losna wrote: ↑
20 May 2017 16:31
What they did in OTL. There aren't many ways to defeat the SU, and initially grabbing as much as territory as possible and then denying to the Soviets important resources such as the Donbass and the Caucasus will work.
Germany had just enough men to bleed white the Soviets, and an attack in 1940 without other open fronts would catch the Soviets with the pants down even more than in 1941, so they'll be able if (and only) head to head to slowly crush them.
A certain Bill Clinton might have said: "Define defeat!"
Defeating the Russian Empire had meant in the recent past, as of 1918: bleed it white, grab a large piece of land which included a lot of productive agrarian land, mineral resources, Baltic and Black Sea ports, population and a big chunk of industry... and it ended just as nasty in 1918 as it did in 1944.
Assuming Operation Barbarossa succeeded, this only meant the Reich owned European Russia and it could exploit the acquired lands in the most atrocious manner. Which they partly did in Real Life.
This didn't magically remove the USA and UK from the war. As Stuart Slade pointed out, if Truman could have a sizable number of atomic bombs in 4-5 years, he could use them to incinerate the German cities, and this is the end of the Reich, full stop. The most exquisite AA defense in the world may blow up 10 bombers, 100 or 1000, but in the end a few get through. (There were little chances they will take such decision. General Leslie R. Groves pointed out in April 1945: "The target is and was always expected to be
Japan". But sometimes even generals get a bit desperate and may do the unexpectable.)
So, even if the Reich acquired a large and resource-rich swath of land, there was going to be a remnant of the Red Army beyond the Urals, a lifeline coming from the US ports and an attack base in the British Isles.
What they needed to defeat the SU in the long run was a magical form of diplomacy to convince both USA and UK governments to accept peace.