If Britain surrendered to Nazi Germany and the US never entered the war, what would the likely outcome of Barbarossa be? Alternatively, If the US did enter the war, how would they stage an invasion without Britain?
Russia vs Germany, WW2
- Thread starter EmperorRoosevelt
- Start date
Does the surrender of Britain mean they are occupied? Because that's just not going to happen.
If the US enters the war, Britain would probably just re-enter it.
As to Barbarossa without the UK in the war. there's a very recent thread about it, recent like started last friday, the last comment was yesterday:
If the US enters the war, Britain would probably just re-enter it.
As to Barbarossa without the UK in the war. there's a very recent thread about it, recent like started last friday, the last comment was yesterday:
WWII: German Victory in Battle of Britain, could USSR win alone?
What if the Germans won the battle of britain and UK was either occupied or surrendered? could the Soviets win on their own? I think it is very possible. However how would this impact the USA? would it join the war in 1940 or would Germany NOT declare war in 1941 since Japanese help in USSR is...
www.alternatehistory.com
Yes, but most of the discussion was "debunking" the premise, rather than actually going along with the question and discussing what would happen.
That is because the British Empire "surrendering" to Germany is pretty much ASB. There may be a white peace, that is plausible with enough pressure OTL with some changes to the timeline. Say the standard "no Churchill, and Halifax takes over" but Britain is not getting occupied, losing their fleet, giving up rearmament, or any of the other wehraboo drivel that pops up here. Peace of Amiens v2 is the best Germany can hope for and even that is very thin. Now if Germany goes all out on Britain and America stays utterly neutral then maybe Germany can gain the advantageous peace. But then the question should be, "How does the Germany Soviet war go in 1944 after Germany spends years dragging the UK to an advantageous peace?"
If the Germans can attack the USSR without having to worry about any other front, then they win. No question.
Pretty hard to invade and occupy a country with over seven time zones when 75% of your logistics is run through horses.
Germany does not place value in logistics. Considering it will affect the operational plans.
In that case it's going to be hard to keep the UK out once Barbarossa is initiated. The UK will support the USSR with weapons, either by selling them* or by lend-lease. I don't see shipping from the UK to Murmansk being waved by by the Germans.
But even without getting the war with the UK started again, with the UK (and probably US) supporting the Russians with weapons, the Germans will have a hard time beating the Russians. Their chances are a bit better than OTL, but winning is by no means a given.
And even without support by the US and UK it is not certain the Russians will lose. As @Bellacinos said, it's hard conquering such a large country if your logistics depend on horses.
*in OTL soon after Barbarossa started, the USSR ordered pretty much every weapon the UK and US let them order. That won't change here.
It's probably going to be a slugfest of even bigger proportions than OTL. For the Russians to win: 1946-1948. If the Germans want to win they kinda need to do it in 1941 or 1942, which is hard to do*. They can maybe take Moscow, Leningrad and Baku by then, but to do so they have to do everything right (and the Russians screw up more than OTL)**. And even then they'll have to slug on for a few more years to get the Russians to their knees, because those will probably realize it's a fight to the death.
* in OTL the effects of lend-lease only really started to arrive in 1942. So up to the summer of 1942 things will go roughly as OTL. And then the Wehrmacht was already overextended.
** The thing is: with the UK at 'peace' the Russians would be expecting an attack, so they'll act accordingly.
* in OTL the effects of lend-lease only really started to arrive in 1942. So up to the summer of 1942 things will go roughly as OTL. And then the Wehrmacht was already overextended.
** The thing is: with the UK at 'peace' the Russians would be expecting an attack, so they'll act accordingly.
The thing is even if the Soviets take Moscow, Leningrad, and Baku, I can’t see them having the logistics to hold it and it’ll just end up like Stalingrad on steroids. I know you mention this but Soncd the Nazis plan was to basically wipe out 90% of the USSR, and use the remaining people as slaves the Soviets have no reason to surrender. They’ll just keep falling back and regrouping and the more territory Germany takes the more logistical issues they’ll run into and the Soviets can afford to trade lives for time. There’s no way Stalin or the Kremlin surrender either because they know their getting hanged if they lose. No matter what happens the Soviets will just keep retreating and practice scorched earth policy until the Germans logistical and man power issues become too much and then the Soviets will drive them back. The absolute best case scenario is USSR receives 0 lend lease and by 1947-1948 the Soviets drive the Germans back to the Molotov Ribbentrop line after suffering 15,000,000 military deaths and 35,000,000 civilian deaths and then decide to cut a deal with Germany as they no longer see it worth it to expand more manpower and Capitol to get to Berlin, but that is the best case scenario for a Nazi Germans vs USSR.
This is one of those questions that can't be answered without a lot more description.
How did the Germans actually manage to defeat the UK? This is actually EXTREMELY difficult to bring about, and whichever manner it happened has a massive impact on whatever follows.
If there was a simple truce agreed to you run into the exact terms surrounding the end of Hostilities. Status Quo Antebellum is very different from conditional peace that handcuffs one side or the other (as examples, the WAllies-Reich makes a peace where the British and French accept German conquests in the East in return for Germany withdrawing from most of France and the Low Countries with a wide DMZ vs. German forces are driven beyond the West Wall to the East bank of the Rhine and German Forces withdrawn from Norway vs. UK accepts Germany taking control of French African & Middle Eastern colonies). Those are vastly different situations that will result in hugely different conditions when addressing the basic question.
If you want a scenario where the Nazis don't necessarily have to worry about intervention from the UK, perhaps create a timeline a little earlier. In the Spanish Civil War, forces sent by both Germany and the USSR to fight on their respective sides come to blows and the results are embarrassing for both nations, stirring emnity and resentment far more openly and earlier. This leads to a chain of events where the UK and France see it as a case of Fascism versus Communism, which is viewed very differently.
Of course, this takes away many of the advantages that the Nazis had early on vis a vis the USSR, but replaces them with potentially war winners. LL may or may not go ahead, and it's entirely possible that either side could benefit from resources that weren't initially available to them. More importantly, the Nazis may avoid many of the strategic resources that are often used to end arguments against them. Not a great navy? No problem, the soviet navy in WW2 was terribly under-equipped. No antagonistic USA/UK? No nukes! Terrible logistics network? ...Well we can't change everything in their favor.
As for actually winning, since Hitler has carked it, that is debatable. He made a lot of terrible decisions for his armed forces (arguably invading Poland was his first), and with his removal you could technically say that the Nazis would be better led. But that doesn't change many of the glaring issues within the Nazi war machine. As we have seen in OTL, many of the problems that plagued the Nazis were endemic of their own flawed system and way of thinking (over-engineered tanks, heyo!), or are entirely absent (long-range bomber fleet, what's that?), and Hitler being dead doesn't magically fix or replace them.
Perhaps, in an alternate timeline, you could change things, but honestly the breaking point between the two countries at this time period weighs far more heavily in the USSR's favor. I fear all you'd end up doing is changing the Nazis to Notzis, at which point I would ask, "well why are you invading the USSR again?"
Of course, this takes away many of the advantages that the Nazis had early on vis a vis the USSR, but replaces them with potentially war winners. LL may or may not go ahead, and it's entirely possible that either side could benefit from resources that weren't initially available to them. More importantly, the Nazis may avoid many of the strategic resources that are often used to end arguments against them. Not a great navy? No problem, the soviet navy in WW2 was terribly under-equipped. No antagonistic USA/UK? No nukes! Terrible logistics network? ...Well we can't change everything in their favor.
As for actually winning, since Hitler has carked it, that is debatable. He made a lot of terrible decisions for his armed forces (arguably invading Poland was his first), and with his removal you could technically say that the Nazis would be better led. But that doesn't change many of the glaring issues within the Nazi war machine. As we have seen in OTL, many of the problems that plagued the Nazis were endemic of their own flawed system and way of thinking (over-engineered tanks, heyo!), or are entirely absent (long-range bomber fleet, what's that?), and Hitler being dead doesn't magically fix or replace them.
Perhaps, in an alternate timeline, you could change things, but honestly the breaking point between the two countries at this time period weighs far more heavily in the USSR's favor. I fear all you'd end up doing is changing the Nazis to Notzis, at which point I would ask, "well why are you invading the USSR again?"
I do not think you get Britain to surrender even if the British do not get their troops out at Dunkirk.
Neutral Britain is the best they could get and even that could turn against them if Britain enters the war later.
I think what you need is an earlier POD.
The National Union of Fascists wins an election before the war.
So no blockade of Germany by the RN.
Now Germany can pick its time to invade the Soviet Union and is not under pressure to get to the oil in Baku so fast.
British breaking of German codes is not helping the Soviet Union now and I do not think the Soviets will get lend-lease.
Germans when they invade the Soviet Union still have a massive problem with logistics and underestimate the size of the Red Army and the Soviet Unions industrial capacity.
Germany has more men that can fight in the Soviet Union but with the same bad logistics.
Hard to see them getting much further than OTL in the Soviet Union.
When the Soviets start to push them back it takes a lot longer. Germans might be able to establish a line of defence they can hold for some time.
The war in the Soviet Union could continue until at least 1950 with both sides fighting each other to a bloody stalemate followed by a Korean war style ceasefire and a DMZ.
Then you have a race between Germany and the Soviet Union as to who collapses first from rubbish economics and the strain and losses of the long war.
Japan might not go to war on the UK, or if it does then Germany declares war on Japan.
Japan and the USA I think will still go to war. America still beats Japan but has a much harder to force Japan to surrender with the threat of the Soviets invasion of Japan and possible delay in the bomb from lack of help from UK atomic scientists.
Hard to see where the US could land troops in Europe.
They could land in Ireland or Spain if they are willing to invade a neutral country, that one seems to be one step too far.
Neutral Britain is the best they could get and even that could turn against them if Britain enters the war later.
I think what you need is an earlier POD.
The National Union of Fascists wins an election before the war.
So no blockade of Germany by the RN.
Now Germany can pick its time to invade the Soviet Union and is not under pressure to get to the oil in Baku so fast.
British breaking of German codes is not helping the Soviet Union now and I do not think the Soviets will get lend-lease.
Germans when they invade the Soviet Union still have a massive problem with logistics and underestimate the size of the Red Army and the Soviet Unions industrial capacity.
Germany has more men that can fight in the Soviet Union but with the same bad logistics.
Hard to see them getting much further than OTL in the Soviet Union.
When the Soviets start to push them back it takes a lot longer. Germans might be able to establish a line of defence they can hold for some time.
The war in the Soviet Union could continue until at least 1950 with both sides fighting each other to a bloody stalemate followed by a Korean war style ceasefire and a DMZ.
Then you have a race between Germany and the Soviet Union as to who collapses first from rubbish economics and the strain and losses of the long war.
Japan might not go to war on the UK, or if it does then Germany declares war on Japan.
Japan and the USA I think will still go to war. America still beats Japan but has a much harder to force Japan to surrender with the threat of the Soviets invasion of Japan and possible delay in the bomb from lack of help from UK atomic scientists.
Hard to see where the US could land troops in Europe.
They could land in Ireland or Spain if they are willing to invade a neutral country, that one seems to be one step too far.
Last edited:
My assumption was that Britain agrees to an armistice and essentially becomes neutral for the remainder of the war. I get that it is a very unlikely scenario, but I just wanted to play it out.
Do you think that America might still provide some assistance, even if it is not lend-lease exactly?
So the Reich retains control of all conquests on the Continent, British have control of the Western Desert? The UK has simply washed its hands of the whole mess, no more bombing, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.? That is a very low order of probability, but non-zero event.
In this sort of a scenario one of the keys is actually how much manpower and material the Reich has wasted in the Med. If they have told Mussolini "you broke it, you bought it"and left the Italians to flounder in Greece and the Western Desert. This will also butterfly the Balkans Campaign, something that knocked the Germans off schedule, and absorbed two full Army equivalents. If that is the case the Heer will have the equivalent of at least 2.5 more full armies, maybe more (this is where the Norway Occupation looms very large). The Wehrmacht now also gains at least a full month of good fighting weather, along with perhaps as many as 7,000 trucks and prime movers.
The Luftwaffe does even better, its number of available single engine fighters more than doubles, same for bombers, twin engine destroyers go from ~70 to 200 +./-, with Stuka numbers up by around a half (this assumes that the BoB happened pretty much as IOTL and the early Bomber Command Offensive went off per OTL, scrub/shorten that and the number balloon even further). Luftwaffe combat aircraft strength overall goes from ~2,550 to around 4,500 (without any change in squadrons deployed in the West or dedicated to Home Defense) and ~500 additional Ju-52. This does not take into account potential movement of Luftwaffe anti-aircraft batteries, with their fabled 8.8cm guns from Occupied France and the Inner Reich.
This clearly results in a much strengthened Wehrmacht, with close to an additional Army Group, a doubling of airpower available to support the ground offensive, considerable logistical transport improvement, and large numbers of trained veteran personnel compared to OTL.
This being said, the Reich will now face a very differently situated opponent. While Stalin did enormous amounts of "management by wish" in the months leading up to Barbarrosa, it wasn't simply that he was a fool (Stalin was many things, most of them horrific, but complete idiot was not among them). Stalin fully expected that, at some point the Reich and USSR would have a major war. He did, however, expect that the Reich would finish off the British before turning to the East. Between that entirely reasonable expectation and the continued shipments of raw materials to the Reich as agreed to under treaty, he thought he would have more time. This resulted in what was the gravest error made in the period immediately prior to Barbarossa, the premature dismantlement of the "Stalin Line" and delayed construction of the new defensive line across Soviet annexed Poland (this was compounded by the fact that the Stalin Line was well on the way to being fully dismantled before the work on the fortification in Poland had even properly begun). Here, that situation does not exist. There will be no doubt in Stalin's mind regarding Hitler's intentions, meaning the numerous warning and indications of pending German action will not be dismissed out of hand as disinformation. The Heer will now face, in all likelihood, not just one set of defensive fortifications along the old Soviet border with Poland, but TWO, a new one in Poland and the original Stalin Line which will not begin to be demolished until the new fortifications can be completed,
While the Stalin Line fortifications were nowhere near the Gold Statard of the era (that very much goes to the actually completed portions of the Maginot Line) they were quite substantial and designed to channel an advancing enemy into what we now call "kill boxes" where heavy concentrations of artillery fire, much of it pre-registered, could be used to decimate any potential invader, supported by tank traps hand heavily reinforced concrete bunkers with anti-tank weapons.
The Wehrmacht would have the firepower to breach these defenses (the Patton quote very much applies here), but the question is just how long would it take? Barbarossa's early success owed much to surprise and speed, thanks to only a very weakly held border defended mainly by NKVD Border Guard units, the Heer was able to conduct exceptionally rapid, almost unopposed advances well into Soviet territory while facing an utterly shocked and disorientated enemy. That will absolutely NOT be case here. Even a delay of three-four weeks in breaching the border defenses will permit the Soviets to properly organize defensive positions (even with Stalin's "not one step back" position, assuming Zhukov can't talk him out of it, defending Kiev with a month + extra time to prepare defenses and move materials will make an enormous amount of difference, especially in Heer losses)
It is an open question of the additional forces now available to the Wehrmacht will be sufficient to allow the Wehrmacht to actually take Moscow (which in addition to being a major morale pivot point was also on of the, if not THE transportation hub of European Russia) and/or Leningrad, perhaps causing a seismic political shift in the Soviet leadership or general collapse along other parts of the Soviet defensive line. However, perhaps more importantly, it is worth considering if, having achieved those two goals before the winter of 1941 sets in, Hitler is willing to listen to his commanders and put the Wehrmacht into defensive "winter quarters" mode to wait out the Russian Winter.
Regarding the second question - there will be no Lend-Lease, at least not as it came to be IOTL. Depending on the specifics of the British-Reich truce, both in timing and in terms, Congress may still extend a degree of material help to the British, might not (depends, in large part, on what Japan does in the Pacific). Without the Soviets being a full ally against the Reich, most of Congress will see the "Reds" and Nazis slaughtering each other wholesale to be a win/win. This will have serious consequences starting in the Spring of 1943 (which was when both Lend Lease really began to pour into the USSR and when the Anglo-American CBO and Med campaigns started to seriously impact German economic and military flexibility), assuming the war is still underway by mid 1943.
You need a better scenario to explain a British armistice.
Germany moves faster to the Channel and cut the British line of retreat to the sea forcing a British surrender at Dunkirk and no escape of British force to the UK.
Churchill dies from a stroke or accident etc.
Negotiations result in German withdrawal from France the low countries, Denmark and Norway. Poland remains under German and Soviet occupation.
Germany now has the advantage of not have to supply food and oil to the countries they have withdrawn from. No occupation troops needed.
RN blockade ends. So oil imports etc resume but the Germans have trouble paying for them.
Germany gets a trade agreement with formerly occupied countries.
Pows are exchanged on both sides. Germany is not as short of oil or other material as OTL.
Germany navy gets big budget cuts. V1 and V2 do not get funded. No need for vengeance weapons.
More resources can be put into building rail and roads for the eastern front and this help as long as the German army does not get much beyond the Stalin line where they would have bad logistics again.
Larger numbers of troops. tanks. aircraft put an increased strain on logistics.
Stalin thinks the British and French have betrayed him and this does not surprise him.
Stalin believes the British and French etc will attack the Soviet Union once Germany and the Soviets have weakened each other enough.
This time Stalin is may have his forces on alert.
If the Soviets hold the Germans on the Stalin line the Germans now will have fewer logistics problems due to short supply lines and have more weapons, tanks and aircraft.
War of attrition on the Stalin line with the Germans build super tanks and very heavy siege guns as breakthrough weapons.
In France, Petain looks like the hero who saved France from the German occupation.
De Gaul remains in exile.
Britain does not suffer the Blitz.
The peace deals shock America and helps the isolationists.
Germany moves faster to the Channel and cut the British line of retreat to the sea forcing a British surrender at Dunkirk and no escape of British force to the UK.
Churchill dies from a stroke or accident etc.
Negotiations result in German withdrawal from France the low countries, Denmark and Norway. Poland remains under German and Soviet occupation.
Germany now has the advantage of not have to supply food and oil to the countries they have withdrawn from. No occupation troops needed.
RN blockade ends. So oil imports etc resume but the Germans have trouble paying for them.
Germany gets a trade agreement with formerly occupied countries.
Pows are exchanged on both sides. Germany is not as short of oil or other material as OTL.
Germany navy gets big budget cuts. V1 and V2 do not get funded. No need for vengeance weapons.
More resources can be put into building rail and roads for the eastern front and this help as long as the German army does not get much beyond the Stalin line where they would have bad logistics again.
Larger numbers of troops. tanks. aircraft put an increased strain on logistics.
Stalin thinks the British and French have betrayed him and this does not surprise him.
Stalin believes the British and French etc will attack the Soviet Union once Germany and the Soviets have weakened each other enough.
This time Stalin is may have his forces on alert.
If the Soviets hold the Germans on the Stalin line the Germans now will have fewer logistics problems due to short supply lines and have more weapons, tanks and aircraft.
War of attrition on the Stalin line with the Germans build super tanks and very heavy siege guns as breakthrough weapons.
In France, Petain looks like the hero who saved France from the German occupation.
De Gaul remains in exile.
Britain does not suffer the Blitz.
The peace deals shock America and helps the isolationists.
Last edited: