Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

[BDV]

Once again I need to ask. How and why would the UK still be in the war if Germany had all of 1941 and the first half of 1942 to focus on them?

You are the one proposing a departure from historical timeline (Britain comes to terms), so I'd think that you have to argue why.

My POV is that as LW and KM position wrt RAF and RN deteriorated historically throughout 1940-1942, and for KM, without any influence of the Soviet Navy whatsoever, I see little incentive for Britain to acquiesce to the untrustworthy clowns in Berlin.

[maltesefalcon]

Once again I need to ask. How and why would the UK still be in the war if Germany had all of 1941 and the first half of 1942 to focus on them?

You are the one proposing a departure from historical timeline (Britain comes to terms), so I'd think that you have to argue why.

My POV is that as LW and KM position wrt RAF and RN deteriorated historically throughout 1940-1942, and for KM, without any influence of the Soviet Navy whatsoever, I see little incentive for Britain to acquiesce to the untrustworthy clowns in Berlin.

As I mentioned before it was an assumption on my part.
One of the major errors attributed to the Third Reich is attacking Russia before finishing off UK
I assumed that at least part of the reason for delaying Barbarossa by a year would be to correct that oversight.

If Germany was not able to bring the war vs UK to a conclusion by 12/41, with all their resources, then attacking Russia 6 months later while also at war vs USA would be pointless.

[amcl]

Once again I need to ask. How and why would the UK still be in the war if Germany had all of 1941 and the first half of 1942 to focus on them?

You are the one proposing a departure from historical timeline (Britain comes to terms), so I'd think that you have to argue why.

My POV is that as LW and KM position wrt RAF and RN deteriorated historically throughout 1940-1942, and for KM, without any influence of the Soviet Navy whatsoever, I see little incentive for Britain to acquiesce to the untrustworthy clowns in Berlin.

As I mentioned before it was an assumption on my part.
One of the major errors attributed to the Third Reich is attacking Russia before finishing off UK
I assumed that at least part of the reason for delaying Barbarossa by a year would be to correct that oversight.

If Germany was not able to bring the war vs UK to a conclusion by 12/41, with all their resources, then attacking Russia 6 months later while also at war vs USA would be pointless.

The title of the thread is "Operation Barbarossa Launched in 1942", so either it is mistitled or your assumption is incorrect. It's also incorrect to try and separate the war in the West and the war in the East. Barbarossa had multiple objectives, not the least of which was bringing the UK to terms before America intervened in the war. (See, for example, Tooze, Wages of Destruction, chapters 13 & 14)

Cheers,

Angus

[maltesefalcon]

The title of the thread is "Operation Barbarossa Launched in 1942", so either it is mistitled or your assumption is incorrect. It's also incorrect to try and separate the war in the West and the war in the East. Barbarossa had multiple objectives, not the least of which was bringing the UK to terms before America intervened in the war. (See, for example, Tooze, Wages of Destruction, chapters 13 & 14)

Cheers,

Angus


I have clipped this to avoid quoting myself over again. You are correct in the name of the title. But it is not entitled "Operation Barbarossa Launched in 1942 and It has No Effect Anywhere Else"

The reason for this forum is to speculate changes in history and invite comments/criticism of both the likelihood and and ramifications of those changes. I have offered what I think is a reasonable cause/effect scenario as to how this world war would be altered, by the delay of the European portion's largest campaign by 1 year.

In that light I was not as implied, separating the East and West fronts at all. My hypothesis is that the two are inextricably linked. To cite just one example, what becomes of all the equipment (and lost ships) on the Murmansk/Arhangelsk run between June 41 and May 42?

However, let's go with the option B. Germany attacks Russia May 1942. Somehow the Blitz in Britain is called off in May 1941 as per OTL. Bismarck is still sunk. Britain fights in North Africa well into 1942. Bombing raids over Germany continue. Hitler declares war on USA in December 1941 to allow his UBoats to have unrestricted warfare vs convoys. Greece/Balkan campaigns go as per OTL. Now Hitler just gathers massively more troops/equipment over the next year and no one notices or does anything about it.

British and Russian economies grow faster than Germany. By May 1942, then Germany attacks USSR, despite already being at war with Commonwealth and USA.

Then, my prediction would be for an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.

[ChrisDR68]

Well in my alternate timeline Hitler's strategy is to avoid antagonising the US at all costs and thus prevent them from entering the war on Britain's side.

That would mean very little in the way of a u-boat campaign in the Atlantic (possibly limited to within 150 miles of the western coast of Ireland) and a wholly defensive air war only fighting British aircraft when German held territory is overflown by them.

Britain on her own was no military threat to Nazi Germany. It's very hard to imagine the British plus the imperial armies making a successful landing in France followed by an advance to the German border without the Americans.

With a far smaller u-boat campaign, no blitz and no declaration of war on the US by Hitler would America still have entered the war on the side of the Allies?

On the flip side the Germans didn't have the means to bring the British to terms. Their navy was too weak and their airforce wasn't equipped or trained for anti-shipping warfare. Trying to starve the British into submission using the u-boats didn't work in WW1 so why should it have worked 23 years later?

[maltesefalcon]

Well in my alternate timeline Hitler's strategy is to avoid antagonising the US at all costs and thus prevent them from entering the war on Britain's side.

That would mean very little in the way of a u-boat campaign in the Atlantic (possibly limited to within 150 miles of the western coast of Ireland) and a wholly defensive air war only fighting British aircraft when German held territory is overflown by them.

Britain on her own was no military threat to Nazi Germany. It's very hard to imagine the British plus the imperial armies making a successful landing in France followed by an advance to the German border without the Americans.

With a far smaller u-boat campaign, no blitz and no declaration of war on the US by Hitler would America still have entered the war on the side of the Allies?

On the flip side the Germans didn't have the means to bring the British to terms. Their navy was too weak and their airforce wasn't equipped or trained for anti-shipping warfare. Trying to starve the British into submission using the u-boats didn't work in WW1 so why should it have worked 23 years later?

Starving the UK didn't work nor did the 1940 campaign. But in the OTL Hitler resorted to half measures to bring the Brits to heel after it became apparent they would fight back and fight hard. However it would be hard to improve relations with the US to the point that the Americans would stay out of the European conflict. The US Navy was in an undeclared war already since mid 1941 with Germany. In fact UBoats sank one US Navy vessel and damaged another weeks before Pearl Harbor.

Because Hitler was obsessed by Russia he diverted much of his attention away from UK beginning in late 1940. A year's delay would be ample time to settle things one way or another. They would suffer casualties and losses, but compare how much they lost in Barbarossa vs Battle of Britain. If Germany prevailed, then the US would have little to salvage in Europe. In that case, chances were good that the US would not start overt military actions there.

If Germany did not at least get a negotiated peace after another full year of trying, what would be the point of adding Russia to their to do list?

Then again Germany could do nothing with the troops and equipment that would have gone to Russia in 1941. Then they would have simply wasted a year.

[ChrisDR68]

Starving the UK didn't work nor did the 1940 campaign. But in the OTL Hitler resorted to half measures to bring the Brits to heel after it became apparent they would fight back and fight hard. However it would be hard to improve relations with the US to the point that the Americans would stay out of the European conflict. The US Navy was in an undeclared war already since mid 1941 with Germany. In fact UBoats sank one US Navy vessel and damaged another weeks before Pearl Harbor

In my alternative timeline the US Navy wouldn't have needed to be in an undeclared war with Germany in mid 1941 because there wouldn't be a large scale u-boat war going on in the first place. Hitler's priority should have been to do everything possible to keep the Americans out of the European conflict.

Because Hitler was obsessed by Russia he diverted much of his attention away from UK beginning in late 1940. A year's delay would be ample time to settle things one way or another. They would suffer casualties and losses, but compare how much they lost in Barbarossa vs Battle of Britain. If Germany prevailed, then the US would have little to salvage in Europe. In that case, chances were good that the US would not start overt military actions there

I don't see how Germany could have settled things with Britain in the 1940-41 period. They simply didn't have the naval power they needed to effect a successful crossing of the English channel and to keep the troops thus landed supplied. It would also have taken many months to train and equip the Luftwaffe for a combined operation such as Sealion.

If Germany did not at least get a negotiated peace after another full year of trying, what would be the point of adding Russia to their to do list?

Hitler was obsessed with acquiring an east European empire for Germany. He mentions it in Mein Kampf from 1925 and never wavered from wanting to realise this ambition. As I've already stated Britain was largely impotent in the west without American help so Hitler could have simply left a certain proportion of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in the west to keep them at bay.

Then again Germany could do nothing with the troops and equipment that would have gone to Russia in 1941. Then they would have simply wasted a year.

There would still be the Balkan campaign and the campaign in North Africa for elements of the Wehrmacht to fight in. Germany needed this extra year to stockpile the logistics required for Barbarossa. They would also have had a far larger number of the vital panzers and aircraft that blitzkrieg relied on to be successful by then.

[maltesefalcon]

To the post above.
I'm not sure why you are referring to the time period 1940-41. I'm assuming you are referring to the original B of B and the Blitz.
I'm suggesting that since the original post mentioned a 1 year delay to Barbarossa, the Germans could either sit on their hands or do something more about the UK, beginning in the summer of 1941.

There was no mention of other time line changes prior to June 1941 so I've assumed that the OTL would be followed up to that point.
So the US is already informally allied to Britain and by May 1941 the Balkan campaigns are already done, except for the Yugoslav civil war.

So once and for all, if the Germans do in fact wait until 1942, then what will they do different between May 41 and May 42?

I can't see it happening at all btw but the original post left little in the way of why or how this delay improves the German situation.
Personally I think they'd be even worse off.

[ChrisDR68]

Yes I admit no other timeline changes were mentioned in my original post when I started this thread. That was partly to prevent it from being too long (as it was pretty long to start with )

My thoughts about what strategic choices Hitler could have made to enable him to end major hostilities against Britain and Russia whilst also keeping control of most of continental Europe are detailed in post 129 of the Could Germany Have Won thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=120

No guarantees that these strategic changes would have enabled a long term Nazi hegemony over the European continent but considering the OTL ended with an unconditional German surrender the results couldn't have been any worse for them had they been tried.

[maltesefalcon]

I've always thought Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa a year too early in order to give the German armed forces it's best chance of conquering European Russia.

I've read somewhere that a German planner considered the original plan the biggest improvisation in the history of warfare as the logistics that backed up the whole invasion in June 1941 was severely inadequate (to say the least).

There would be several advantages but also some substantial disadvantages to a delay of the operation for a year. Some of the advantages might include:

1. If Germany could produce 500 panzers and military aircraft a month from mid 1941 to mid 1942 that would add around 6000 panzers (mainly Panzer III's and IV's) to the panzerwaffe and 6000 aircraft to the Luftwaffe's arsenal.

2. The Germans also needed to produce large numbers of standardised trucks to help motorise the army to a much greater degree. If there were too many bottlenecks in the German motor industry to produce the numbers required they could have shifted some production to the French, Dutch and Belguim motor industry's factories.

3. A year of relative low level warfare (a continuation of the air war against the UK, the u-boat war in the Atlantic and the small scale war in North Africa) could have seen a large increase in the fuel reserves that Germany possessed in preparation for the eastern campaign.

4. Stockpiling of supplies needed for a full scale invasion lasting six months and an increase in the numbers of transportation personnel who would be used to alter the rail lines to the European guage and build and repair the road network the invasion force needed to use once the invasion was under way.

5. With the extra armour and air power at their disposal the Germans could have divided up their forces into four army groups instead of three. This would have made the army groups better able to lend assistance to one another as the gaps between them would have been smaller.

Some of the disadvantages:

1. The Red Army would have had enough time to complete it's internal reorganisation that had been started but was incomplete by June 1941.

2. Thousands more Soviet tanks (especially the new T-34) and modern aircraft would have been produced during the year in question.

3. The possibility of the Soviets building substantial frontier defences along the border between Germany and the USSR.

Overall the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in my view. Invading Soviet Russia with a properly equipped and supplied invading force in May 1942 instead of the partially equipped and poorly supplied one in June 1941 gave Germany a better chance of defeating Russia and reaching the A-A line before the cold weather brought offensive operations to a close.

Shall we return to the very first post for a refresher?
How do you reconcile your (first) point 3 with keeping the US out of the war? The actual scale of the U boat war was not as important as the threat of escalation. However not interdicting the supply line would let the UK off the hook. If as mentioned you plan to keep fighting in the Atlantic, the air over England and for Africa anyway, why not just do what I have been suggesting all along. Raise the ante a bit and finish them off.

Also reading your post 129 and several posts above you seem to be arguing a contuation of the air war vs UK while insisting the B of B was a waste of time.

This whole thread seems to be going in circles.

[BDV]

If as mentioned you plan to keep fighting in the Atlantic, the air over England and for Africa anyway, why not just do what I have been suggesting all along. Raise the ante a bit and finish them off.

With what? ASBs?

[maltesefalcon]

If as mentioned you plan to keep fighting in the Atlantic, the air over England and for Africa anyway, why not just do what I have been suggesting all along. Raise the ante a bit and finish them off.

With what? ASBs?

ASB? I'm not familiar with that term sorry.
If I can elaborate, I'm aware that the UBoat and surface fleet would be more or less a come as you are party from the German point of view.

However a few extra panzer divisions and motorized divisions could be peeled away from those originally earmarked for Barbarossa. This addition could tip the scales in favour of the Axis in North Africa. A years delay would leave them with little else to do.

Also if the fuel was not needed for the eastern campaign, perhaps some could be spared to allow Italy to fuel up her well equipped navy? This would come in handy in the Med at least. Perhaps Malta could be conquered.

Finally the mass of aircraft built up for Barbarossa could be repositioned to Northern France and Africa.

I'm not saying any or all of these conditions could force the British out of the war before Dec 1941. But it's a better plan than doing nothing at all for a year.

One of the biggest mistakes the Third Reich made over and over was failure to finish what they started.

France was conquered but only partially occupied. French North Africa was left to be the birthplace of a new French fighting spirit.
Malta was attacked but not conquered.
Africa was treated as aside show with never enough to finish the job.
Britain was attacked but once the initial campaign was rebuffed, the Germans chose to fight elsewhere.

My scenario would offer a chance to finish some of this and allow the Germans to focus their attention on Russia in May 1942.

[ChrisDR68]

One of the biggest mistakes the Third Reich made over and over was failure to finish what they started.

France was conquered but only partially occupied. French North Africa was left to be the birthplace of a new French fighting spirit.
Malta was attacked but not conquered.
Africa was treated as aside show with never enough to finish the job.
Britain was attacked but once the initial campaign was rebuffed, the Germans chose to fight elsewhere.

My scenario would offer a chance to finish some of this and allow the Germans to focus their attention on Russia in May 1942.

Can you explain how the Germans could have successfully invaded and conquered Britain from an operational point of view?

Personally I don't think they had anything like the military means to do so.

[ljadw]

However a few extra panzer divisions and motorized divisions could be peeled away from those originally earmarked for Barbarossa. This addition could tip the scales in favour of the Axis in North Africa. A years delay would leave them with little else to do.

Maybe you have forgotten that in the OTL,the Germans had 3 mobile divisions in NA,and that this was not tipping the scales in favour of the Axis .Maybe I am wrong,but was it not so that the whole thing ended with Tunisgrad,and that the only Germans on the Nile were POW.

[LWD]

There's also the fact that they were having a hard time keeping those divisions in North Africa supplied now he wants to add more ...
At the same time pulling trucks out of Barbarossa.

If http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/941GFAD.pdf is accurate the Germans only had 10 motorized infantry divisions at the time. "Peeling" them away might have helped by making it obvious much sooner that Barbarossa had failed. A quick survey only shows 20 some panzer divisoins at the time as well. I may have missed some but looks like all sorts of problems with maltesefalcon's statement.