Alternate History Could Operation Barbarossa had been succesful megathread

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
The failure of OP Barbarossa is partially due to the genocidal policies of the Nazis against the locals.

However, anti-Slavism was not always part of Nazi ideology.

In fact, before the Munich Putsch, White Russian emigres were some of the Nazi Party's donors and allies.

Max von Schuebner Richter, a Baltic German, Nazi Party treasurer and one of Hitler's close friends, was instrumental in making connection for the Nazi Party with these White Russians.

Had he not been killed in the Putsch (Goering dies instead because he will ruin the Luftwaffe), anti-Slavism would not have been a part of Nazi ideology and the Nazis would have the support of White Russian emigres during OP Barbarossa.

Among the changes would be large numbers of Cossacks going over to the German side; a large anti-partisan force that can handle the Soviet partisans that arise in the occupied territories.

Another major change would be the use of "reliable" Red Army PoWs to farm the newly captured territory, change the Soviet railway to standard gauge, and perform general labor for the Germans. Any communists (NKVD, commissars, etc.) would still be executed.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
The failure of OP Barbarossa is partially due to the genocidal policies of the Nazis against the locals.

However, anti-Slavism was not always part of Nazi ideology.

In fact, before the Munich Putsch, White Russian emigres were some of the Nazi Party's donors and allies.

Max von Schuebner Richter, a Baltic German, Nazi Party treasurer and one of Hitler's close friends, was instrumental in making connection for the Nazi Party with these White Russians.

Had he not been killed in the Putsch (Goering dies instead because he will ruin the Luftwaffe), anti-Slavism would not have been a part of Nazi ideology and the Nazis would have the support of White Russian emigres during OP Barbarossa.

Among the changes would be large numbers of Cossacks going over to the German side; a large anti-partisan force that can handle the Soviet partisans that arise in the occupied territories.

Another major change would be the use of "reliable" Red Army PoWs to farm the newly captured territory, change the Soviet railway to standard gauge, and perform general labor for the Germans. Any communists (NKVD, commissars, etc.) would still be executed.

It was not strictly ideological considerations, but rather the very real issue that feeding the German Army in Russia while not depriving the Fatherland itself could only come at the expense of something like the Hunger Plan. About the only real way to derail that, in my estimation, is to achieve a peace with the UK in 1940/early 1941 that enables Trans-Oceanic imports to resume.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
It was not strictly ideological considerations, but rather the very real issue that feeding the German Army in Russia while not depriving the Fatherland itself could only come at the expense of something like the Hunger Plan. About the only real way to derail that, in my estimation, is to achieve a peace with the UK in 1940/early 1941 that enables Trans-Oceanic imports to resume.
The main thing that Germany didn't have enough was fertilizer.
And they have a very easy way to fix this that they didn't use during WW1.
Haber Process of making Ammonia (in WW1 the ammonia was used to make explosives for ammo).
Tons and tons of fertilizer from just hydrogen and nitrogen.
That fertilizer is then used for crops and feedlot crops.

Also, the Germans could plant varieties of crops that can grow in winter conditions thus having harvests all year round.
As well, the Germans could build a simple 20hp steam powered tractor (Volkstrakktor) that they can sell to German farmers cheaply before the war.
The factories used to build tractors can be converted into tank factory after the war starts.

And as I said before, those 2-3 million captured Red Army soldiers can be used to farm the newly occupied land in Eastern Europe instead of being left to starve.
To motivate them, make a rule that farmers in occupied territories can keep a certain percentage of the crop they grow, thus the more they grow the more they eat.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The failure of OP Barbarossa is partially due to the genocidal policies of the Nazis against the locals.

However, anti-Slavism was not always part of Nazi ideology.

In fact, before the Munich Putsch, White Russian emigres were some of the Nazi Party's donors and allies.

Max von Schuebner Richter, a Baltic German, Nazi Party treasurer and one of Hitler's close friends, was instrumental in making connection for the Nazi Party with these White Russians.

Had he not been killed in the Putsch (Goering dies instead because he will ruin the Luftwaffe), anti-Slavism would not have been a part of Nazi ideology and the Nazis would have the support of White Russian emigres during OP Barbarossa.

Among the changes would be large numbers of Cossacks going over to the German side; a large anti-partisan force that can handle the Soviet partisans that arise in the occupied territories.

Another major change would be the use of "reliable" Red Army PoWs to farm the newly captured territory, change the Soviet railway to standard gauge, and perform general labor for the Germans. Any communists (NKVD, commissars, etc.) would still be executed.

Indeed.

I read about soviet "partisants" on Belarussia - in fact,groups was formed by NKWD send there by air during nights - but in 1943.Why not in 1942? becouse of german terror? many villages there do not saw even one german soldier during war.
No,peasants and deserters hiding there simply killed all those NKWD send there in 1942 - tull soviets sratr winning,and german start mass burning villages with its occupants,just like in Poland.
After that,local start supporting soviets again.Without german terror,there would be no local partisants.

On Ukraine situation was even worst - entire idea of ukrainian state was made by germans during WW1,they supported their nationalists,they supported them - and Hitler send there dude named Koch who showed ukrainian whip and told,that he would rule over them using that.Which he really did.
As a result,from 1943 even genociders from ukrainian UPA stopped supporting germans.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
On Ukraine situation was even worst - entire idea of ukrainian state was made by germans during WW1,they supported their nationalists,they supported them - and Hitler send there dude named Koch who showed ukrainian whip and told,that he would rule over them using that.Which he really did.
As a result,from 1943 even genociders from ukrainian UPA stopped supporting germans.
If you'll remember the WW1 Ukraine regime supported by the Germans was not popular and immediately collapsed when the Germans had to retreat. Part of German WW2 behavior was inspired by WW1 experiences of nothing but failed collaboration regimes that were out for themselves and used German support for their own ends.

 

ATP

Well-known member
If you'll remember the WW1 Ukraine regime supported by the Germans was not popular and immediately collapsed when the Germans had to retreat. Part of German WW2 behavior was inspired by WW1 experiences of nothing but failed collaboration regimes that were out for themselves and used German support for their own ends.


Becouse almost all ukrainian-speaking people considering themselves locals in 1918.In 1941 most were arleady ukrainians.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
I read about soviet "partisants" on Belarussia - in fact,groups was formed by NKWD send there by air during nights - but in 1943.Why not in 1942? becouse of german terror? many villages there do not saw even one german soldier during war.
No,peasants and deserters hiding there simply killed all those NKWD send there in 1942 - tull soviets sratr winning,and german start mass burning villages with its occupants,just like in Poland.
After that,local start supporting soviets again.Without german terror,there would be no local partisants.
If the Nazis and White Russians exiles made common cause, then these massacres would not have happened. Communist party members, commissars and anyone who supported bolshevism would still be shot on sight but this terror wouldn't extend to the regular people.

On Ukraine situation was even worst - entire idea of ukrainian state was made by germans during WW1,they supported their nationalists,they supported them - and Hitler send there dude named Koch who showed ukrainian whip and told,that he would rule over them using that.Which he really did.
As a result,from 1943 even genociders from ukrainian UPA stopped supporting germans.
Erich Koch was hated by everyone, even the German farmers in East Prussia hated him. And he was a shameless liar.
Erich Koch - Wikipedia
"Koch's pre-war rule in East Prussia was characterized by efforts to collectivize the local agriculture and ruthlessness in dealing with his critics inside and outside the Party.[1] He also had long-term plans for mass-scale industrialization of the largely agricultural province. These actions made him unpopular among the local peasants.[1] However, through publicly funded emergency relief programs concentrating on agricultural land-improvement projects and road construction, the "Erich Koch Plan" for East Prussia allegedly made the province free of unemployment; on August 16, 1933 Koch reported to Hitler that unemployment had been banished entirely from East Prussia, a feat that gained admiration throughout the Reich.[2]"
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Most weren't in 1941 given the Russian settlement of the region after the Holodomor.
The Holodomor was actually a perfect opportunity for the Nazis to ingrate themselves with the Ukrainians.
Pick out Ukrainian PoWs from the Red Army and send them home, back to Ukraine with the message that the Germans are here to help.
As for other PoWs, use the reliable ones as farm labor in captured lands. And the rest as general labor. Those who refuse to work will not be fed. Simple deal, you do work, you get food, instead of straight up starving 3 million potential laborers to death.

Also the Germans would have large numbers of Cossacks rushing to defect and join them. In OTL the Cossack units were some of the best anti-partisan forces the Germans ever had and White Cossack leaders fill the leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

sillygoose

Well-known member
The Holodomor was actually a perfect opportunity for the Nazis to ingrate themselves with the Ukrainians.
Pick out Ukrainian PoWs from the Red Army and send them home, back to Ukraine with the message that the Germans are here to help.
As for other PoWs, use the reliable ones as farm labor in captured lands. And the rest as general labor. Those who refuse to work will not be fed. Simple deal, you do work, you get food, instead of straight up starving 3 million potential laborers to death.

Also the Germans would have large numbers of Cossacks rushing to defect and join them. In OTL the Cossack units were some of the best anti-partisan forces the Germans ever had and White Cossack leaders fill the leadership.
So basically OTL?
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
So basically OTL?
That wasn't OTL at all.
The Germans did start recruiting Cossacks until 1943, when the war had decisively turned against them.
"In the initial phase of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Cossack émigrés were initially barred from political activity or travelling into the occupied Eastern territories. Hitler had no intention of entertaining the political aspirations of the Cossacks, or any minority group, in the USSR. As a result, collaboration between Cossacks and the Wehrmacht began in ad hoc manner through localized agreements between German field commanders and Cossack defectors from the Red Army. Hitler did not officially sanction the recruitment of Cossacks and lift the restrictions imposed on émigrés until the second year of the Nazi-Soviet conflict."

"In late 1943, the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories and Wehrmacht headquarters issued a joint proclamation promising the Cossacks independence once their homelands were “liberated” from the Red Army.[114]"

Hitler could have cut an easy deal with the Cossacks. Their homelands in the Don and Kuban back in exchange for military service for Germany.

There was also a prominent Cossack who was a literal Nazi but Hitler shunned this kind of support because he was an idiot and listened to a chicken farmer's squawking.
"Pavel Bermondt-Avalov then emigrated to Western Europe, where he published a book of memoirs. He lived in Germany from 1921 and was involved in right wing and fascist movements. Strongly supportive of National Socialism, he established his own movement, the Russian National Socialist Movement. Despite this he was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1939 along with other Russian exiles and deported. He settled in Belgrade and later moved to the United States."

"The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through deliberate starvation,[7] exposure, and summary execution."
Murdering people who had no love and little interest in communism when they could have been used as general labor.

Instead more of this would have done wonders for the Germans. Food for work.
Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-137-1010-21A%2C_Wei%C3%9Frussland%2C_Minsk%2C_Aufr%C3%A4umungsarbeiten.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

sillygoose

Well-known member
That wasn't OTL at all.
The Germans did start recruiting Cossacks until 1943, when the war had decisively turned against them.
"In the initial phase of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Cossack émigrés were initially barred from political activity or travelling into the occupied Eastern territories. Hitler had no intention of entertaining the political aspirations of the Cossacks, or any minority group, in the USSR. As a result, collaboration between Cossacks and the Wehrmacht began in ad hoc manner through localized agreements between German field commanders and Cossack defectors from the Red Army. Hitler did not officially sanction the recruitment of Cossacks and lift the restrictions imposed on émigrés until the second year of the Nazi-Soviet conflict."

"In late 1943, the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories and Wehrmacht headquarters issued a joint proclamation promising the Cossacks independence once their homelands were “liberated” from the Red Army.[114]"

Hitler could have cut an easy deal with the Cossacks. Their homelands in the Don and Kuban back in exchange for military service for Germany.

There was also a prominent Cossack who was a literal Nazi but Hitler shunned this kind of support because he was an idiot and listened to a chicken farmer's squawking.
"Pavel Bermondt-Avalov then emigrated to Western Europe, where he published a book of memoirs. He lived in Germany from 1921 and was involved in right wing and fascist movements. Strongly supportive of National Socialism, he established his own movement, the Russian National Socialist Movement. Despite this he was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1939 along with other Russian exiles and deported. He settled in Belgrade and later moved to the United States."
Funny that you ignored my only talking about the Ukrainians to talk exclusively about the Cossacks...whom only you talked about.

"The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through deliberate starvation,[7] exposure, and summary execution."
Murdering people who had no love and little interest in communism when they could have been used as general labor.

Instead more of this would have done wonders for the Germans. Food for work.
You do realize that was because there was too little food to feed everyone right?
Not that that excuses Nazi crimes of course, but there were very real food shortages before the invasion of the USSR:
Even in peace, Europe was unable to feed itself, and although Germany now held two-fifths of the green fields of Europe, Germans found that despite decrees forcing farmers to sell their produce and livestock and outright requisition, in terms of food the occupied lands represented a net drain on their resources that could not be made good.
...
The British blockade of the Mediterranean immediately cut Italy off from 80% of its imports. Essential items such as pasta, flour and rice were severely rationed, leading to riots, and any farmer withholding his crops from compulsory storage could be imprisoned for a year.
Even in the normally plentiful Balkan region there were now food shortages caused by an extremely hard winter in the east and flooding of the lower Danube which devastated the agricultural plains and prevented the planting of crops. In Romania, farm hands were still mobilized into the Army and, along with Hungary and Yugoslavia, she needed all the wheat that could be produced, but the Germans made heavy demands on them, backed up by threats.[45]

A big part of the reason for the invasion of the USSR was to seize food from the Soviets, rather than trading for it and helping Stalin build up his armed forces, which eventually would be used against the Axis powers.

Since that reality dovetailed with the Nazi fantasy of genocide in the East they wrote it into their occupation plan:
The lack of capacity of the Russian railways, the inadequacy of road transport and the shortages of fuel, meant that the German Army would have to feed itself by living off the land in the territories they conquered in the western regions of the Soviet Union.[1] A meeting on 2 May 1941 between the permanent secretaries responsible for logistical planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union, as well as other high-ranking Nazi party functionaries, state officials and military officers, included in its conclusions:

1.) The war can only be continued if the entire Wehrmacht is fed from Russia in the third year of the war.
2.) If we take what we need out of the country, there can be no doubt that tens of millions of people will die of starvation.[2]
...

The perceived grain surpluses of Ukraine figured particularly prominently in the vision of a "self-sufficient" Germany. Hitler himself had stated in August 1939 that Germany needed "the Ukraine, in order that no one is able to starve us again as in the last war".[5]:56 Ukraine did not produce enough grain for export to solve Germany's problems.[6]
Except in isolated cases, the Germans lacked the manpower to enforce a 'food blockade' of the Soviet cities; neither could they confiscate the food. The Germans were able to significantly supplement their grain stocks, particularly from the granaries in fertile Ukraine, and cut off the Soviets from them, leading to significant starvation in the Soviet-held territories (most drastically in the Siege of Leningrad, where about one million people died).[18] Germans also tried to starve Kiev and Kharkov in German-occupied Ukraine.[19] During the German occupation, about 80,000 residents of Kharkov died of starvation.[20] The lack of food also contributed to the starvation of slaves and concentration camp inmates in Germany.

Of course Stalin had no interest in helping either:
The Soviet government ignored offers of help from the International Red Cross as well as prisoner exchanges from the Axis forces.[20]

Your claims about the ability for Germany to magically conjure food out of thin air are just fantasy, there wasn't the ability to feed these PoWs in 1941-42 until they got the fields replanted in Ukraine in 1942. Even then farmers still just hid food rather than give it to the Germans.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Most weren't in 1941 given the Russian settlement of the region after the Holodomor.
Which still hated kolchoz system.Just gave people there land,and let them made crops.Ukraine feed entire Europe from 17th century - till Stalin made kolchoz system.Then hunger started.
But - he was beliver,so he must destroy any private property,even if that crippled his state.

And those newcomers do not even want their own state,land for them would be enough to be loyal to germans.When UPA would want their own state,and fight germans if they do not deliver.
Not mention,that they were worst then both gestapo and NKWD.Becouse even german and soviets do not tortured children to death,UPA did so.

So - germans should rely on those newcomers and cossacks,and forget about UPA.There were just problem for everybody.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
A very rough timeline sketch I've had in my head for a bit, that I've shared with @sillygoose because he inspired it:

1941 - No Kiev Diversion, Viazyma-Briansk encirclement in August. Moscow falls in September due to weak Soviet force regeneration, while the primacy of the defense of the capitol sucks up resources that results in the German capture of Leningrad. The USSR begins to collapse that winter, with AGC fending off Soviet counter-attacks upon Moscow in a 1941 version of Operation Mars. The Soviets begin pulling everything they can out of Siberia, resulting in intense IJA lobbying for a strike into the new exposed flank of the USSR.​
1942 - Without Leningrad, the Finns and Germans commit to their planned attack upon Murmansk, shutting down the railway and severely crippling the Lend Lease route capacity. The Red Army collapses due to a lack of manpower, material, morale and food, with the Germans achieving the A-A Line, removing the Persian and Northern Lend Lease routes entirely. The Anglo-Americans attempt Operation Sledgehammer out of desperation and it fails; pressure is brought upon Turkey, who are compelled into the Axis, opening a new front in the Middle East via Iraq and Syria, relieving pressure on Rommel. The Kwantung Army jumps on the Soviet Far East in the Spring, shutting down the Pacific route of Lend Lease.​
1943 - There is no formal surrender, but the Soviet state basically dissolves and by the Fall the Germans are able to advance as far as their logistics can carry them, against sporadic resistance to occupy the Ural Line. The Anglo-Americans are forced to conclude a peace deal, ending World War II in Europe, with a gradual allocation of resources to the Pacific.​
1944 - In the Pacific, the influx of Anglo-American assets is first felt and allows for major offensive actions throughout the year, with the addition of a "Northern" offensive to compliment the Central Pacific and Southwest Pacific ones. The Kuril Islands are taken by the Americans in a bloody campaign over the Summer, but Iwo Jima is taken relatively bloodlessly due to a limited garrison. Okinawa, is, however, still a blood bath.​
1945 - The Pacific War finally comes to a close with an immensely costly invasion of Japan and nuclear bombardment. The latter catches the Germans in particular off guard, resulting in a consolidation of their disparate program efforts as well as major funding to the project; operating off of American radio broadcasts concerning the bombs proves an immense resource, enabling the German atomic experts to correct their errors in calculations. With the defeat of the Empire of Japan, the Cold War between a Nazi-dominated Europe and the Anglo-American Allies begins in a traditional sense.​
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
Honestly I think Stolfi's scenario is the go-to for that. Though his book "Hitler's Panzers East" is a bit lite on the info and numbers his scenario is basically what Askey said would work.

Here is a map from his book:
ccf21042017-jpg.318434

Moving so much in just two weeks (Aug. 13-28) seems rather daunting, no?

By the way, there's a user on alternatehistory.com called ObessedNuker (or Obessed Nuker). I believe that he wrote a lot of posts about Operation Barbarossa and hypothetical alternative scenarios involving it. You might want to try checking out his posts about this topic if you can find them.

By the way, is the slower Axis advance in the south due to General Mikhail Kirponos putting the Soviet forces there in a more prepared position prior to Barbarossa? Or is there some other reason for this? I'm asking because the slow Axis advance in the south ensured that a lot of the Jews who were living there were able to successfully evacuate, thus ensuring that their lives would be spared and that they would not be murdered in the impending Holocaust.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Moving so much in just two weeks (Aug. 13-28) seems rather daunting, no?
He's assuming some armies move on Moscow while others complete the encirclement at Vyazma. He's also assuming there is nothing to stop the exploitation force, which would be accurate.

By the way, there's a user on alternatehistory.com called ObessedNuker (or Obessed Nuker). I believe that he wrote a lot of posts about Operation Barbarossa and hypothetical alternative scenarios involving it. You might want to try checking out his posts about this topic if you can find them.
Yep I'm familiar. Don't find his arguments particularly compelling.

By the way, is the slower Axis advance in the south due to General Mikhail Kirponos putting the Soviet forces there in a more prepared position prior to Barbarossa? Or is there some other reason for this? I'm asking because the slow Axis advance in the south ensured that a lot of the Jews who were living there were able to successfully evacuate, thus ensuring that their lives would be spared and that they would not be murdered in the impending Holocaust.
Weaker German forces, stronger Soviet ones. The Soviets weighted their defense to protect Ukraine, the Germans went after Belarus with their main strength.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
He's assuming some armies move on Moscow while others complete the encirclement at Vyazma. He's also assuming there is nothing to stop the exploitation force, which would be accurate.

What about moving the Soviet forces in Kiev to Moscow?

Yep I'm familiar. Don't find his arguments particularly compelling.


Weaker German forces, stronger Soviet ones. The Soviets weighted their defense to protect Ukraine, the Germans went after Belarus with their main strength.

Gotcha.

Was that because Ukraine was more important for the Soviets? But why did the Germans view it as being less important?

Also, why did Hitler prefer to focus on Kiev before going after Moscow?
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Aside from not being asshole occupiers, actually paying attention to logistics instead of outrunning supply lines and trying to muddle through would have done wonders for the Whermacht's chances.

Take the invasion of France for example. Hitler gets blamed for calling the halt before Calais. In actuality the lead Panzer units were pretty much out of gas and ammo. They couldn't take Calais.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Aside from not being asshole occupiers, actually paying attention to logistics instead of outrunning supply lines and trying to muddle through would have done wonders for the Whermacht's chances.

Take the invasion of France for example. Hitler gets blamed for calling the halt before Calais. In actuality the lead Panzer units were pretty much out of gas and ammo. They couldn't take Calais.

Georg Thomas was one of the German military men who appears to have known his logistics:


But he appears to have been ignored, fortunately.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It was not strictly ideological considerations, but rather the very real issue that feeding the German Army in Russia while not depriving the Fatherland itself could only come at the expense of something like the Hunger Plan. About the only real way to derail that, in my estimation, is to achieve a peace with the UK in 1940/early 1941 that enables Trans-Oceanic imports to resume.

HL, how much of the decision to engage in the Holocaust do you think was due to Nazi food shortages? As in, had there been no food shortages, would the Nazis have still engaged in the Holocaust?

And was the reason that Hungary (until 1944) and Romania (at least largely within its May 1941 borders) able to avoid engaging in the Holocaust the fact that their own food situation was much better than that of Nazi Germany?

Also, as a side note, I've got an additional question for you: Just how much additional territory could the Soviet Union realistically temporarily lose to the Nazis and yet still manage to push back, defeat, and completely destroy the Nazis with the help of the Western Allies by the end of the war?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top