WI: no Operation Barbarossa

[Otto Kretschmer]

What would happen if the invasion of the USSR simply did not take place and the Germans opted for a defensive stance on the Soviet border?



Some folks say the USSR would have attacked first then. How much truth there is to this claim?

[lordroel]

Dec 21, 2022 17:10:15 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

What would happen if the invasion of the USSR simply did not take place and the Germans opted for a defensive stance on the Soviet border?



Some folks say the USSR would have attacked first then. How much truth there is to this claim?

Well there is, this article on Wikipedia: Soviet offensive plans controversy

Wich gives the answer:

The majority of historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941, as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces, although there is no agreement among historians as to why Stalin persisted with his strategy of appeasement of Nazi Germany despite growing evidence of an imminent German invasion.

[stevep]

   Well the Red Army was nowhere near ready to fight the Germans in 41 and I think even Stalin realised that.  Its possible that he might have tried an attack in 42/43 or later but generally was very cautious in his foreign policy.  Plus given the relations between Germany and Japan - albeit they had been weakened by Hitler's deal with Stalin - he would have to consider a 2 front war.  As such I suspect he would only try something against Germany when he though it was gravely weakened and/or Japan was no longer a threat to his eastern flank.

  On the wider picture how does Hitler with so many extra resources pursue the war against Britain and its allies?  Are we forced to make peace and if so when and under what terms.  How in turn would that affect the crisis in the Far East?  Ditto in that with his rabid hatred of communism, Slavs and Jews does he now turn east?  I think sooner or later as long as he's in power war in the east will come.  An attitude which was at least parroted by many other figures

[575]

Stalin did build the Stalin-Line to defend western Sovietunion from German attack; doesn't exactly outline an aggressive stance. With the purges of the 1930's the Red Army still needed time to rebuild the Officers Corps.
Hitler did write in Mein Kampf that having punished France the time would come to the Sovietunion and creation of Lebensraum in the East for the Germans to colonize but also to avert famine in Germany in case of a protracted war with the Western Powers.
With BoB going badly how long before Hitler turns east - Hitler did order some directives on Gibraltar and support of the Italians but not really opening a Med theatre war; though only little more than a forthnight passed from the Italian attack on Greece to the orders of Hitler to begin planning of Marita-Merkur.
Even having conquered Yugoslavia and Greece what to use the German resources for? The Kriegsmarine's bashed in Norway and Luftwaffe lost the BoB so I don't really see Hitler doing much about Britain except building Subs and the steel will be missed in the East once Barbarossa opens..
If Hitler instead turns south for the Med gambit and capture Gibraltar and Suez giving the Brits a worse strategic situation and inciting revolts in the Middle East something big might happen at least in cutting Britain off from strategic important supplies or at least delaying shipments crucially.
Hitler wanted Ukrainian grain not African sand. Oil yes, but the Romanians had it too and the Polish wells were operated by the Germans and Baku being perhaps the ultimate objective if Hitler had any sense of economic's..
Seems to me Hitler during 1924-2? wrote his timetable and then followed it besides a few quickstep's left and right.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Dec 21, 2022 17:18:56 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 21, 2022 17:10:15 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

What would happen if the invasion of the USSR simply did not take place and the Germans opted for a defensive stance on the Soviet border?



Some folks say the USSR would have attacked first then. How much truth there is to this claim?

Well there is, this article on Wikipedia: Soviet offensive plans controversy

Wich gives the answer:

The majority of historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941, as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces, although there is no agreement among historians as to why Stalin persisted with his strategy of appeasement of Nazi Germany despite growing evidence of an imminent German invasion.

The article talks specifically about 1941. What about a Soviet attack at a later date, say 1943-45?

[stevep]

Dec 22, 2022 20:40:32 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

Dec 21, 2022 17:18:56 GMT lordroel said:

Well there is, this article on Wikipedia: Soviet offensive plans controversy

Wich gives the answer:

The majority of historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941, as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces, although there is no agreement among historians as to why Stalin persisted with his strategy of appeasement of Nazi Germany despite growing evidence of an imminent German invasion.

The article talks specifically about 1941. What about a Soviet attack at a later date, say 1943-45?

  Ah if we're only referring to no Barbarossa in 41 then baring some dramatic disaster for Germany it would be launched in 42.  Albeit with another year for the Red Army to recover from Stalin's crippling of it by the purges.

  Or if you mean that for some reason Hitler never launches an attack on the USSR I would go with my previous comments.

[Max Sinister]

If the nazis didn't attack the SU, they might try to smash the British Empire by attacking around the Med. Many years ago, I wrote up a short TL about this PoD.

[stevep]

Dec 24, 2022 2:33:44 GMT Max Sinister said:

If the nazis didn't attack the SU, they might try to smash the British Empire by attacking around the Med. Many years ago, I wrote up a short TL about this PoD.

  They can try and if their willing to actually work together with the Italians they should be able to take Malta.  [Which while it would reduce some of their supply problems would also remove a burden from Britain in supplying the island].  If they can persuade/force Franco to enter the war on their side Gib would be on borrowed time - which would also doom Malta.  More dangerously it would give more advanced bases for U boats to operate from but as Franco was well aware the Canary's would be vulnerable to British sea power and that could be a useful base for ASW operations/convoy protection.

  In terms of Egypt, unless we really screw things up it would be very difficult for the Axis to take it over as they face massive logistical problems.  Simply getting oil and other supplies to Tripoli or even Benghazi isn't enough as it then has to be transported eastwards to support any offensive and El Alamein give a nature defensive position.

  The real threat would be an increased air and U boat pressure on the Atlantic supply line, which along possibly with the eastern front were the two crucial war fronts of the entire war.

[DMZ]

My two cents

Assuming Hitler delayed Barbarossa until 1942 (the most he could accept given his goal), Germany would have had more power to fight harder in the Western theaters.

Great Britain: the battle in the air would have continued, further weakening and depriving the Luftwaffe, especialy its skilled and experienced crews.

The fighting in North Africa wouldn't have been much different, with logistic limited by the harbours' capacity in Italian Libya.

Hitler would have lauched attaks against Malta and Gibraltar. The former would probably have succumbed quickly and somehow facilitated the supply of the AK and the Italian Esercito, but not so much for the reason mentionned above.

The capture of Gibraltar would have required Franco's help, which meant offering him French Morocco and the Oran region, which is a casus belli for the Vichy governement or, at least, for Noguès, leading the entire French Empire to go back to fight against Axis. In addition, Great-Britain would have landed in Portugal and seized Canarias islands, as well as obtaining bases in Madeira and the Azores. A very bad deal for Berlin. Doing that would have diverted even more ressources from the future Barbarossa. So it's unlikely, but let's assume Hitler made this choice. Gibraltar would have fallen, but several big units are stuck against British-Portugese forces and French were fighting in Northern Morocco and knocking on the door in Western Libya.

One can imagine that Rommel would have been a little more lucky and succeeded to invade Egypt as far as Alexandria and Cairo but was blocked by the Nil River. It's unlikely and the situation is probably as IOTL.

The USSR was not well prepared and wouldn't have lauched an offensive in 1941. But the peace with Japan in Far East would have allowed it to prepare actively. The best time would have been the winter 1941-42, taking advantage of the firm soils and better preparation of soviet units to the extreme cold, the objective being to invade Poland before the rasputitsa (even if less disabling than in Ukraine or Belarus).

Taking advantage of the Japanese attack on PH and the entry into the war of the United States, the USSR would have likely obtained benefit of the Lend Lease as for IOTL.

In early 1942, Torch would have been a gentleman's agreement as soon as British stayed out of FNA (Mers-el-Kébir oblige). The game between De Gaulle and Noguès or Giraud would have been more chalenging for the former.

In late 1941, the situation is as follow:
- The BoB is over but the LW lost twice as many planes and crews as IOTL.
- The Allies take advantage of the Azores to have an air cover troughout the whole convoy routes reducing the efficiency of the Uboots.
- In Portugal, the combat rages and Lisbon is threatened but the weakeness of the railroads and roads limits the operations.
- USA and Canada stopped all supplies, especially petrol, to Spain putting the burden on Germany.
- Gibraltar has fallen into German-Spanish hands.
- In Morocco, French are slowly gaining the upper hand over the Spanish and are approaching Ceuta and Mellila after seizing Tangier.
- In Tunisia, there are no real fighting but lots of Italian troups must stay on the border.
The rest as IOTL.

In December 1941, Zhukov launch its offensive against the Germans but failed to surprise them and the front holds firm, even in Hungary or Romania, despite the huge Soviet numerical superiority. Ploesti oil fields are heavily bombed. German counter-attacks make some progress and Russian units are encircled or destroyed. On the Finnish theater, it's a stalemate. The air superiority is highly disputed.

January see the "Dunkirk on the Tage", reembarkment of the BEF in Portugal.

In March 1942, the Germans advance in Soviet Union, seizing Riga, treatening Minsk and Kiyv, was blocked on the Staline Line. On the Southern front, they didn't cross the Prut river. All operations went gradually to a stop as the thaw made the roads impassable.

Operation Torch takes place in February and in April the French and the American launch a big attack on Libya from Tunisia. US units didn't achive much, but on the southern side of the front, French encircle Italian and the race for Tripoli was on. With the threat on his rear, Rommel has to retraite from the Gazala line.

At the end of May, the Red Army and the Wehrmacht resume their operations...

[stevep]

Mar 27, 2023 15:11:47 GMT DMZ said:

My two cents

Assuming Hitler delayed Barbarossa until 1942 (the most he could accept given his goal), Germany would have had more power to fight harder in the Western theaters.

Great Britain: the battle in the air would have continued, further weakening and depriving the Luftwaffe, especialy its skilled and experienced crews.

The fighting in North Africa wouldn't have been much different, with logistic limited by the harbours' capacity in Italian Libya.

Hitler would have lauched attaks against Malta and Gibraltar. The former would probably have succumbed quickly and somehow facilitated the supply of the AK and the Italian Esercito, but not so much for the reason mentionned above.

The capture of Gibraltar would have required Franco's help, which meant offering him French Morocco and the Oran region, which is a casus belli for the Vichy governement or, at least, for Noguès, leading the entire French Empire to go back to fight against Axis. In addition, Great-Britain would have landed in Portugal and seized Canarias islands, as well as obtaining bases in Madeira and the Azores. A very bad deal for Berlin. Doing that would have diverted even more ressources from the future Barbarossa. So it's unlikely, but let's assume Hitler made this choice. Gibraltar would have fallen, but several big units are stuck against British-Portugese forces and French were fighting in Northern Morocco and knocking on the door in Western Libya.

One can imagine that Rommel would have been a little more lucky and succeeded to invade Egypt as far as Alexandria and Cairo but was blocked by the Nil River. It's unlikely and the situation is probably as IOTL.

The USSR was not well prepared and wouldn't have lauched an offensive in 1941. But the peace with Japan in Far East would have allowed it to prepare actively. The best time would have been the winter 1941-42, taking advantage of the firm soils and better preparation of soviet units to the extreme cold, the objective being to invade Poland before the rasputitsa (even if less disabling than in Ukraine or Belarus).

Taking advantage of the Japanese attack on PH and the entry into the war of the United States, the USSR would have likely obtained benefit of the Lend Lease as for IOTL.

In early 1942, Torch would have been a gentleman's agreement as soon as British stayed out of FNA (Mers-el-Kébir oblige). The game between De Gaulle and Noguès or Giraud would have been more chalenging for the former.

In late 1941, the situation is as follow:
- The BoB is over but the LW lost twice as many planes and crews as IOTL.
- The Allies take advantage of the Azores to have an air cover troughout the whole convoy routes reducing the efficiency of the Uboots.
- In Portugal, the combat rages and Lisbon is threatened but the weakeness of the railroads and roads limits the operations.
- USA and Canada stopped all supplies, especially petrol, to Spain putting the burden on Germany.
- Gibraltar has fallen into German-Spanish hands.
- In Morocco, French are slowly gaining the upper hand over the Spanish and are approaching Ceuta and Mellila after seizing Tangier.
- In Tunisia, there are no real fighting but lots of Italian troups must stay on the border.
The rest as IOTL.

In December 1941, Zhukov launch its offensive against the Germans but failed to surprise them and the front holds firm, even in Hungary or Romania, despite the huge Soviet numerical superiority. Ploesti oil fields are heavily bombed. German counter-attacks make some progress and Russian units are encircled or destroyed. On the Finnish theater, it's a stalemate. The air superiority is highly disputed.

January see the "Dunkirk on the Tage", reembarkment of the BEF in Portugal.

In March 1942, the Germans advance in Soviet Union, seizing Riga, treatening Minsk and Kiyv, was blocked on the Staline Line. On the Southern front, they didn't cross the Prut river. All operations went gradually to a stop as the thaw made the roads impassable.

Operation Torch takes place in February and in April the French and the American launch a big attack on Libya from Tunisia. US units didn't achive much, but on the southern side of the front, French encircle Italian and the race for Tripoli was on. With the threat on his rear, Rommel has to retraite from the Gazala line.

At the end of May, the Red Army and the Wehrmacht resume their operations...

  Interesting ideas.  Not sure that Hitler would get support from Franco.  If he did I suspect that Britain wouldn't land in Portugal as that state would seek to stay neutral.  More likely the Canary's and then supporting the French in FNA.

  Uncertain how likely a Soviet attack at this period would be.  Germany still looks very strong while as an aggressor and a system that many westerners, possibly especially in the US, fear and despise I'm not confident that it would get L-L in those circumstances.  Possibly after a few months and if its starting to really struggle.  [Think it took some time OTL before it was supplied to the USSR].

  The other thing would be how those differences might affect events in East Asia.  Without a clear war between Germany and the Soviets, at least unless Japan gets clear evidence that such an attack is coming it might be reluctant to take such a risk, although it does have a non-aggression pack with Stalin.  Or things could happen on a slightly different time scale. 

  One other question, if the Nazi-Soviet and Japanese- western conflicts both start in ~Dec 41 as suggested does Hitler still dow the US?  German forces here are defending against Soviet attacks on their positions in Poland and Romania rather than hammering at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad so its not certain that would occur.  If he doesn't how long before - if at all - the US goes to war with the European Axis.  [As I understand it a lot of people in the US wanted to concentrate on the war with Japan so FDR could face problems going for open warfare with Nazi Germany.

[DMZ]

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

  Interesting ideas.  Not sure that Hitler would get support from Franco.  If he did I suspect that Britain wouldn't land in Portugal as that state would seek to stay neutral.  More likely the Canary's and then supporting the French in FNA.

This is the bigger uncertainty of this scenario, but if Hitler didn't invade Soviet Union in 1941 what else could he do? He must convince Franco to come aboard at any price...

Great Britain and Portugal are bound by the oldest mutual defense treaty, the "Anglo-Portuguese Alliance" in 1373... IIRC, Portugal feared German intervention and was officially neutral but ready to ask for British help if needed.

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

Without a clear war between Germany and the Soviets, at least unless Japan gets clear evidence that such an attack is coming it might be reluctant to take such a risk, although it does have a non-aggression pack with Stalin. 

I think the non-aggression pact will be a sufficient guaranty for Japan assuming Russia is focusing on a possible German aggression, that is the greatest reason of the pact and Tokyo knows it.
Of course time line could be slightly different but Europe is far away and the tensions with USA will remain the same.

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

One other question, if the Nazi-Soviet and Japanese- western conflicts both start in ~Dec 41 as suggested does Hitler still dow the US? 

Not sure Hitler will declare war as IOTL but it was his personnality and, anyway, FDR would have found a way of being "aggressed" by Germany. But it could be longer than IOTL in this case. Nevertheless, I think USA will prepare intervention in FNA before the war declaration in case of French Empire going back in the fight and operation Torch could have been conducted without delay.
Germany was seen as the bigest threat by FDR and several high ranking people even if McArthur advocated for Pacific war.

[stevep]

Mar 27, 2023 20:57:30 GMT DMZ said:

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

  Interesting ideas.  Not sure that Hitler would get support from Franco.  If he did I suspect that Britain wouldn't land in Portugal as that state would seek to stay neutral.  More likely the Canary's and then supporting the French in FNA.

This is the bigger uncertainty of this scenario, but if Hitler didn't invade Soviet Union in 1941 what else could he do? He must convince Franco to come aboard at any price...

Great Britain and Portugal are bound by the oldest mutual defense treaty, the "Anglo-Portuguese Alliance" in 1373... IIRC, Portugal feared German intervention and was officially neutral but ready to ask for British help if needed.

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

Without a clear war between Germany and the Soviets, at least unless Japan gets clear evidence that such an attack is coming it might be reluctant to take such a risk, although it does have a non-aggression pack with Stalin. 

I think the non-aggression pact will be a sufficient guaranty for Japan assuming Russia is focusing on a possible German aggression, that is the greatest reason of the pact and Tokyo knows it.
Of course time line could be slightly different but Europe is far away and the tensions with USA will remain the same.

Mar 27, 2023 18:19:51 GMT stevep said:

One other question, if the Nazi-Soviet and Japanese- western conflicts both start in ~Dec 41 as suggested does Hitler still dow the US? 

Not sure Hitler will declare war as IOTL but it was his personnality and, anyway, FDR would have found a way of being "aggressed" by Germany. But it could be longer than IOTL in this case. Nevertheless, I think USA will prepare intervention in FNA before the war declaration in case of French Empire going back in the fight and operation Torch could have been conducted without delay.
Germany was seen as the bigest threat by FDR and several high ranking people even if McArthur advocated for Pacific war.

  DMZ,

a)  The point is that Portugal at the time was a fascist regime itself so unless the deal between Hitler and Franco involved the former's support for the latter annexing Portugal I suspect that Portugal would simply seek to stay neutral - trading with everybody and and trying to avoid being dragged into all the destruction.

b)  Think that is likely but timing might be different depending on how significantly different events in Europe might affect both Japanese and US decisions.  Would expect war in the Far East/Pacific to come but timing might be a few months or more earlier or later.

c)  Roosevelt would probably jump at anything which would bring war with Germany because he realised how much it was in the US interest but he can't really directly trigger it himself and in TTL its much less likely Hitler will want to jump in until he's confident the Soviets are pretty much defeated - which especially if the latter have just attacked Romania and German occupied Poland is unlikely to be somewhere prior to early 43 I suspect.  By which time a lot of things would be different.

  Steve

[DMZ]

Mar 27, 2023 21:55:13 GMT stevep said:

a)  The point is that Portugal at the time was a fascist regime itself so unless the deal between Hitler and Franco involved the former's support for the latter annexing Portugal I suspect that Portugal would simply seek to stay neutral - trading with everybody and and trying to avoid being dragged into all the destruction.

It seems the alliance with Great-Britain to be more valuable to Salazar than the nature of his regime.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance#Second_World_War
I read similar things in an article I can't found.

[stevep]

Mar 28, 2023 0:58:18 GMT DMZ said:

Mar 27, 2023 21:55:13 GMT stevep said:

a)  The point is that Portugal at the time was a fascist regime itself so unless the deal between Hitler and Franco involved the former's support for the latter annexing Portugal I suspect that Portugal would simply seek to stay neutral - trading with everybody and and trying to avoid being dragged into all the destruction.

It seems the alliance with Great-Britain to be more valuable to Salazar than the nature of his regime.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance#Second_World_War
I read similar things in an article I can't found.

  Very interesting thanks.  Salazar sought to keep neutral but also was willing to aid Britain when requested. 

  I suspect the deal over the use of the Azores bases from Nov 43 would have been greatly helped by the fact that with Germany increasingly on the back foot and being pressed on numerous fronts it would be unlikely to trigger either Spanish or German intervention against them but definitely a useful help to the allies.

[Max Sinister]

The question what would have happened depends on many things, esp. what'll happen in the time between. For example, it is at least likely that Japan will start war with the US.

Gibraltar and Portugal would fall in a few months max, as long as Franco doesn't mind - which is a big If. Malta looks easy to take, but some people have pointed out that its small size means that there are strong defenses on every shore. Would a German faint be enough to break through them?

About Barbarossa in 1942 - I suggested it in "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy", and while I'm not sure about it, wkwillis in a different AH forum suggested that the Soviet defenses would be twice as strong as in 1941 and the Red Army effectively eight times stronger, although he didn't give an explanation.