8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923
- Thread starter KaiserKatze
- Start date
He only signed the MRP after he sought an alliance with France and Britain to contain Hitler and they denied him, which made him go to Hitler who accepted the non aggression pact. Not saying it was right but Stalin never acted without caution, especially anything that could put a target in the USSR, so once he had assurance from at least one of the great powers, it was his chance to actually act without fear of a invasion.
This doesn't exist ITTL unless France and Italy are about to do a bargain with the devil about this, so Stalin will at best be reactive in case of agression but only enough to make him look like it was in self defense
And yet for all that industrialization, the Soviets got steamrolled. They only managed to turn it around in '42-43, with large amounts of WAllied help.
No, because it's not in Stalin's nature in '23-onward to focus on foreign threats over domestic. That would be like Hitler being communist or pro-Semitic or anti-vegetarian: you need a POD far before the existing one.
Garrison
Donor
Yeah the whole point of the M-R pact for Stalin was to gain territory to act as buffer for the USSR and hopefully turn the Wehrmacht west, to fight a nice long war of attrition with the British and French. Unfortunately for Stalin the last part of that strategy failed spectacularly, but that was on Gamelin, not Stalin.
Garrison
Donor
They got steamrollered because Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would launch a war in the east while he was still facing off with the British Empire in the west, aided by American arms and equipment. Take away the war in the west and the M-R Pact and Stalin will draw the reasonable conclusion when the German army appears on his borders. Also a Germany run by a sane government is going to have a much smaller army since it won't tank the economy in the name of rearmament.
This, people don't realize but Germany was very much losing against the Brits but in a slow manner: they couldn't defeat the Brits in Africa and cut them off from oil(and gather it for themselves), the air force had been defeated by the RAF and the naval front was the only one doing well but only in around the North Sea and British waters as everywhere else the Brits were dominant. It was nearly the same exact position of Germany in WWI where the British blockade was arguably one of the main factors in defeating them as they couldn't export their products nor import critical material such as food or luxury items like chocolate and wine that were huge things for morale. Stalin was wrong in not thinking the Germans wouldn't invade but his thought process was correct: That Germany wouldn't be able to fight against him while the Brits were already slowly grinding them down and he was proven right even if at a cost of many lives.
Here, he will be even more cautious and have both the army and NKVD running around and preparing themselves, the former to reinforce key parts of the USSR and the latter to gather as much inteligence and information that they can.
Also because their doctrine, equipment and leadership were all 10+ years out of date - assuming L-V's Wehrmacht still has the same quality as OTL's, that gives them a slight edge even with a prepared Union. They also won't be busy in North Africa, nor delayed by Yugoslavia.
Didn’t mean Germany would do it for the purpose of liberation, just that the propaganda in that direction instead of the Nazi one would make a difference on the average soldier’s attitude towards occupying population.
Garrison
Donor
Which OTL one? The one that had serious organizational and qualitative problems in Poland that weren't completely fixed before Case Yellow? The one that had to fill out the ranks of the Panzer Divisions with Czech tanks? Also the idea that North Africa or Yugoslavia had an impact on the timing or outcome of Barbarossa is mythology. The Germans couldn't have provided the logistics for a larger army force and the ground conditions in Russia weren't right much before OTL Barbarossa. Basically the OTL invasion of the USSR was given a massive head start courtesy of Stalin's refusal to accept an invasion was coming and it was still doomed because they had grossly underestimated the size of the Red Army and its ability to stand up new divisions.
Garrison
Donor
Which alas will only last until the winter hits and they freezing cold and hungry. Napoleon's army was not kind to the local population even without the imperatives of Nazi ideology and you can look to Belgium in WWI for what happens when the plans start going wrong and an army gets frustrated.
The one that made it all the way to Moscow and Leningrad before running out of steam - compared to Russia with dated doctrine, dated tanks, dated airpower, insufficient arty, incompetent leadership, meddling political officers and a "Not One Step Back" doctrine, even "mediocre" is enough. Overall point being that they're not fighting a three-front war this time (nor will they have been whittled down by Poland, Norway and France).
Yeah, Germany's on the ropes logistically, but between relocating the still-limited industry and not having Lend-Lease from the West, so's Russia.
Last edited:
As I said, this does not mean there won’t be war crimes, but I think we can agree there’s a fairly large stretch between Belgium or Napoleon and the Eastern Front.
That's just the thing, they don't need to be Nazis level of brutality in order to gain the hatred of the local population, it won't be as severe but it will be enough that a resistance will prop up.
Because they had attacked just when the Soviets where reorganizing their armies and modernizing meaning they were caught with their pants down during the worst possible time and as the war wore down it became apparent that the Soviets were eclipsing the Germans in the majority of those and with a Soviet Union that is expecting an attack, the Germans will be lucky if they can steadily push the Soviets back into their strongholds, especially once Soviet industry pick ups steam and starts to counter attack.
Also the "Not one step back" directive is so exagerreted to the point of being pop history because while the Soviets did have it, it was only during the worst times of the war and was to prevent desertions and soldiers from abandoning posts during attacks or defenses, plus the majority of soldiers caught under it weren't killed as much as disciplined and sent away towards other units, only a few were actually killed and the Soviets dropped it after Stalingrad because they had managed to control the situation. So you using that is not the gotcha you think it is.
And this when he had caught the Soviets in the middle of reorganizing their army and doctrines, had an experienced army and air force and support with both troops and supplies from countries like Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland and Bulgaria. This is not to say the Soviets will have it easy here because they won't but they won't have it hard either, especially if they're only seeking to defend the USSR instead of driving all the way to Berlin.
Also because the post-Winter War leadership, doctrine, equipment was still ass and their air force was almost nonexistent - throwing warm bodies and T-28s at the problem only gets you so far.
It also prevented tactical and strategic withdrawals, leading to several key defeats (most notably the largest encirclement in history at Kyiv in '41). Stalin in '39-41 was basically Hitler in '44-45; again, he needs to get his teeth kicked in a couple times before he stops micromanaging/shooting his army and lets them do their jobs.
Can't believe I'm hearing a "Soviets only can do Asiatic Hordes strategy" in the year of 2024 of Our Lord. Even if they won't be using Deep Battle, to say the Soviets are just gonna throw "warm bodies" shows a lack of understanding of their tactics, because even as outdated as they might be, they had already learned from WW1 that is not a viable strategy.
Very much disagree with this, Stalin was nowehere near the micro manager that Hitler was because Stalin knew from experience he sucked ass when it came to military matters and usually left them to do the actual planning, the few times he interefered in the armies were during the purges(which was bad) and putting certain commanders in charge like Timonsheko during the Winter War and Zhukov in WW2(which was very good) and it shows that Stalin could admit he made mistakes and take steps into correcting them, especially in a time of need. So to portray and compare him to Hitler shows a lack of understanding on how he actually acted.
Just gonna step in here a little bit and say that, while the discussion is interesting, it has derailed a little bit into debates abour IRL Nazi Germany and the USSR and their associated strategies. The circumstances of real history relative to this story and a THEORETICAL invasion of the Soviet Union are quite different, not in the least because, if such a war WERE to happen, it would not happen on the same timeline or with the same buildup as real-life so would require unrecognisable strategy and a very different approach to what Hitler or Kaiser Wilhelm II would have planned for. If it happened in 1950, for example, you would have a wildly different set of circumstances both at that point and leading up to it which would make it impossible to anticipate right now
This. In the end, Germany and Europe at large aren't undertaking a nation building project in Russia akin to what the US attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're just seeking security. Splitting off minorities from the Russian core delivers that, especially when you're cutting off the Donbass and Caucasus from Russia with that. With a bit of luck, you'll see a Kamlyk state because of it
Which, honestly, is kinda a fair assumption. Tanks are inherently offensive weapons. Mobility is a part of their arsenal. Defence is always more of a static job, so for anti-tank combat you have specific anti-tank guns in that
Yeah, but Germany isn't going to be under blockade in this scenario either. They have access to the resources of the outside world and aren't on that "we have to invade in the summer of 1941 otherwise we will simply have no oil left" timetable. Not only that, but the nature of Germany's dealings with other countries means that Molotov-Ribbentrop isn't happening and that a deal with Poland is quite likely, meaning that the German army is already starting at the doorstep of Minsk.
The difference is also that America is very much a place defined by a system of government. The US wouldn't be the US without its constitution. Europe, throughout its history, has proven that is willing to be much more flexible in how it organizes government. For the US, representative government is holy, for Europe it isn't.
The German (European)-Soviet War that is coming up is going to be a very, very different beast than the Eastern Front of WW2. It's not a genocidal force moving east, and already it has been established it is willing to set up contacts with seperatists movements. They've already done that with the Ukrainians! But the Soviet offensive ability was also very dependent on lend lease. Logistics don't run themselves, and all those American made trucks make you very independent from the railroad system. Not only that, but the USSR recieved massive amounts of food aid. If the Soviet offensive ability is going to be reduced, and Germany's economy and army are going to be more durable instead of geared for the do or die offensives it was forced to preform IRL, not to forget the less existential threat Germany is to the people's of the Soviet Union, the USSR's victory is nowhere near certain. The best thing that may happen for them is conflict during the war between Germany and the lesser nationalities on the one side and Poland on the other. That's the big spanner in the works for that side of the conflict IMO
No doubt that the war is going to be brutal either way. But there is a difference between a Nazi Germany that has been established for 8 years, a NSDAP that has been politically relevant for longer and a Wehrmacht running high on its own supply IRL and a much more reserved and "considerate" (don't know how to exactly put this) regime in Berlin that keeps public opinion in especially Britain in mind.
The Hunger Plan was specifically a part of the Nazi plans for the East. A Germany not set on creating its living space in the East like the Nazi's set out to isn't going to implement it. That doesn't mean I deny that the Wehrmacht didn't do its dirty deeds as a part of that IRL. But the Wehrmacht was just as much brought into line either willingly or unwillingly with the party line by that point.
A war with the USSR will see Germany still set out to create it's "living space", but its imperializing in Eastern Europe will be moreso in establishing a dependent market than killing the lot and settling German farmers there.
Honestly, this Germany is going to have a better quality army IMO because its not expanding beyond its means to meet a war deadline because of autarkic economic policy. Germany's military growth is going to be in a more sustainable manner. Ofcourse it will be smaller because of this. It may still have organisational problems, I can't really comment on that part, but it won't need to plunder the Skoda works to fill out the ranks
Deep Battle was a thing… in ‘42 onwards. Even if the Soviets had adopted the doctrine during Barbarossa, they sure didn’t demonstrate that they learned anything from it during that time - it’s one failure after another until Zhukov steps in.
I’ll say it again: Stalin stepped back after the hands-on approach didn’t work. He was more pragmatic, yes. That’s not the same as “farsighted enough to stall the Wehrmacht before they even get to Kyiv.”