Alternate History - WWII

[Lukas105]

Alternate History : Operation Typhoon

Battle of Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

1*What if the Germans succeeded in capturing Moscow in the winter of 1941? What could be changed in the German Strategy to make this happen?

2*If the Soviet Union did surrender, Do you think the war could of ended on Nazi Germany's terms?

3*What would become of Great Britain, the United States, and the other Allies?


1. Since the main point of Soviet leadership and morale would be taken, I could see mass desertion and surrendering in the Soviet Army. Eventually, leading to a full unconditional surrender. German strategy should of put all of its resources into an assault on Moscow, taking tank units from the Leningrad and Crimea fronts, and Operation Barbarossa could of started a month or two earlier to give some leeway until the Russian winter.
Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Nazi German would annex the Soviet Union in an unconditional surrender, and this would satisfy Hitler's "Lebensraum".

3. Operation Sea lion would be approved and most of the German forces form the Eastern Front would be poured into Operations in Western Europe and Africa.
Operation Sea Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nazi Germany would more than likely see its' self in a good position to come to peace terms with the countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as the United States. WWII would end in 1942/1943 on Germany's term, with Europe and parts of Asia under the Iron Cross.

Please answer below to the * Questions and give your reasoning to the Alternate History questions.

 

[Wiseone]

Germany would have never annexed the Soviet Union in all out terms, its just way too much space and territory to govern. They would have created puppet governments in the liberated territories, similar to what was done with Poland but probably with a bit more freedom considering the distance. The USSR would have had to undergo a vast amount of de-militarization, most likely under some German supervision but still would have held large amounts of land. Perhaps their government would have changed or collapsed but I have a feeling Germany would have been more interested in a stable, although extreme weak, USSR. A failed state next door just causes too many problems.

But if Moscow had been captured and nothing else changed, the USSR would have been weakened but not out of the fight completely. I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the war although the Soviets may have ended up not advancing as far as they did into Germany.

To really knock out the Soviets the Germans would have had to capture Moscow, destroyed the Northern Sea logistics supply line through U-Boats, captured the oil rich caucasus region, and Stalingrad, and been in a position to hold these areas and continue to advance from them. Don't forget that Iran was invaded and occupied by the British and USSR for the sole reason to create a supply line.

 

[German guy]

Germany would have never annexed the Soviet Union in all out terms, its just way too much space and territory to govern. They would have created puppet governments in the liberated territories, similar to what was done with Poland but probably with a bit more freedom considering the distance. The USSR would have had to undergo a vast amount of de-militarization, most likely under some German supervision but still would have held large amounts of land. Perhaps their government would have changed or collapsed but I have a feeling Germany would have been more interested in a stable, although extreme weak, USSR. A failed state next door just causes too many problems.

Yep. I read a few things about German occupation in Soviet territories and had a course on it in college, and I remember that the German plan was to rally up any non-Russian ethnicity they could find against the USSR -- the Belarussians, the Ukrainians, the Baltic peoples, the various Caucasus and Mongolian sub-ethnicities. Many of them even welcomed the German troops as liberators from Soviet-Russian oppression, at least at first. Many even volunteered on the side of Germany.

So I guess the plan would have been to install non-Russian puppet governments in Belarus, Ukraine, and the various Caucasus regions, while brutalizing and decimating the ethnic Russians, exploiting the anti-Russian and anti-communist enmity that existed among these peoples.

 

[Lukas105]

Yep. I read a few things about German occupation in Soviet territories and had a course on it in college, and I remember that the German plan was to rally up any non-Russian ethnicity they could find against the USSR -- the Belarussians, the Ukrainians, the Baltic peoples, the various Caucasus and Mongolian sub-ethnicities. Many of them even welcomed the German troops as liberators from Soviet-Russian oppression, at least at first. Many even volunteered on the side of Germany.

So I guess the plan would have been to install non-Russian puppet governments in Belarus, Ukraine, and the various Caucasus regions, while brutalizing and decimating the ethnic Russians, exploiting the anti-Russian and anti-communist enmity that existed among these peoples.

I agree, One good example would be Andrei Vlasov who deserted after his capture and defeat after trying to break the Siege of Leningrad in 1942. He provided the ground work and leadership for the Russian Liberation Army, which was made up of Russians who defected (Or PoW)s to fight the Soviets.
Andrey Vlasov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

The Soviets planned to keep on fighting even after Moskva (Moscow as traditional Russian pronunciation) was captured. They still had the oil-rich Caucasus which provided 90% of Soviet fuel, Archangelsk and Murmansk to receive aid, the western Urals where much industry have been relocated and out of reach of military actions, as well as Leningrad and Stalingrad (though both could have easily been taken if Moskva was conquered). The Soviets still had a sizable population to keep on fighting in the western Urals, middle Asia, and at the Volga.
Even if the Nazis did succeed I doubt that they were able to carry out Sea Lion. Remember, the original plans called for Rhein (Rhine) barges to carry out the landing. One can imagine their chances against Channel waters and the Royal Navy. Also their surface fleet was in shambles after raiding the Atlantic and the debacle at Norway. As of 1940, they only had 4 destroyers and 1 cruiser, entirely insufficient to carry out a landing. They also failed to achieve air superiority. By the time they got their navy and Air Force back in shape, the US and GB would have beaten them by numbers and industry. The so-called Nazi war economy wasn't impressive to begin with (the economy was barely mobilized with the level of consumer goods production as high as pre-war levels), brought down by corruption and power fighting between Goering, Bormann and such.

 

[HK.227]

1*What if the Germans succeeded in capturing Moscow in the winter of 1941? What could be changed in the German Strategy to make this happen?

Not much.
But better weather and the Sovies deciding that Moscow could not be defended, would have made a difference.
Moscow was an industrial powerhouse, so another factor would be how much of the production apparatus they would be able to move further east.
Besides, if Germany decided to accept massive casualtes to take Moscow, it would also depend on how it affected their ability to prosecute the war for the next year or so. Too long, and it would be more difficult to take advantage, besides the shock wearing off.

2*If the Soviet Union did surrender, Do you think the war could of ended on Nazi Germany's terms?

Depends again. Why would they surrender?
Because they were demoralized and had no intentions of continuing the war later? Then things would look bleak.
A temporary truce while they gathered their strength for the next round a'la the Napoleonic wars? Nazi Germany would need to keep massive formations in the East to protect it's gains if the Soviets were rebulding for a revanche match.
Nor would a static defense be feasible in the long run. Too expensive. Probably build fortresses around those positions deemed too important to lose, some border forces, and reaction armies placed a couple of hundred miles behind the front. Something like the mobile defense of the late Roman Empire.

3*What would become of Great Britain, the United States, and the other Allies?

England had been isolated before, with a hostile Europe across the Channel. As long as they could keep open lines of communication and the Channel crossing protected, they would be able to hold out for a long time.
It really depends on morale and what Churchill could do to keep it sound.

The US is anybody's guess. Safe behind the sea and with a recovering economy.
Would she be willing to suffer massive casualties to liberate Europe? Depends on circumstances and how the presidential elections would pan out, I suppose.

 

[Quag]

Alternate History : Operation Typhoon

Battle of Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

1*What if the Germans succeeded in capturing Moscow in the winter of 1941? What could be changed in the German Strategy to make this happen?

2*If the Soviet Union did surrender, Do you think the war could of ended on Nazi Germany's terms?

3*What would become of Great Britain, the United States, and the other Allies?


1. Since the main point of Soviet leadership and morale would be taken, I could see mass desertion and surrendering in the Soviet Army. Eventually, leading to a full unconditional surrender. German strategy should of put all of its resources into an assault on Moscow, taking tank units from the Leningrad and Crimea fronts, and Operation Barbarossa could of started a month or two earlier to give some leeway until the Russian winter.
Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Nazi German would annex the Soviet Union in an unconditional surrender, and this would satisfy Hitler's "Lebensraum".

3. Operation Sea lion would be approved and most of the German forces form the Eastern Front would be poured into Operations in Western Europe and Africa.
Operation Sea Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nazi Germany would more than likely see its' self in a good position to come to peace terms with the countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as the United States. WWII would end in 1942/1943 on Germany's term, with Europe and parts of Asia under the Iron Cross.

Please answer below to the * Questions and give your reasoning to the Alternate History questions.

1. taking of Moscow would not have been the end of Russia, it didn't help Napoleon.
2. why would they surrender? if they did it would have meant a longer war but still a win for the allies.
3. Again longer war but still a win

 

[apdst]

1. taking of Moscow would not have been the end of Russia, it didn't help Napoleon.
2. why would they surrender? if they did it would have meant a longer war but still a win for the allies.
3. Again longer war but still a win

The Soviets were on the verge of an all out defeat, before 1944. Had the Germans been able to advance beyond Moscow and retain that foothold, the Red Army would have fallen apart and eventually lost it's combat effectiveness.

 

[Quag]

The Soviets were on the verge of an all out defeat, before 1944. Had the Germans been able to advance beyond Moscow and retain that foothold, the Red Army would have fallen apart and eventually lost it's combat effectiveness.

I have never seen any evidence of such a thing, can you support it?

 

[Lukas105]

I have never seen any evidence of such a thing, can you support it?

I have an example with the start of the war on the eastern front. Soviet troops were routed almost immediately in 1941. In the North to Leningrad, In the Middle to outside Moscow, and in the South to the Crimea. The Germans greatest weakness here was the fall rain/winter freeze and supplies having to be shipped across substandard soviet roads. This gave the Soviets time to build their defenses at Moscow for Operation Typhoon, although the Germans still advanced to within 5 Miles of Moscow, in the town of Khimki. Only the Russian Winter prevented any further advance with German troops dying of Frostbite and exposure to temperatures as low as -36C.

 

[Rainman05]

There is no such thing as alternate history and it's pointless to have a serious discussion on such topics.

if you want alternate history, play video games or go watch movies that are based on this topic.

 

[Quag]

I have an example with the start of the war on the eastern front. Soviet troops were routed almost immediately in 1941. In the North to Leningrad, In the Middle to outside Moscow, and in the South to the Crimea. The Germans greatest weakness here was the fall rain/winter freeze and supplies having to be shipped across substandard soviet roads. This gave the Soviets time to build their defenses at Moscow for Operation Typhoon, although the Germans still advanced to within 5 Miles of Moscow, in the town of Khimki. Only the Russian Winter prevented any further advance with German troops dying of Frostbite and exposure to temperatures as low as -36C.

Still don't see how Moscow falling would have led to the defeat of russia

 

[Lukas105]

Still don't see how Moscow falling would have led to the defeat of russia

It would of made a huge bulge in the Soviet Line, leading the encirclement of the 16th, 5th, 43rd, and 49th Soviet Armies.

Long story short, A huge gap would be opened up in the Soviet Line, drawing Soviet forces from the Crimea and Leningrad fronts, leading to more possible Soviet defeats in those areas.

 

[Quag]

It would of made a huge bulge in the Soviet Line, leading the encirclement of the 16th, 5th, 43rd, and 49th Soviet Armies.

Long story short, A huge gap would be opened up in the Soviet Line, drawing Soviet forces from the Crimea and Leningrad fronts, leading to more possible Soviet defeats in those areas.

Not really Germany was already stretched very thin. taking Moscow wouldn't have necessarily caused an encirclement.

 

[apdst]

I have never seen any evidence of such a thing, can you support it?

Stalin practically begged Roosevelt and Churchill to open a front in the west, because he was getting his ass handed to him in the east.

 

[Captain Adverse]

In my opinion the circumstances, although seemingly in favor of the Germans initially, would still have resulted in failure because the Germans were never able to bring full focus on the eastern front.

The errors started much earlier, with Dunkirk. There, the German army should have been allowed to continue and complete the destruction of British forces. Once that was done, with the Fall of France, the Germans should have focused on a quick invasion and elimination of the British as an opposing force. They hesitated, and this lost them the war.

By allowing the British to gather up these troops, then build up defenses and remain as an operational enemy Germany denied itself the capability of focusing on the Russians in a single front war. It also prevented proper preparation of the German Army for winter operations, which was the real cause of the failure of Operation Barbarossa.

Finally, trying to "cleanse" Russia of undesireables prior to the end of military operations and victory, undermined the whole operation. The Russians were ill-prepared, ill-trained, and the nation was subject to multiple nationalistic minorities willing to support anyone capable of lifting the yoke of Stalinist oppression from their shoulders. That all went away after the Nazi's conducted purges the first year of occupation, serving instead to stiffin the spines of resistance throughout Soviet Russia...better the devil you know...

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Quag]

Stalin practically begged Roosevelt and Churchill to open a front in the west, because he was getting his ass handed to him in the east.

by 1943 Russia was winning.

 

[apdst]

by 1943 Russia was winning.

They weren't retreating anymore, but they weren't winning. Without Lend Lease, they Soviets would have been screwed.

 

[Quag]

They weren't retreating anymore, but they weren't winning. Without Lend Lease, they Soviets would have been screwed.

I disagree without lend lease the war would have lasted longer is all. No way to prove either point though so we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Wiggen]

I have never seen any evidence of such a thing, can you support it?

You've never seen any evidence of such a thing because it simply isn't true. The Soviets were not on the verge of an all out defeat before 1944. Wasn't the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 - where the Russians effectively ended any chance for meaningful German offensive capabilities.

 

[Wiggen]

In my opinion the circumstances, although seemingly in favor of the Germans initially, would still have resulted in failure because the Germans were never able to bring full focus on the eastern front.

The errors started much earlier, with Dunkirk. There, the German army should have been allowed to continue and complete the destruction of British forces. Once that was done, with the Fall of France, the Germans should have focused on a quick invasion and elimination of the British as an opposing force. They hesitated, and this lost them the war.

By allowing the British to gather up these troops, then build up defenses and remain as an operational enemy Germany denied itself the capability of focusing on the Russians in a single front war. It also prevented proper preparation of the German Army for winter operations, which was the real cause of the failure of Operation Barbarossa.

Finally, trying to "cleanse" Russia of undesireables prior to the end of military operations and victory, undermined the whole operation. The Russians were ill-prepared, ill-trained, and the nation was subject to multiple nationalistic minorities willing to support anyone capable of lifting the yoke of Stalinist oppression from their shoulders. That all went away after the Nazi's conducted purges the first year of occupation, serving instead to stiffin the spines of resistance throughout Soviet Russia...better the devil you know...

That's my take on it anyway.

For the millionth time on this forum, as soon as you can explain to me how the Germans were going to invade England with no surface navy, no amphibious capabilities, inability to control the skies, and facing - at the time - the largest navy in the world, I'll buy into the notion that Germany could have won the war in the west.

 

[apdst]

I disagree without lend lease the war would have lasted longer is all. No way to prove either point though so we will have to agree to disagree

Without Lend Lease and American involvement, The Brits and the Soiets would have gotten their asses handed to them.

The Red Army didn't have the maneuver capabilities to defeat the Wehrmacht, without Lend Lease.

 

[Wiggen]

They weren't retreating anymore, but they weren't winning. Without Lend Lease, they Soviets would have been screwed.

It would have made life more difficult for them, but they would not have been 'screwed'.

 

[Wiggen]

Without Lend Lease and American involvement, The Brits and the Soiets would have gotten their asses handed to them.

The Red Army didn't have the maneuver capabilities to defeat the Wehrmacht, without Lend Lease.

Did we send them T-34 tanks? Did we send them millions of troops? Did we send them tank killing aircraft?

 

[apdst]

For the millionth time on this forum, as soon as you can explain to me how the Germans were going to invade England with no surface navy, no amphibious capabilities, inability to control the skies, and facing - at the time - the largest navy in the world, I'll buy into the notion that Germany could have won the war in the west.

If Operation Overlord had failed, the war in the west would have been as good as won.