that nations infrastructure as he did but that was kind of the point.

Lenin made Stalin the most powerful single man in the USSR after his death. Lenin really, really liked Stalin and treated him as a protege. To alter this means Stalin dies very early on, and without Stalin the USSR is not going to develop in all ways the same. The Soviet Union's leadership was by far overwhelmingly committed to something like the Five Year Plans. It's literally impossible to have any version of a Marxist leadership of something like the USSR refuse to industrialize their state and due to the bureaucratic structure and ground to build off of the big picture will still resemble Stalin's.

 

[steven]

Would a POD of King Michael's Coup not taking place allow for the western powers to take Berlin first? Wikipedia speculates the coup shortened the war by 6 months. Even if we ignore this claim, having the Romanian fight Russia has to slow them down somewhat.

The coup took place in August 44, is it possible that it delays the Russians enough that the agreement at Yalta and has the west taking Berlin?

 

[Snake Featherston]

Would a POD of King Michael's Coup not taking place allow for the western powers to take Berlin first? Wikipedia speculates the coup shortened the war by 6 months. Even if we ignore this claim, having the Romanian fight Russia has to slow them down somewhat.

The coup took place in August 44, is it possible that it delays the Russians enough that the agreement at Yalta and has the west taking Berlin?

To judge by Stalingrad the impact would be not very detrimental. It's not like the Germans choosing a senseless bloodbath at Bucharest as opposed to Budapest alters anything anyhow.

 

[steven]

To judge by Stalingrad the impact would be not very detrimental. It's not like the Germans choosing a senseless bloodbath at Bucharest as opposed to Budapest alters anything anyhow.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Stalingrad to me shows how hard it is for an army to take a city against a determined defence, but the sentence continues to say that having to actually defeat Romania would not be detrimental. This doesn't make sense to me.

Additionally, I don't see how Romania not capitulating stops Hitler from declaring Budapest a fortress city?

 

[Snake Featherston]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Stalingrad to me shows how hard it is for an army to take a city against a determined defence, but the sentence continues to say that having to actually defeat Romania would not be detrimental. This doesn't make sense to me.

Additionally, I don't see how Romania not capitulating stops Hitler from declaring Budapest a fortress city?

My comment was that the Siege of Budapest was a senseless bloodbath that only satisfied the bloodlust of Adolf Hitler. It makes no difference whether or not he pisses away much of his best reserves in Bucharest or Budapest in terms of the outcome of the war. Senseless urban battles benefit the USSR, not the Germans. The Romanians will not be happy about the Germans wrecking their capital in a prolonged attrition battle with the USSR.

Stalingrad shows the dangers of urban warfare, yes, but the USSR took Budapest *and* Berlin in huge urban battles that were relatively by far shorter than the Battle of Stalingrad and ended in a far more total Soviet victory. The Soviets had what it took to win urban meatgrinders, the only thing Nazis have is Hitler's willingness to fight to the last German.

 

[hairysamarian]

From a military point of view...

From a political one, as well. The domestic backlash against any Wallie government that spent the casualties needed to take Berlin, only to hand most of it (and the territory taken while reaching it) over to the Soviets, would be severe. I know I certainly wouldn't want to be running for re-election after that.

 

[Snake Featherston]

From a political one, as well. The domestic backlash against any Wallie government that spent the casualties needed to take Berlin, only to hand most of it (and the territory taken while reaching it) over to the Soviets, would be severe. I know I certainly wouldn't want to be running for re-election after that.

It again should be kept in mind here that the WAllied public absolutely did not like the long attrition battles such as Metz and Aachen IOTL. And these were cases where the territory was not given back. Giving it back simply starts the WAllies on a bad foot in the Cold War, but the same applies to most of the "ideas" of the theoretically anti-Communist faction in the Cold War that seemed almost hellbent on giving the USSR a moral high ground it could never achieve on its own.