No Operation Barbarossa

oddly there is recording of Hitler in private conversation around 1944
were he say (roughly translated):

"Had i knew the real force of them (USSR), i never would had invade Russia !" or something like that.

Fact was that the German intelligence had little or NO information about Red Army,
strangely the German officer that visit USSR and Red Army were never interview by German intelligence...

But what if, the German intelligence was informed and tell Hitler, eeeh My Fürher, about the Red army, the numbers are ehh extrem...
and he realise a War against USSR is hopeless, Nazis are out number 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 against Russians.
(yes it could goes the other way that Hitler in delusions of grandeur after France, order Barbarossa anyway).

Now back to topic
with no Barbarossa what could Third Reich do ?
conquest !
on Hitler wish list were Sweden and Switzerland,
and still war with England, this open complete new Scenarios.

One would be Wehrmacht campaign in Spain !
One moment is Spain not on side of Axis forces ? yes and No !
Franco went Neutral, after Civil War Spain was in ruins, next to that wanted Franco no issue with England.
as Hitler wanted Operation Felix (Gibraltar) Franco made outrageous demands for economic and military aid, Hitler abandon Operation Felix.
But with no Operation Barbarossa and surplus on Wehrmacht Hitler could simply order the Invasion of Spain and could ran in same trap as Napoleon...
With Spain partisans attacks and British army landing attempt in Portugal and north Spain.
oh by the way the Swiss will do also partisans attacks on Nazis.
(i don't know if occupation of Spain and Gibraltar support Italy and Nazis in Africa campaign)

Now to very ugly part of senario the SS, Generalplan Ost and Entlösung der Juden frage.
With no Operation Barbarossa the SS will focus on Europa to USSR borders.
Means they will more efficient in hunting down and exterminate of, what the Nazis consider undesirable people !
Generalplan Ost or how to deal with locals and colonise the conquest Areas was also a horrifying undertaking.
80% of local population hat to be exterminated, the surviving rest were slave to Nazis.
The Depopulated areas would resettle by Germans and other europeans the nazis consider as Aryan.
With Wehrmach of 3 million soldiers operating on smaller area of east Europe compare to Russia under Operation Barbarossa.
They will bloody efficient complete there task ! a Nightmare Senario

And Stalin ?
There allot Russians historians claiming Stalin wanted to invade 1941
There are no historical documents that back that up, none
Neither his diary nor of Politburo documents show that Stalin was willing to Invade
in contrary he consider the Third Reich as valuable allies and refuse to believe the news of invasions in begin.
There were Scenarios at Red Army for invasion of West, but those generals fall to Stalin great purges...

The only ones that could danger of Total victory in this scenario
Are the British if Hitler goes South into Spain and Hitler himself like declaring war on US of A or order Operation Barbarossa...

Well given his character and the apparent balance of power in 1941 I think its very unlikely he would not attack the Soviets in 1941. Also since the Nazi system was so chaotic and frankly parasitical it depended heavily on loot. If he doesn't go east then resources could start running out even more rapidly and also Stalin might be generous with the raw materials for a while but he would want payment sooner or later and given how much the Germans needed that is going to cause them problems.

However if for whatever reason Barbarossa didn't occur then we are in a radically different world and in many ways a possibly even grimmer one. I agree with most of your analysis.

In terms of what the Nazis might do then:

a) Spain is an obvious option as it would mean the fall of Gibraltar and clear control of the western Med which would also mean the loss of Malta. It would also give Germany more bases for U boats further west and south than France and which it would be more difficult for Britain to attack. Furthermore the German and Italian fleets would be able to link up although given how short ranged the Italian fleet was, designed for operations in the Med that might not be a substantial problem for Britain.

It would be difficult. Even if Franco succumbs to serious pressure from Germany at least some nationalists are likely to fight and a lot of what's left of the republicans and communists will. They will be helped by the poor infrastructure in much of Spain and rugged terrain. However the Nazis have a lot more firepower than Napoleon's legions and even fewer morals so its likely to be very bad for the rebels or anyone caught up in the general bloodbath. Britain will try and help and Churchill will definitely make comparison's with Napoleon's time. However I can't see the region becoming a ulcer for Hitler. They have too much sheer military power and with modern weapons its going to be impossible for lodgements such as Gibraltar or Cadiz to survive or for Britain to be able to send significant aid to rebels let alone maintain significant forces in Iberia. Not sure what Portugal will do, being caught between a rock and an hard place but if its invaded or forced into alliance with Germany I can see Britain seeking to establish control of the Portuguese colonies in Africa and probably also Portuguese Timor.

b) N Africa. - Germany will in theory be able to send a lot more aid to Libya, or N Africa as a whole but getting them across the Med, along with the supplies they will need and then moving both to the front would be a lot more difficult. If Britain is wise once its clear Malta is doomed there is a retreat to the El Alamein position and it would take probably years for the development of sufficient port and logistical infrastructure before a force strong enough to force such a position would be practical. Possibly more dangerous would be a move west - occupying FNA which would give further air and naval bases to threaten British shipping lines and contest control of the eastern parts of the N Atlantic.

c) An alternative to this might be achieving the latter route by some deal with Vichy France which gains control of FNA and possibly at least some of their other colonies, which would seriously strain British resources. This is more likely to occur if Spain has been overrun by force as it both gives a chilling example for Vichy and also removes any fear of Franco winning concessions of French territory in return for his active support of the Axis. How successful such a move would be is difficult to say as a lot would depend on the circumstances.

d) The other obvious move might be to bring Turkey into the alliance one way or another. This has potential big gains as it opens a land route to the ME and also a position from which to threaten Baku and other key Soviet centres but the Turks are likely to resist strongly and the terrain and logistics are again atrocious. Furthermore German control of the straits and getting close to the Caucasus regions is going to seriously concern Stalin. This is the most likely condition under which Stalin is likely to consider attacking Germany himself before the situation becomes too desperate.

The other questions of course are what happens in the Far East and also how far would Britain and its empire be willing to fight on pretty much alone and how much support would the US be willing to support them.

TheRomanSlayer
Commander

Posts: 1,780

Likes: 1,880

No Operation Barbarossa Oct 5, 2023 5:59:48 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by TheRomanSlayer on Oct 5, 2023 5:59:48 GMT

oddly there is recording of Hitler in private conversation around 1944
were he say (roughly translated):

"Had i knew the real force of them (USSR), i never would had invade Russia !" or something like that.

Fact was that the German intelligence had little or NO information about Red Army,
strangely the German officer that visit USSR and Red Army were never interview by German intelligence...

But what if, the German intelligence was informed and tell Hitler, eeeh My Fürher, about the Red army, the numbers are ehh extrem...
and he realise a War against USSR is hopeless, Nazis are out number 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 against Russians.
(yes it could goes the other way that Hitler in delusions of grandeur after France, order Barbarossa anyway).

Now back to topic
with no Barbarossa what could Third Reich do ?
conquest !
on Hitler wish list were Sweden and Switzerland,
and still war with England, this open complete new Scenarios.

One would be Wehrmacht campaign in Spain !
One moment is Spain not on side of Axis forces ? yes and No !
Franco went Neutral, after Civil War Spain was in ruins, next to that wanted Franco no issue with England.
as Hitler wanted Operation Felix (Gibraltar) Franco made outrageous demands for economic and military aid, Hitler abandon Operation Felix.
But with no Operation Barbarossa and surplus on Wehrmacht Hitler could simply order the Invasion of Spain and could ran in same trap as Napoleon...
With Spain partisans attacks and British army landing attempt in Portugal and north Spain.
oh by the way the Swiss will do also partisans attacks on Nazis.
(i don't know if occupation of Spain and Gibraltar support Italy and Nazis in Africa campaign)

Now to very ugly part of senario the SS, Generalplan Ost and Entlösung der Juden frage.
With no Operation Barbarossa the SS will focus on Europa to USSR borders.
Means they will more efficient in hunting down and exterminate of, what the Nazis consider undesirable people !
Generalplan Ost or how to deal with locals and colonise the conquest Areas was also a horrifying undertaking.
80% of local population hat to be exterminated, the surviving rest were slave to Nazis.
The Depopulated areas would resettle by Germans and other europeans the nazis consider as Aryan.
With Wehrmach of 3 million soldiers operating on smaller area of east Europe compare to Russia under Operation Barbarossa.
They will bloody efficient complete there task ! a Nightmare Senario

And Stalin ?
There allot Russians historians claiming Stalin wanted to invade 1941
There are no historical documents that back that up, none
Neither his diary nor of Politburo documents show that Stalin was willing to Invade
in contrary he consider the Third Reich as valuable allies and refuse to believe the news of invasions in begin.
There were Scenarios at Red Army for invasion of West, but those generals fall to Stalin great purges...

The only ones that could danger of Total victory in this scenario
Are the British if Hitler goes South into Spain and Hitler himself like declaring war on US of A or order Operation Barbarossa...

Well given his character and the apparent balance of power in 1941 I think its very unlikely he would not attack the Soviets in 1941. Also since the Nazi system was so chaotic and frankly parasitical it depended heavily on loot. If he doesn't go east then resources could start running out even more rapidly and also Stalin might be generous with the raw materials for a while but he would want payment sooner or later and given how much the Germans needed that is going to cause them problems.

However if for whatever reason Barbarossa didn't occur then we are in a radically different world and in many ways a possibly even grimmer one. I agree with most of your analysis.

In terms of what the Nazis might do then:

a) Spain is an obvious option as it would mean the fall of Gibraltar and clear control of the western Med which would also mean the loss of Malta. It would also give Germany more bases for U boats further west and south than France and which it would be more difficult for Britain to attack. Furthermore the German and Italian fleets would be able to link up although given how short ranged the Italian fleet was, designed for operations in the Med that might not be a substantial problem for Britain.

It would be difficult. Even if Franco succumbs to serious pressure from Germany at least some nationalists are likely to fight and a lot of what's left of the republicans and communists will. They will be helped by the poor infrastructure in much of Spain and rugged terrain. However the Nazis have a lot more firepower than Napoleon's legions and even fewer morals so its likely to be very bad for the rebels or anyone caught up in the general bloodbath. Britain will try and help and Churchill will definitely make comparison's with Napoleon's time. However I can't see the region becoming a ulcer for Hitler. They have too much sheer military power and with modern weapons its going to be impossible for lodgements such as Gibraltar or Cadiz to survive or for Britain to be able to send significant aid to rebels let alone maintain significant forces in Iberia. Not sure what Portugal will do, being caught between a rock and an hard place but if its invaded or forced into alliance with Germany I can see Britain seeking to establish control of the Portuguese colonies in Africa and probably also Portuguese Timor.

b) N Africa. - Germany will in theory be able to send a lot more aid to Libya, or N Africa as a whole but getting them across the Med, along with the supplies they will need and then moving both to the front would be a lot more difficult. If Britain is wise once its clear Malta is doomed there is a retreat to the El Alamein position and it would take probably years for the development of sufficient port and logistical infrastructure before a force strong enough to force such a position would be practical. Possibly more dangerous would be a move west - occupying FNA which would give further air and naval bases to threaten British shipping lines and contest control of the eastern parts of the N Atlantic.

c) An alternative to this might be achieving the latter route by some deal with Vichy France which gains control of FNA and possibly at least some of their other colonies, which would seriously strain British resources. This is more likely to occur if Spain has been overrun by force as it both gives a chilling example for Vichy and also removes any fear of Franco winning concessions of French territory in return for his active support of the Axis. How successful such a move would be is difficult to say as a lot would depend on the circumstances.

d) The other obvious move might be to bring Turkey into the alliance one way or another. This has potential big gains as it opens a land route to the ME and also a position from which to threaten Baku and other key Soviet centres but the Turks are likely to resist strongly and the terrain and logistics are again atrocious. Furthermore German control of the straits and getting close to the Caucasus regions is going to seriously concern Stalin. This is the most likely condition under which Stalin is likely to consider attacking Germany himself before the situation becomes too desperate.

The other questions of course are what happens in the Far East and also how far would Britain and its empire be willing to fight on pretty much alone and how much support would the US be willing to support them.

Which faction in France has control of Syria and Lebanon? I would have thought that Germany could perhaps create two puppet states out of those entities as a means of penetrating influence into the wider MidEast region, not only for further advance into Iraq, Iran, and possibly Turkey and the Caucasus republics within the Soviet Union, but can also endanger British positions in the Middle East, especially the Suez Canal and even Palestine. The ultimate nightmare scenario in this case might be German soldiers marching through the streets of Jerusalem, though the insurgency there would make the partisan warfare in Eastern Europe look tame. I would also suspect that the North African theater might become a bigger priority, as the Germans would want to make sure their Italian ally doesn't collapse entirely.

Also, Japan by this point had also signed a non aggression treaty with the Soviet Union as well, so no Barbarossa also means the Soviets would focus a bit more on their East Turkestan shenanigans as well. The Balkans on the other hand, might also see a bit more successful destruction of the Yugoslav communist partisan activities there, but sadly Yugoslavia as we know it will never come back.

raharris1973
Lieutenant

Posts: 785
Likes: 742

No Operation Barbarossa Oct 6, 2023 1:53:19 GMT stevep and Max Sinister like this

Quote

Post by raharris1973 on Oct 6, 2023 1:53:19 GMT

Now to very ugly part of senario the SS, Generalplan Ost and Entlösung der Juden frage.
With no Operation Barbarossa the SS will focus on Europa to USSR borders.
Means they will more efficient in hunting down and exterminate of, what the Nazis consider undesirable people !
Generalplan Ost or how to deal with locals and colonise the conquest Areas was also a horrifying undertaking.
80% of local population hat to be exterminated, the surviving rest were slave to Nazis.
The Depopulated areas would resettle by Germans and other europeans the nazis consider as Aryan.
With Wehrmach of 3 million soldiers operating on smaller area of east Europe compare to Russia under Operation Barbarossa.
They will bloody efficient complete there task ! a Nightmare Senario

This is a good point - Although skipping Barbarossa means skipping, for now, acquiring an America-sized continent for German settlement expansion, it does free the Germans to implement racial massacre, genocide, expansion and 'reengineering' against any populations in occupied Europe they want to for as long as they keep a hold on Europe between Brest in Brittany, France, and Brest in Central Poland. So the Jews, Poles, Romanies, and possibly others including Czechs and Serbs could suffer faster and more thorough genocide or ethnic cleansing for as long as occupied Europe is held against British opposition alone, without any Soviets or American adding weight to a real invasion effort.

It would be difficult. Even if Franco succumbs to serious pressure from Germany at least some nationalists are likely to fight and a lot of what's left of the republicans and communists will. They will be helped by the poor infrastructure in much of Spain and rugged terrain. However the Nazis have a lot more firepower than Napoleon's legions and even fewer morals so its likely to be very bad for the rebels or anyone caught up in the general bloodbath. Britain will try and help and Churchill will definitely make comparison's with Napoleon's time. However I can't see the region becoming a ulcer for Hitler. They have too much sheer military power and with modern weapons its going to be impossible for lodgements such as Gibraltar or Cadiz to survive or for Britain to be able to send significant aid to rebels let alone maintain significant forces in Iberia. Not sure what Portugal will do, being caught between a rock and an hard place but if its invaded or forced into alliance with Germany I can see Britain seeking to establish control of the Portuguese colonies in Africa and probably also Portuguese Timor.

I have to agree with stevep's skepticism. If Spain is Hitler/Germany's *only* active "ulcer", without a hot front with the Soviets, or an Anglo-American build-up for invasion, it is not much of a build-up, as poor and rocky as the land may be.

There can be poverty and resource famine, but the Nazis can make sure that they and their most fortunate Spanish collaborators get to eat first or eat at all, and their enemies, or undesired populations like political prisoners, don't eat at all.

b) N Africa. - Germany will in theory be able to send a lot more aid to Libya, or N Africa as a whole but getting them across the Med, along with the supplies they will need and then moving both to the front would be a lot more difficult. If Britain is wise once its clear Malta is doomed there is a retreat to the El Alamein position and it would take probably years for the development of sufficient port and logistical infrastructure before a force strong enough to force such a position would be practical. Possibly more dangerous would be a move west - occupying FNA which would give further air and naval bases to threaten British shipping lines and contest control of the eastern parts of the N Atlantic.

Yes - Germany will face "throughput" limitations getting to, or beyond Suez, even if not encumbered by a Soviet front, just because of the narrowness of the the supply lines across the Mediterranean and African port, rail, and road networks. However, lack of a Soviet front can mean that the Nazis can keep some sort of foothold in part of North Africa, at least Tunisia and western Libya, almost indefinitely, if facing only the British and not the Americans or Soviets as well.

d) The other obvious move might be to bring Turkey into the alliance one way or another. This has potential big gains as it opens a land route to the ME and also a position from which to threaten Baku and other key Soviet centres but the Turks are likely to resist strongly and the terrain and logistics are again atrocious. Furthermore German control of the straits and getting close to the Caucasus regions is going to seriously concern Stalin. This is the most likely condition under which Stalin is likely to consider attacking Germany himself before the situation becomes too desperate.

Agreed again- although, if Hitler is lucky, Stalin might react to a Hitler move on Turkey, not by opposing it head-on, (too scared) but by "competitively" invading Iran (and possibly Iraq) with Soviet forces to prevent German forces from continuing a southeastward march and 'outflanking' the southern USSR from that direction.

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 24,836

Likes: 13,225

No Operation Barbarossa Oct 6, 2023 10:05:16 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Oct 6, 2023 10:05:16 GMT

Oct 5, 2023 5:59:48 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

Well given his character and the apparent balance of power in 1941 I think its very unlikely he would not attack the Soviets in 1941. Also since the Nazi system was so chaotic and frankly parasitical it depended heavily on loot. If he doesn't go east then resources could start running out even more rapidly and also Stalin might be generous with the raw materials for a while but he would want payment sooner or later and given how much the Germans needed that is going to cause them problems.

However if for whatever reason Barbarossa didn't occur then we are in a radically different world and in many ways a possibly even grimmer one. I agree with most of your analysis.

In terms of what the Nazis might do then:

a) Spain is an obvious option as it would mean the fall of Gibraltar and clear control of the western Med which would also mean the loss of Malta. It would also give Germany more bases for U boats further west and south than France and which it would be more difficult for Britain to attack. Furthermore the German and Italian fleets would be able to link up although given how short ranged the Italian fleet was, designed for operations in the Med that might not be a substantial problem for Britain.

It would be difficult. Even if Franco succumbs to serious pressure from Germany at least some nationalists are likely to fight and a lot of what's left of the republicans and communists will. They will be helped by the poor infrastructure in much of Spain and rugged terrain. However the Nazis have a lot more firepower than Napoleon's legions and even fewer morals so its likely to be very bad for the rebels or anyone caught up in the general bloodbath. Britain will try and help and Churchill will definitely make comparison's with Napoleon's time. However I can't see the region becoming a ulcer for Hitler. They have too much sheer military power and with modern weapons its going to be impossible for lodgements such as Gibraltar or Cadiz to survive or for Britain to be able to send significant aid to rebels let alone maintain significant forces in Iberia. Not sure what Portugal will do, being caught between a rock and an hard place but if its invaded or forced into alliance with Germany I can see Britain seeking to establish control of the Portuguese colonies in Africa and probably also Portuguese Timor.

b) N Africa. - Germany will in theory be able to send a lot more aid to Libya, or N Africa as a whole but getting them across the Med, along with the supplies they will need and then moving both to the front would be a lot more difficult. If Britain is wise once its clear Malta is doomed there is a retreat to the El Alamein position and it would take probably years for the development of sufficient port and logistical infrastructure before a force strong enough to force such a position would be practical. Possibly more dangerous would be a move west - occupying FNA which would give further air and naval bases to threaten British shipping lines and contest control of the eastern parts of the N Atlantic.

c) An alternative to this might be achieving the latter route by some deal with Vichy France which gains control of FNA and possibly at least some of their other colonies, which would seriously strain British resources. This is more likely to occur if Spain has been overrun by force as it both gives a chilling example for Vichy and also removes any fear of Franco winning concessions of French territory in return for his active support of the Axis. How successful such a move would be is difficult to say as a lot would depend on the circumstances.

d) The other obvious move might be to bring Turkey into the alliance one way or another. This has potential big gains as it opens a land route to the ME and also a position from which to threaten Baku and other key Soviet centres but the Turks are likely to resist strongly and the terrain and logistics are again atrocious. Furthermore German control of the straits and getting close to the Caucasus regions is going to seriously concern Stalin. This is the most likely condition under which Stalin is likely to consider attacking Germany himself before the situation becomes too desperate.

The other questions of course are what happens in the Far East and also how far would Britain and its empire be willing to fight on pretty much alone and how much support would the US be willing to support them.

Which faction in France has control of Syria and Lebanon? I would have thought that Germany could perhaps create two puppet states out of those entities as a means of penetrating influence into the wider MidEast region, not only for further advance into Iraq, Iran, and possibly Turkey and the Caucasus republics within the Soviet Union, but can also endanger British positions in the Middle East, especially the Suez Canal and even Palestine. The ultimate nightmare scenario in this case might be German soldiers marching through the streets of Jerusalem, though the insurgency there would make the partisan warfare in Eastern Europe look tame. I would also suspect that the North African theater might become a bigger priority, as the Germans would want to make sure their Italian ally doesn't collapse entirely.

Also, Japan by this point had also signed a non aggression treaty with the Soviet Union as well, so no Barbarossa also means the Soviets would focus a bit more on their East Turkestan shenanigans as well. The Balkans on the other hand, might also see a bit more successful destruction of the Yugoslav communist partisan activities there, but sadly Yugoslavia as we know it will never come back.

French Syria, including Lebanon was initially under Vichy. However the OTL Iraqi revolt against British domination gave an excuse for Britain aided by Free French forces to occupy the region so that's likely to happen here. [The local Vichy forces allowed German air units to land in the region on the way to Iraqi].

The Soviets had been and I think continued to send aid to the Chinese, mainly the KMT after the signing of the non-aggression pact as it was useful for Stalin to keep Japan bogged down in China.

longvin
Seaman

Posts: 5

Likes: 9

No Operation Barbarossa Oct 15, 2023 2:49:33 GMT via mobile stevep, Max Sinister, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by longvin on Oct 15, 2023 2:49:33 GMT

Interesting scenario. So the first thing to consider is that a war between Germany and the USSR is probably inevitable. Nazi ideology is just so opposed to communism that eventually a war will happen outside of certain conditions. The most likely scenario for no barbarossa is that Hitler merely postpones it.

Let's say he decides a two front war isn't worth it just yet, crunches the numbers on Poland resettlement and figures he can wait before needing more living space. He decides to concentrate on the British and hopefully get a peace deal and maybe a sympathic government ally with.

The only way you're going to avoid a war with Russia completely is to get rid of Hitler and this is largely dependent on who replaces him. Someone like Himmler or Goebbels were far more extreme than Hitler and would almost certainly start a war. Speer or Goring would probably work to avoid a war.

As for whether Stalin would start a war? Probably not unless he saw an already defeated Germany and figured he could grab more of Europe in the collapse. Outside of this the german soviet border would probably be the most heavily fortified border in the world.

Stalin was for the most part a very insular looking leader and in some ways had an old imperialist russian mindset. He wanted lost czarist lands and buffers from western aggression.

But most of his attention was against internal threats either real or imagined.

We also have to consider Stalin's sole aggressive foray. The Winter War. Finland showed just how screwed up the red army was and served as a wake up call that reforms and changes needed to be made. Russia only had a year to start implementing these changes and their army was in no place in 1941 ready for a war. It is actually amazing to think that without the Winter War the soviets would be even less prepared.

Any reforms to the red army would probably take at least half a decade in peacetime to implement and I doubt Stalin would act unless he was certain of victory. He was rather cautious and even up until Stalingrad was considering a negotiated peace with Germany since he didn't believe the western allies were pulling their weight.

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 24,836

Likes: 13,225

No Operation Barbarossa Oct 15, 2023 11:07:19 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Oct 15, 2023 11:07:19 GMT

Interesting scenario. So the first thing to consider is that a war between Germany and the USSR is probably inevitable. Nazi ideology is just so opposed to communism that eventually a war will happen outside of certain conditions. The most likely scenario for no barbarossa is that Hitler merely postpones it.

Let's say he decides a two front war isn't worth it just yet, crunches the numbers on Poland resettlement and figures he can wait before needing more living space. He decides to concentrate on the British and hopefully get a peace deal and maybe a sympathic government ally with.

The only way you're going to avoid a war with Russia completely is to get rid of Hitler and this is largely dependent on who replaces him. Someone like Himmler or Goebbels were far more extreme than Hitler and would almost certainly start a war. Speer or Goring would probably work to avoid a war.

As for whether Stalin would start a war? Probably not unless he saw an already defeated Germany and figured he could grab more of Europe in the collapse. Outside of this the german soviet border would probably be the most heavily fortified border in the world.

Stalin was for the most part a very insular looking leader and in some ways had an old imperialist russian mindset. He wanted lost czarist lands and buffers from western aggression.

But most of his attention was against internal threats either real or imagined.

We also have to consider Stalin's sole aggressive foray. The Winter War. Finland showed just how screwed up the red army was and served as a wake up call that reforms and changes needed to be made. Russia only had a year to start implementing these changes and their army was in no place in 1941 ready for a war. It is actually amazing to think that without the Winter War the soviets would be even less prepared.

Any reforms to the red army would probably take at least half a decade in peacetime to implement and I doubt Stalin would act unless he was certain of victory. He was rather cautious and even up until Stalingrad was considering a negotiated peace with Germany since he didn't believe the western allies were pulling their weight.

In agreement that as long as the more ideologically orientated Nazi was in power a war is inevitable sooner or later. Can't see Spee as an optional Hitler replacement at this period as its only after the death of Todl that he emerges and even a second level figure.

raharris1973
Lieutenant

Posts: 785
Likes: 742

No Operation Barbarossa Nov 17, 2023 3:38:24 GMT

Quote

Post by raharris1973 on Nov 17, 2023 3:38:24 GMT

So what do we want as a consensus PoD for the title prompt/main idea?

A) He just says so

Sept 25, 2023 15:14:31 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

What if Hitler decides he's content with the state of affairs in Europe in 1941 and never invades the USSR?

B) A revised intelligence collection and assessment coup convinces Hitler to change course, stick with one war at a time, be sure Britain quits, occupied Europe Germanized and built up as a base before any move east can go:

But what if, the German intelligence was informed and tell Hitler, eeeh My Fürher, about the Red army, the numbers are ehh extrem...
and he realise a War against USSR is hopeless, Nazis are out number 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 against Russians.

C) Decides there's no point in conquering USSR Lebensraum until Polish-Czech Lebensraum is totally filled up and Germanized, and Britain is made to quit

crunches the numbers on Poland resettlement and figures he can wait before needing more living space. He decides to concentrate on the British and hopefully get a peace deal and maybe a sympathic government ally with.

D) Hitler dies some time before spring 1941 and is replaced by someone else, Hess, Goering, a Committee, Himmler, and they decide to adopt one of the viewpoints listed above, and continue the Non-aggression Pact and trade with the USSR, and despite anticommunism and the Lebensraum idea from Mein Kampf, they get acquiescence in their approach for the present time.

The only way you're going to avoid a war with Russia completely is to get rid of Hitler and this is largely dependent on who replaces him.