German vs. Russia - No England.

An attack on Yugoslavia would have the added benefit of rebelious Croatian units in the Yugoslav army.
A less impressive army itself than that of Greece and a good chance of Bulgarian and Hungarian intervention.

Italy had little to again anyway but it did so.
Mussolini wouldnt be out showed by missing out on the destruction of Communism.

He was very much a dedicated anti-communist.
The only reason he didnt enter the war against the USSR anyway was because of his concerns with losing territory to the British and a potential British invasion.

Turkey could well be left with two choices the USSR or the Axis.
Any request from Italy to allow passage to the Black Sea for her Navy would have to be allowed.
A war with Turkey would likely bring Greece in if still neutral on the Axis side.

Once the war isnt won by the end of 1941 they will plan for a long war as in OTL.
However they will still dominate the skys in 1941 with what they have available.

We have been through this before they coped very well.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol6no4/pdf/v06i4a07p.pdf

Had the Balkans not occured Hitler was due to stick with the May 15th deadline but even as I said with climate calculations it was deemed dry enough by June 1st.
Where else would the invasion force be sat?
In OTL it sat on the border even longer waiting for the word go.

The Soviets still would have no airforce of any worth left, Germany artillery would still have destroyed what it did and Army Group South and Centre would still be dealing with dry roads with The Centre and Group North having to cross more swollen rivers, the Soviets front line supplies and supplie lines had been wiped out.
Lets remember here that Army Group Centre alone advanced 200 miles in 5 days.
There is a chance that the initial attack could be stopped even if every road was soaked.

Lets see an extra 64 divisions (occupation force of Western Europe last I checked), extra Italian divisions, Italian navy and supplies through the Black Sea, maybe Turkey or Greece in the war on the Axis side, German Navy off Northern Russia, No lend lease from Britain or the USA, Axis access to more oil, far greater chance of German intervention in the North rather than the South, Franco contributing extra divisions of infantry, vastly more aircraft for all sides and 88's, 4-6 weeks extra good campaigning season etc.
I would be amazed if Moscow was not surrounded and captured, Leningrad surrounded and placed under siege, Rostov taken and held.
By 1942 the Caucasus would be swallowed up and in 1943 I would expect every up to the Volga to be taken.
1944 could well be the year that the USSR comes to terms with a push across the Volga and risings in Central Asia.
If they fight on I would expect total Soviet defeat by 1946-47.

 

I see little to support your opinion. Initially Italy was not interested in German support. It was only after the British handed them some severe reverses that they sought German help. At that point they were beholden to the Germans and had little else they could do but become an obediant ally. In this scenario those revereses don't occur. Italy has other avenues in both the Balkans and perhaps Africa to persue.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. If you can't support it it's only your opinion which based on your postings to date doesn't carry much weight.

Quite simply this is BS. Such concerns were a part of his reasoning I'm sure but there were clearly others. Simply put Spain had little to gain by joining the axis and was not in a very strong position financially or pollitcally to do so.

Certainly that's possible but it's also possible trying to force Turkey one way could result in her going the other. Neither side was really in a good postion to take military action against Asiatic Turkey.

Not really. It could be ignored or opposed.

Gaining Greece as an ally while haveing Turkey as an active opponent doesn't sound like a particularlly good trade to me. I'm also not at all sure how quich the Greeks would be to jump into all this.

Indeed we have but they didn't. The logisitcs problems that the Germans had in Russia are well documented.

What climate calculations? How would the Germans know? Don't you think if that much of the German army sits on the border for a few weeks the Soviets are going to notice and start reacting?

Why are you assuming the roads will be dry? If the Germans move slower the Soviets have more time to react. That means stronger defences and probably more escaping the encirclements. IE your assumptions are not well supported.

 

With this post im getting the impression you actually know very little at all about Operation Barbraossa.
Where did you think these divisions were sat for weeks on end?
In France or the Moon?
Germany had at the time the best meteorologist and climatoligists in the world working on the timing of the invasion.
If you dont know these basic facts is there any point in the discusion going any further with you.
Here are some books on the subject for you to read Amazon.com: Russia 1941: Books on Operation Barbarossa

 

Should have read - There is no chance that the initial attack could be stopped even if every road was soaked

 

Again your knowledge of these subjects is greatly lacking.
Read about the Tripartie pact and the Pact of Steel for a start.

 

Some were refitting from the Balkans were they not? Just when did the others move to the border? In any case the longer they are there the more likely flags are to go up.

That's nice even if it's not particularly true. However how are they going to tell what soil conditions are like 100 or 200 miles into the USSR?

 

Indeed but then I'm not suggesting they would be. Only slowed somewhat.

 

1) Niether the Germans or the Italians showed a great deal of respect of international agreements at this point in time.
2) The Italians were clearly not accepting German orders in 1940. From what I've read for instance Hitler was rather surprised when the Italians attacked France.
3) Your the proponet it's up to you to make a reasonable case irregardless of the level of knowledge of the person reading the post. So far you haven't.

It's also worth quoteing article 5 from the Tripartie pact. That is:

From: http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/182334/8330/a0.htm

 

The one that required Italy to immediately support Germany when she found herself at war with Britain and France? Read it indeed:

ARTICLE III.
If it should happen, against the wishes and hopes of the Contracting Parties, that one of them becomes involved in military complications with another tower or other Powers, the other Contracting Party will immediately step to its side as an ally and will support it with all its military might on land, at sea, and in the air.

 

This is an often repeated theory. If he Germans would have behaved like good invaders, they could have brought the Slavic population to rally behind them.
I think the reality is somewhat more complex. The brutal and exploitative behavior of the Germans in the East was as much ideological founded as it was practical. Germany was low on every resource due to the blockade and the enormous strain of the war. The Nazis were in a constant struggle to meet the demands of the Fatherland. This went right down to the most basic resource food.
The solution to alleviate the situation was simple and dreadful: the Hungerplan.
Read here for a good translation:
The Nazi Hunger Plan for Occupied Soviet Territories - Reference & Links - Forschungsamt - RODOH Forum - Message Board Yuku
This plan envisioned far more deaths than the entire Holocaust but met comparatively less resistance than the deliberate mass-murders of Jews and others. Why? Because it was deemed necessary to prevent a situation like WWI and the immediate aftermath (starvation, revolution, turmoil and last but not least military defeat). A situation were cold-hearted practicality and ideological fanaticism actually confirm each other.

 

I know, but it was that (get to USSR as heroes) or have to destroy the red army, again the only way I see Germany to win in EVERY scenario (even in the scenario where Britain ally Germany) is to convince the troops and people to surrender so Germany doesnt have to take the hard war which is destroying the Red Army, Germany must find another way in order to win because they have no way of destroying the Red Army, they couldnt do that not even if we give them information age infantry weapons and ****ing Superman in their lines. Is either attain a victory without the need of destroying the entire Red Army or be defeated and the only way I see Germany victory without the need of destroying the Red Army is enter as saviours and dont get caught by winter.

 

In essence, Germany might be able to defeat Russia; Hitler and the Nazis could not. It highlights how truly crazy they really were. The usual process of empire was to take over a working economy and keep it working, for your own benefit. People like the Romans or the British replaced the ruling elite, put themselves at the top of the pyramid so to speak, but their success derived from the prosperity of the conquered territories. Indeed they provided tangible improvements for the locals even as they took the lion's share for themselves. German Muscovy would have had a better chance if it resembled British India more than a slaughterhouse.

 

I don't think that the British and the Roman Empire are valid examples. Both had time to slowly develop the economy of conquered territories to meet their specific demands. A process that could well run into decades. But time was of course one of the many things the Germans didn't have.

Also the only previous experience of incorporating conquered industrialized economies into an already ongoing (total) war has been made by Germany during World War I. How could we possibly judge how much more "efficient" they could have been.

 

During Bush's (JR) presidency more than 70% of the population disliked him. Had Ahmadinejad decided to invade the U.S. on the premise of liberating the U.S. from Bush and having the Americans who disliked Bush backing him up, would be asinine. To suggest that it would have been any different in Russia when Hitler came is just as foolish.

Had Hitler entered Russia with flowers in his hand he might have gained more support from the surrounding nations but not from Russia herself. No foreign army ever enters a country unannounced and uninvited and is greeted with open arms. This is the case today as well.


Not to mention, what would have happened to the Russian people after Hitler entered Russia and deposed Stalin? Are we to believe that the atrocities would not have occurred? Would the Russian people not have been forced to leave or be enslaved? To suggest otherwise is to simply change Hitler's ideology as a whole and if we were to do that , well then there would not have been a WWII to begin with.

 

This is pushing it just a bit too far and being very selective in your phrasing as well. For one thing there is huge difference between the depth of feeling involved. Then there's the difference between replacing a dictator and an elected presedent. And theirs a little matter of it not just being Russia that the Germans invaded. For instance weren't there several divisions raised in the Ukraine by the Germans to fight the Soviets?

 

The Nazis didn’t make good use of the Ukrainians or Belarusian’s.
The welcome they got on arrival could have led to the mass formation of infantry divisions of volunteers yet they chose to use the Ukraine as serfdom to feed the Reich and regarded recruitment as pointless since they intended to dispose of the Ukrainians anyway.
They did however make good use of the Caucasians and Turkic population.

 

Eastern Legion troop strengths.

The East Battalions were battalion size formations that wore German uniforms and equipment that were integrated into larger German units. They began as the private initiatives of individual military commanders, but eventually became formalized, and by late 1943 contained 427,000 volunteers and conscripts, a force equivalent to 30 German divisions

• Armenian Legion - 11 Armenian Battalions
• Azerbaijani Legion - 14 Azeri Battalions
• Belarusian Legion
• Caucasian Muslim Legion - 5 North Caucasian Battalions, consisted of Azerbaijanis, Chechens, etc
• Estonian Legion
• Georgian Legion - 14 Georgian Battalions
• Latvian Legion
• Lithuanian Legion
• Russian Legion
• Turkestan Legion - 34 Turkestani Battalions, comprised Turkomans, Uzbeks, Kazakhs etc.
• Ukrainian Legion
• Volga-Tatar Legion - 8 Volga-Tatar Battalions

 

Changing Hitler's idealogy is basically what we're talking about. I agree it's a bit incongruous, a sane, rational regime embarking on a war of conquest; but this was an era when it was still taken for granted that European nations had a literally God-given right to rule vast empires of "inferior" people. Nor was the idea that going to war now and then was a natural function of nations as outdated as it would seem a few years later.

A smoothly functioning empire would take time to develop, but the bottom line is, from the moment the Germans moved into an area, they were running some form of occupation regime; and there's no reason why it had to be as harsh as it was. It's easy to overlook that much of the economy did continue to function even as things were. The Ostheer subsisted on local resources, although they never got to the point of shipping significant amounts of food back to Germany. Millions of people went on living and farming; many of them initially welcomed the Germans or at least didn't find them any more objectionable than the Bolsheviks. Useful as Ostbattalions or Hiwis were, the main thing the Germans needed from their subjects was simply to carry on normal life and refrain from becoming partisans; just that would have been a major boost to their prospects. In areas like the Baltic states the Germans could present themselves as liberators. I'm reminded of the arrangements they sought to impose in the WWI treaty of Brest-Litovsk, remarkably similar to what we have today, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

It's not hard to provide good government when your competitor is Stalin!

 

I was simply making a point regarding a decision of one country on invading another country (any country) solely on the premise of toppling a leader with the help of the local population who does not like their leader. This has always been the case in history even in the most recent of times. The difference in leadership of the country being toppled is irrelevant (at least in the point I was making).

Yes, this was the case but my point was solely on Russia. Lets also not forget that there were more people in countries like Ukraine and Belarus that fought against the uninvited guest then for them.

 

Actually the numbers were closer to a million.

This can be the view with 20/20 hindsight but place yourself in the shoes of a Russian peasant prior and post revolution...

As brutal as Stalin was, life for the average Russian improved not to mention a peasant country turned into a world power almost overnight. Ofcourse Stalin killed millions of his own people but how many Russians living in Stalin's regime were aware of Stalin's brutality? Those that knew, surely were not going to speak of it..

For many Russian peasants living in remote parts of Russia, Stalin was almost of a god figure.