Jump to content


Alternate History - What if the Germans conquered the Soviet Union?

Alternate History Stalingrad Leningrad Volga 1941 Operation Barbarossa

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
58 replies to this topic

Niles Y93 #21 Posted 08 August 2015 - 07:44 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 08 August 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

 

Should be perfectly possible then.

 

As I have said on numerous other threads, I refer you to the book "If The Allies Had Fallen", Chapter 4, Question D on Page 59: "What if Hitler strived to make allies of the Soviet people?".

HighSpyker #22 Posted 08 August 2015 - 07:57 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36919 battles
  • 6,324
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

View PostRFA Scottish, on 07 August 2015 - 07:40 PM, said:

So, what if the Mighty Soviet union wasn't able to push back the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe, and...

Never happen.

 

And I am a history teacher.



GroomingChief65 #23 Posted 08 August 2015 - 08:06 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 481
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostHighSpyker, on 08 August 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Never happen.

 

And I am a history teacher.

 

 

There's tremendous confidence in the Russians after the war when the final result is known, I would have liked to have heard the same certainty from the history teacher when Stalin was so confident that he evacuated the Kremlin.



Sqn Ldr B #24 Posted 08 August 2015 - 08:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostNiles Y93, on 08 August 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

 

As I have said on numerous other threads, I refer you to the book "If The Allies Had Fallen", Chapter 4, Question D on Page 59: "What if Hitler strived to make allies of the Soviet people?".

 

I was referring to the Russians being ''really, really drunk.'' It was part of a joke, not a historical statement.

Edited by Sqn Ldr B, 08 August 2015 - 08:14 PM.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


HighSpyker #25 Posted 08 August 2015 - 08:18 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36919 battles
  • 6,324
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

View PostGroomingChief65, on 08 August 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

 

 

There's tremendous confidence in the Russians after the war when the final result is known, I would have liked to have heard the same certainty from the history teacher when Stalin was so confident that he evacuated the Kremlin.

Hitler made the same mistake Napoleon did.  



Matthew J35U5 #26 Posted 08 August 2015 - 08:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
I'm not sure Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon outside of the broad category of "Don't **** with Russia". Would you mind being more specific?

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #27 Posted 08 August 2015 - 09:03 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 08 August 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

I think Ukraine was trying quite hard to be on Ukraine's side.

 

LOL I going with this answer. 
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Ace Man 7 Delta #28 Posted 08 August 2015 - 09:10 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
A better question might be. What if poland gave into hitler,  gave him the port of danzing and the western allies never declared war on germany?  Hitler now has free reign to invade russia.. Who comes to aid the soviets? And would they have been capable of stopping the german army in 1939 / 1940? 
 
Probaly germany's best chance to defeat the soviets..  But I don't think germany could have ever pulled it off.  Or kept control over the soviets if they did.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #29 Posted 09 August 2015 - 01:28 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 08 August 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

A better question might be. What if poland gave into hitler,  gave him the port of danzing and the western allies never declared war on germany?  Hitler now has free reign to invade russia.. Who comes to aid the soviets? And would they have been capable of stopping the german army in 1939 / 1940? 
 
Probaly germany's best chance to defeat the soviets..  But I don't think germany could have ever pulled it off.  Or kept control over the soviets if they did.

Well... there's still the country of Poland between the Soviet Union and Germany. 

Skipping the specifics of how the two would end up at war, the Soviet Union would likely have performed better at the outset, and without the catastrophic failure at the outset of Barbarossa, the Germans would not have been able to succeed, even if the USSR was alone. 

There were several factors which I will list that made June, 1941 the best opportunity the Germans had to defeat the Soviet Union:
1. The Red Army had been purged by Stalin in 1937/38.
2. The red army was undergoing a large reorganization and modernization campaign. In particular, after the stunning collapse of France, the Red Army was creating large mechanized units on the German model.*
3. The USSR had abandoned its fortifications along its (1939) western border, and was reconstructing them along their new border. 
4. In efforts to avoid being drawn into a war with Germany, Soviet troops were deliberately kept at a low state of readiness. 

So, in 1941 the leadership was poor, the army was large but poorly equipped**, the defenders had no defensive fortifications, and border troops were not on alert. In 1939, the army would be much better equipped, albeit fighting with a poor tank doctrine, the defenders would have extensive fortifications, and the troops would be ready for a war with the Germans. It is hard to find anything that favours the 1941 scenario for the Soviets over the 1939 scenario. 

*They were actually built according to the original Soviet Doctrine which mirrored blitzkrieg, deep battle, but politics had killed it until the germans demonstrated that it was actually a good idea afterall. 

**For an example of what I'm talking about, many people have heard about how the USSR had ~26,000 tanks at the beginning of barbarossa. About 14,000 of those were actually in the west. About half of those were unuseable because they needed to be repaired, the majority of which needed spare parts, which were not available because in an attempt to increase tank production, the Soviet factories had stopped making spare parts. To make things worse, many of those tanks had no ammunition, for example, the army had only 12% of the 76 mm AP shells that they needed. You get the idea, the Soviet military in 1941 was not remotely close to being ready to fight a war. In 1939, while the nominal equipment quality would have been worse (T-26's instead of T-34's), they would likely have had better supplies of spare parts, ammunition etc. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #30 Posted 09 August 2015 - 02:15 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
The reason I said "it might have" been easier 39/40 for the germans the return of the port of danzig and the outlined sections around it. 
Means german troops don't have to go through poland. No war with the western alliance.  No tready with the russian. And no one has seen lighting warfare at this time. 
The French were well better equipped to deal with germany but lacked the numbers that the soviets had. Poland wasn't any better equipped than the russians at the time.
Everyone knows the outcome of the blitz on France & Poland.. It even took the soviets a while to adapt & turn it around on the germans and they had 2 recent examples of blitzkrieg to study. 
 
I sill don't think it was possible at anytime..  People don't realise the beatings the germans during the blitzkrieg in poland and france..  Most assume that the germans could have just kept sweeping through the world.. Not the case they had to stop and lick there wounds after france and poland. 
The only possible outcome of germany defeating the soviets is they had convinced the western alliance and the U.S. to invade russia with them somehow. Maybe then.
Or if Hitler wasn't such a di*k and didn't see the russian people as sub-human.  He might have been able to mobilise the population in a liberation against stalin.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Ace Man 7 Delta #31 Posted 09 August 2015 - 03:21 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 07 August 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

The Nazis would then use their advanced alien technology to conquer the world, end poverty, scarcity and death. They would then colonize the galaxy. 

 

Or this...
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #32 Posted 09 August 2015 - 03:38 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 08 August 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

The reason I said "it might have" been easier 39/40 for the germans the return of the port of danzig and the outlined sections around it. 
Means german troops don't have to go through poland. No war with the western alliance.  No tready with the russian. And no one has seen lighting warfare at this time. 
The French were well better equipped to deal with germany but lacked the numbers that the soviets had. Poland wasn't any better equipped than the russians at the time.
Everyone knows the outcome of the blitz on France & Poland.. It even took the soviets a while to adapt & turn it around on the germans and they had 2 recent examples of blitzkrieg to study. 
 
I sill don't think it was possible at anytime..  People don't realise the beatings the germans during the blitzkrieg in poland and france..  Most assume that the germans could have just kept sweeping through the world.. Not the case they had to stop and lick there wounds after france and poland. 
The only possible outcome of germany defeating the soviets is they had convinced the western alliance and the U.S. to invade russia with them somehow. Maybe then.
Or if Hitler wasn't such a di*k and didn't see the russian people as sub-human.  He might have been able to mobilise the population in a liberation against stalin.

But there isn't a border between east prussia and the USSR. East Prussia borders poland and Lithuania. 

Edit: Maybe 1939/40 could have been better for the Germans because they hadn't seen how effective deep battle/blitzkrieg was. Without assuming that they would defeat the USSR in less than 6 weeks, maybe they would have planned better and achieved more success. 

Or maybe they would have been doomed anyway. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


NSW Mntd Rifles #33 Posted 09 August 2015 - 03:57 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39414 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

The issues of logistics and defence in depth are the real point here. Historically the Russians knew that they just needed to have more patience than an invader. Kutuzov proved this in 1812 when he defeated Napoleon (who HAD captured Moscow) and previously the Swedes had been trounced in the same way. It is absurd to think that capturing Moscow  would automatically led to the capitulation of Russia yet it is the mistake every invader makes. And this is precisely the point that Clausewitz made in his book On War. Invaders are too easily seduced by geographic goals but the key to victory lies in destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. When the Wehrmacht reached Moscow they had captured territory but had neither destroyed the USSR's ability to make war or the resolve of its people to fight. There is not doubt that Stalin would have kept moving his empire's industrial capability further east and they would have continued to draw on the resources available in the east, eventually wearing the axis down as they indeed did in the end.

 

What makes postulations like the one in this thread seem so preposterous to me is that both Germany and Japan had a very limited capacity to wage war when they entered into conflict in 1939 and 1941 respectively. Both were gambling on what they saw as the political and social weakness of their opponents. This proved to be a foolish gamble. At what point was either power even close to winning the Second World War? My personal view is never. Germany thought Britain and her Empire would give up after France fell and the Japanese thought that they might be able to make an accommodation with the USA. The Japanese strategy was never more ambitious than capturing territory to create a buffer for the homeland and then hoping the perimeter could be held until their opponents gave up. Allied industrial capacity and depth of resources in almost unassailable territory like the eastern USSR, USA, Canada and Australia meant that the allies could continue to prosecute war despite the loss of large swathes of territory. 

 


Edited by Jose the Padre, 09 August 2015 - 03:59 AM.


Ace Man 7 Delta #34 Posted 10 August 2015 - 07:06 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostJose the Padre, on 08 August 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

The issues of logistics and defence in depth are the real point here. Historically the Russians knew that they just needed to have more patience than an invader. Kutuzov proved this in 1812 when he defeated Napoleon (who HAD captured Moscow) and previously the Swedes had been trounced in the same way. It is absurd to think that capturing Moscow  would automatically led to the capitulation of Russia yet it is the mistake every invader makes. And this is precisely the point that Clausewitz made in his book On War. Invaders are too easily seduced by geographic goals but the key to victory lies in destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. When the Wehrmacht reached Moscow they had captured territory but had neither destroyed the USSR's ability to make war or the resolve of its people to fight. There is not doubt that Stalin would have kept moving his empire's industrial capability further east and they would have continued to draw on the resources available in the east, eventually wearing the axis down as they indeed did in the end.

 

What makes postulations like the one in this thread seem so preposterous to me is that both Germany and Japan had a very limited capacity to wage war when they entered into conflict in 1939 and 1941 respectively. Both were gambling on what they saw as the political and social weakness of their opponents. This proved to be a foolish gamble. At what point was either power even close to winning the Second World War? My personal view is never. Germany thought Britain and her Empire would give up after France fell and the Japanese thought that they might be able to make an accommodation with the USA. The Japanese strategy was never more ambitious than capturing territory to create a buffer for the homeland and then hoping the perimeter could be held until their opponents gave up. Allied industrial capacity and depth of resources in almost unassailable territory like the eastern USSR, USA, Canada and Australia meant that the allies could continue to prosecute war despite the loss of large swathes of territory. 

 

 

Awwwe now you killed this topic with facts and common sense..  Thanks...
LOL just kidding...... Good points.. Plus 1 to you sir.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Niles Y93 #35 Posted 10 August 2015 - 02:38 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 08 August 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

 

I was referring to the Russians being ''really, really drunk.'' It was part of a joke, not a historical statement.

 

Oh, ok. But I still stand by my statement, As Ace Man 7 Delta said, in bold terms:

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 08 August 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

The reason I said "it might have" been easier 39/40 for the germans the return of the port of danzig and the outlined sections around it. 
Means german troops don't have to go through poland. No war with the western alliance.  No tready with the russian. And no one has seen lighting warfare at this time. 
The French were well better equipped to deal with germany but lacked the numbers that the soviets had. Poland wasn't any better equipped than the russians at the time.
Everyone knows the outcome of the blitz on France & Poland.. It even took the soviets a while to adapt & turn it around on the germans and they had 2 recent examples of blitzkrieg to study. 
 
I sill don't think it was possible at anytime..  People don't realise the beatings the germans during the blitzkrieg in poland and france..  Most assume that the germans could have just kept sweeping through the world.. Not the case they had to stop and lick there wounds after france and poland. 
The only possible outcome of germany defeating the soviets is they had convinced the western alliance and the U.S. to invade russia with them somehow. Maybe then.
Or if Hitler wasn't such a di*k and didn't see the russian people as sub-human.  He might have been able to mobilise the population in a liberation against stalin.

 

That is what the reference I made makes the argument for. Had Hitler actually tried to make Allies of the Soviet people, (which, according to some historical records, actually worked in small pockets), there would have been a chance that Germany could have taken the Soviet Union, and possibly change the course of the war.



GLA Odin #36 Posted 10 August 2015 - 11:11 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10835 battles
  • 384
  • [MOSS]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013
One of the factors i have not seen so far here in this thread is one of the major factors that hindered the German forces and allowed the Soviets to push the Germans out of the USSR, the weather.  I found a site about how the Germans could've compleated both Operation Barbarossa and Operation Typhoon, the planed operation to seize control of Moscow itself, it mentions the Russian word "rasputsia" or "Time without Roads" where the heavy rainfall in November caused all roads that weren't paved to become in-accesable to the German supply line and Armoured and motorized units, which gave the Russians one of the first advantages over the Germans. if however, "rasputsia" did not occur, would the germans have been able to keep control of the advantage.
 

 

100% genuine Scotsman

Struggling to keep a full Garage since 2013.


Matthew J35U5 #37 Posted 11 August 2015 - 12:23 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostRFA Scottish, on 10 August 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

One of the factors i have not seen so far here in this thread is one of the major factors that hindered the German forces and allowed the Soviets to push the Germans out of the USSR, the weather.  I found a site about how the Germans could've compleated both Operation Barbarossa and Operation Typhoon, the planed operation to seize control of Moscow itself, it mentions the Russian word "rasputsia" or "Time without Roads" where the heavy rainfall in November caused all roads that weren't paved to become in-accesable to the German supply line and Armoured and motorized units, which gave the Russians one of the first advantages over the Germans. if however, "rasputsia" did not occur, would the germans have been able to keep control of the advantage.
 

Yes, if the thing that happens every single year had not happened in 1941 for some reason, it would have been bad for the russians. Planning a campaign around the hopes that the rasputsia didn't happen would be like planning a campaign hoping that winter wouldn't happen. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Uranprojekt #38 Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:11 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostRFA Scottish, on 10 August 2015 - 11:11 PM, said:

One of the factors i have not seen so far here in this thread is one of the major factors that hindered the German forces and allowed the Soviets to push the Germans out of the USSR, the weather.  I found a site about how the Germans could've compleated both Operation Barbarossa and Operation Typhoon, the planed operation to seize control of Moscow itself, it mentions the Russian word "rasputsia" or "Time without Roads" where the heavy rainfall in November caused all roads that weren't paved to become in-accesable to the German supply line and Armoured and motorized units, which gave the Russians one of the first advantages over the Germans. if however, "rasputsia" did not occur, would the germans have been able to keep control of the advantage.
 

 

Rasputitsa (распутица) means "season of bad roads." I believe the reason nobody mentioned it is because the Germans were unable to control the weather :P


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


DStegCat #39 Posted 11 August 2015 - 03:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Close counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.  Read about Stalin's actions during panicked defense of Moscow.  Explain the heading to his Dachau.

 

Conquer is one thing control is another.  How many divisions would it take?

 

    A much more likely scenario is a negotiated peace between Germany and Russia where Germany got much of the East (at least till next conflict). Both Hitler and Stalin sent feelers for negotiated peace but at different times towards unreceptive opponents.

 

 


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Matthew J35U5 #40 Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostDStegCat, on 11 August 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Close counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.  Read about Stalin's actions during panicked defense of Moscow.  Explain the heading to his Dachau.

 

Conquer is one thing control is another.  How many divisions would it take?

 

    A much more likely scenario is a negotiated peace between Germany and Russia where Germany got much of the East (at least till next conflict). Both Hitler and Stalin sent feelers for negotiated peace but at different times towards unreceptive opponents.

I suspect that you meant to write "Dacha". :P


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:






Also tagged with Alternate, History, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Volga, 1941, Operation Barbarossa

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users