If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
xristar
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 22:39
Location: Belgium

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by xristar » 27 Jun 2021 12:13

Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2021 10:06
6th GJD, standing near the Yugoslav-Bulgarian border, crossed the mountains without much of a fight. The 5th GJD, although with some losses, took a foothold on the Istibel in 6 hours and made the Greek defenders surrender by April 7. 0930. The 72nd ID also crossed the mountains and successfully formed the eastern pincer.
The frontal attack of the IR 125 went the worst initially, but it didn't really matter because they broke through on April 9. Only a few strongpoints fought on. The 2nd PzD (the only unit of the XVIII. Mountain Corps that made a detour in Yugoslavia) reached Thessaloniki on the same day, but by that time, the whole Metaxas Line was shattered.
The 6th and 5th succeeded but the 125th and 72nd failed. The 6th indeed didn't face any fortifications and crossed fully Mt Belles on the first day. The 5th had a harder fight but eventually eliminated all Greek fortifications in itsa sector. The 125th was not making progress with one battalion trapped behind Greek lines )though the Greek counter attack failed to elimiate it) and 72nd was reverting to the defensive by the 9th.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by ljadw » 28 Jun 2021 14:47

EKB wrote:
26 Jun 2021 01:04






He was capable of being a sycophant. Krosigk was a standard bearer conservative by repute. But that is hardly a selling point because he was rarely effective at persuading Hitler to curb out-of-control military spending.



Krosigk was an official who executed the decisions of his boss , as did Hull,Knox,etc in the US .
And Germany's military spending was not out-of-control : in 1939 German and British military spending were on the same level : 23 and 22 % of GDP.And no one has said that British military spending was out of control .US military spending in WW
2 went up to 40 % of its GDP, was this out of control ?
Besides : after the fall of France Germany planned to demobilize ,which would result in a strong decrease of the military budget ;thus : not out-of-control .

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by Avalancheon » 29 Jun 2021 12:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Jun 2021 11:45
The German Military Studies series is full of Halder and gang's post-hoc rationalizations and other errors; this appears to be one of them. We discussed Andrew Zapantis' study of the weather data for spring '41 here; it seems that year was average or below for rain and floods. War diaries contain no mention of rains/floods, that comes only in postwar accounts. I'd guess some CYA by Halder et. al. to mitigate their incompetence re Barbarossa.
Wow, I never knew that. All I ever read was a long list of reasons explaining why the May 15 invasion date was unfeasible, regardless of the situation of the Balkans. You have handily exposed these arguments as the post hoc rationalisations they are. The number of things that Halder lied about during his service with the Americans is impressive. That guy was a professional liar and con artist. Of course, its not surprising that he swindled the Yanks so easily. They simply weren't in a position to know the things that had happened on the German side of the war in such intimate detail as Halder did. He had the upper hand over the Americans who he worked for. He was able to distort the historical records without them cluing in on what he had done.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Jun 2021 12:11
I'd also note that I suggested this in my very first AHF post. viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239656&p=2181888#p2181888

Since then I've only developed the "stronger Barbarossa idea" (and still working on that); maybe I'll develop the other idea in the 2030's.
Those are both good threads, credit to the pair of you. I too have considered the possibility of Panzer Group 4 being diverted to Army Group South. The pros seem to outweigh the cons, at least for the first 2 months of Barbarossa. Let me explain my viewpoint:

Pros
-Army Group South is able to envelop a huge number of Soviet troops, and create a pocket. They mirror the success of Army Group Center.
-Army Group South makes a faster advance through the Ukraine, disrupting the evacuation of industry, and collection of the grain harvest.
-The Red Army is forced to deploy their reserve Armys to both Belorussia and the Ukraine, which leaves them more thinly spread. This enables the Ostheer to inflict slightly heavier losses due to the Lanchester square law.

Cons
-Army Group Center is left with a huge exposed flank to their north. They are vulnerable to attack by Soviet troops along the Daugava river.
-Army Group North is unable to advance to Leningrad before the arrival of fall. This means the city is not surrounded in 1941, relieving the Red Army of a major resource sink.
-The Finns are even more isolated from the Germans.

The sheer amount of damage sustained by the Red Army in this scenario makes it look like a worthwhile tradeoff. Two encirclements by the Ostheer in the 1st stage of the invasion brings them closer to realising their main goal, which was to seek decisive engagements before reaching the Dvina-Dnieper river. Although of course, the Germans can't actually defeat the Soviets in 1941 due to their huge manpower reserves which enables them to replace their losses and reconstitute their front.

And at any rate, the compromises made to achieve this outcome are not trivial either. Even if Panzer Group 3 were to be diverted to the Baltics (after the battle of Smolensk), its still very unlikely that Army Group North would be able to reach Leningrad in time. Panzer Group 3 can't stay in the north for very long, they need to be redeployed south to participate in the attack on Moscow. With German troops nowhere near Leningrad, the Soviets will have better logistics, and will be able to keep that sector very active. All the resources that went into defending it can instead be used to launch offensives.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by EKB » 29 Jun 2021 12:55

ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
About Krosigk : it was claimed that he had no financial experience when he was appointed. That he could not prevent ''out-of-control '' military spending does not mean that he was a bad minister of finance .

It doesn’t prove that he was good.

As far as I can tell, Krosigk did not hold a banking job in the private sector. Apart from his role in the theft of property and money laundering, what was his signal achievement as minister of finance?

Marriner Eccles was a successful banker and millionaire before Roosevelt appointed him as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Henry Morgenthau was not a banker by trade, but his work history as Secretary of the Treasury looks pretty good next to Krosigk.


ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
ALL Foreign Secretaries are amateurs

Not really. Cordell Hull was elected to the U.S. Congress for 24 years prior to his appointment with the State Department. Ribbentrop had just two years as an ambassador before his foreign minister posting.


ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
And Germany's military spending was not out-of-control : in 1939 German and British military spending were on the same level : 23 and 22 % of GDP.And no one has said that British military spending was out of control .US military spending in WW 2 went up to 40 % of its GDP, was this out of control ?

Inflation was controlled better than spending in Germany. There were added benefits from tax increases and looting the occupied territories.

“As we have seen, as a result of enormous military spending the German economy had been suffering from substantial excess demand at least since 1938. But until 1943 the symptoms of inflationary dysfunction were relatively well controlled. The silent system of war finance instituted in the autumn of 1939 worked well. The tax increases of 1941–2, combined with the ever greater contributions from the occupied territories, permitted the Reich Finance Ministry to finance 54 per cent of expenditure in 1942 and 44 per cent in 1943 out of revenue.”

Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction (pp. 643-644). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by Boby » 29 Jun 2021 14:53

EKB wrote:
29 Jun 2021 12:55
ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
About Krosigk : it was claimed that he had no financial experience when he was appointed. That he could not prevent ''out-of-control '' military spending does not mean that he was a bad minister of finance .
It doesn’t prove that he was good.
A completely meaningless statement.

Krosigk was the best informed man in Germany in financial matters (Schacht). He was a very capable and competent minister, stop talking about things you don't know.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by ljadw » 29 Jun 2021 15:54

EKB wrote:
29 Jun 2021 12:55
ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
About Krosigk : it was claimed that he had no financial experience when he was appointed. That he could not prevent ''out-of-control '' military spending does not mean that he was a bad minister of finance .

It doesn’t prove that he was good.

As far as I can tell, Krosigk did not hold a banking job in the private sector. Apart from his role in the theft of property and money laundering, what was his signal achievement as minister of finance?

Marriner Eccles was a successful banker and millionaire before Roosevelt appointed him as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Henry Morgenthau was not a banker by trade, but his work history as Secretary of the Treasury looks pretty good next to Krosigk.


ljadw wrote:
26 Jun 2021 06:02
ALL Foreign Secretaries are amateurs

Not really. Cordell Hull was elected to the U.S. Congress for 24 years prior to his appointment with the State Department. Ribbentrop had just two years as an ambassador before his foreign minister posting.
Being a member of Congress does not prove to have any knowledge about foreign affairs.
It is the opposite . Members of Congress are bot interested in foreign affairs, because foreigners can not vote for them .
As a member of the House,Hull was only interested in the population of his congressional district,and,when he was a senator, in the people of Tennessee.
As Secretary of State, he received his orders from the White House : it is the Potus who determines the foreign policy of the US .
Kissinger was an exception . He knew more about foreign affairs than all 535 members of Congress and more than Ford .
Morgenthau followed the orders of FDR, if he disagreed, FDR would fire him .
One can not say that Morgenthau was a good minister of finance and Krosigk bad , because there are no parameters to indicate that Morgenthau was good and Krosigk bad : ministers of finance do not decide how the economy will go .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by ljadw » 29 Jun 2021 16:19

About Krosigk and Morgenthau : if one blames Krosigk for the inflation in Germany after 1942, one must blame Morgenthau for the economic recession in the US in 1937, Andreas Hermes for the super inflation in Germany between 1921 -1923 ,or Simon for the 1,2 million people without a job in Britain in 1940, or his successors for the inflation in Britain during WW 2.
To do this would not only be unjustified, but also grotesque .

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: America

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by historygeek2021 » 29 Jun 2021 18:43

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Jun 2021 12:11
I'd also note that I suggested this in my very first AHF post. viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239656&p=2181888#p2181888

Since then I've only developed the "stronger Barbarossa idea" (and still working on that); maybe I'll develop the other idea in the 2030's.
Now that is a frustrating thread to read. You write an entire post about "X", and all the responses are about "Y" and "Z".

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 2602
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 29 Jun 2021 19:32

historygeek2021 wrote:
29 Jun 2021 18:43
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
26 Jun 2021 12:11
I'd also note that I suggested this in my very first AHF post. viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239656&p=2181888#p2181888

Since then I've only developed the "stronger Barbarossa idea" (and still working on that); maybe I'll develop the other idea in the 2030's.
Now that is a frustrating thread to read. You write an entire post about "X", and all the responses are about "Y" and "Z".
Ha I know. I was so innocent then too, expecting a calm conversation about history.

Oddly that first post matched one negative expectation - that there'd be a few True Believers in German invincibility lurking on a forum like AHF (the now-banned Jesk). Little did I know that much of the community has reacted to those few by believing the opposite of whatever they believe. It's like a village deciding all matters by asking their idiot a question and doing the opposite.
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 2602
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 29 Jun 2021 19:47

Avalancheon wrote:The sheer amount of damage sustained by the Red Army in this scenario makes it look like a worthwhile tradeoff
If you can combine the PzGr4 shift with earlier Barbarossa, you probably have time to add Leningrad after Moscow. That'd be my best shot at a successful Barbarossa ATL absent stronger forces.

But of course I don't think either happens absent realistic appraisal of the SU (otherwise June 22 leaves plenty of time and single envelopments should work just fine). The realistic appraisal begets stronger forces as night/day, IMO.
Avalancheon wrote:. You have handily exposed these arguments as the post hoc rationalisations they are. The number of things that Halder lied about during his service with the Americans is impressive.
Zapantis of course did the exposing. It's an obscure book that hadn't been cited on AHF IIRC; I ran into it on the deep shelves of my alma mater's research library. Serendipitous finds like that are definitely rarer these days when wandering a physical library is passe.

On Halder's comprehensive - somewhat brilliant actually - plot to manipulate Eastern Front historiography, The Myth of the Eastern Front is the go-to. A mediocre general but a supreme schemer (unfortunately too cowardly to carry out his coup though- unless he lied about that whole story too).
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 00:08
Location: Texas

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by James A Pratt III » 01 Jul 2021 20:16

I would say possibly: No Balkans campaign for the Germans: Less wear on many vehicles, no extra plane losses (Crete cost them a lot of Ju-52s which would have been very usefull for supply ops in Russia), no forces tied up doing garrison duty and fighting partisans for the rest of the war. Also with the Balkans sitting out the war they can sell or trade raw materials to the Axis which is good for both sides. I would also like to point out the Axis had to help feed the Greeks.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by Steve » 01 Jul 2021 22:31

I was rather surprised to learn that bad weather causing a delay to Barbarossa was seemingly a concocted excuse by Halder and friends. The British in 1941 were reading Luftwaffe signals traffic so I dusted down “British Intelligence in the Second World War Vol.1” to see what it said. It soon became clear that Luftwaffe units were only moving into position in May 1941. So for example we have from page 473 the following.

“On 27 May the GAF enigma revealed that Fliegerkorps 11 was asking for maps of Latvia, Lithuania, most of Poland and North East Rumania.”

“During the first week of June the GAF Enigma established that the transfer of Luftwaffe 2 from northern France to the east was substantially completed, that the long delayed departure of Fliegerkorps V111 from Greece was at last taking place and that the units of Fliegerkorps V111 were not to transfer to their advanced landing grounds for Fall-B before 16 June.”

GAF refers to German air force. By June 7 the British had worked out the GAF order of battle along the Russian front and estimated that well over 2,000 aircraft were involved. If this estimate is referring to combat aircraft then it is very good if not then not so good.

Unless the Luftwaffe was confused about which month it was supposed to be in position to give support to Barbarossa it was never intended to attack in May and also seemingly not before 16 June. No doubt this hoary old chestnut will continue to run and run.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 2602
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2021 01:30

Steve wrote:Unless the Luftwaffe was confused about which month it was supposed to be in position to give support to Barbarossa it was never intended to attack in May and also seemingly not before 16 June.
From Halder's diary it seems OKH realized a postponement due to Balkans was necessary on March 27. viewtopic.php?f=55&t=218429&p=2317276&h ... s#p2317529

Probably OKL was thinking similarly.

Nobody was seriously considering the broader strategic timeline of Marita-Barbarossa because nobody seems to have been concerned that conquering the world's largest country and army would take more than a few weeks.

...because arrogance and anti-Slav racism was at least as much German thing as a Nazi thing.
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by ljadw » 02 Jul 2021 05:44

Steve wrote:
01 Jul 2021 22:31
I was rather surprised to learn that bad weather causing a delay to Barbarossa was seemingly a concocted excuse by Halder and friends. The British in 1941 were reading Luftwaffe signals traffic so I dusted down “British Intelligence in the Second World War Vol.1” to see what it said. It soon became clear that Luftwaffe units were only moving into position in May 1941. So for example we have from page 473 the following.

“On 27 May the GAF enigma revealed that Fliegerkorps 11 was asking for maps of Latvia, Lithuania, most of Poland and North East Rumania.”

“During the first week of June the GAF Enigma established that the transfer of Luftwaffe 2 from northern France to the east was substantially completed, that the long delayed departure of Fliegerkorps V111 from Greece was at last taking place and that the units of Fliegerkorps V111 were not to transfer to their advanced landing grounds for Fall-B before 16 June.”

GAF refers to German air force. By June 7 the British had worked out the GAF order of battle along the Russian front and estimated that well over 2,000 aircraft were involved. If this estimate is referring to combat aircraft then it is very good if not then not so good.

Unless the Luftwaffe was confused about which month it was supposed to be in position to give support to Barbarossa it was never intended to attack in May and also seemingly not before 16 June. No doubt this hoary old chestnut will continue to run and run.
''Well over 2000 aircraft '' is very vague and even meaningless .
The LW had 2510 combat aircraft for Barbarossa, of which only 1945 were operational .

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: If there's no Yugoslav coup in early 1941, does Operation Barbarossa succeed?

Post by Steve » 02 Jul 2021 12:32

If the Luftwaffe had 2,510 combat aircraft for Barbarossa then assuming the British intelligence figure of well over 2,000 is referring to combat aircraft it is a very good estimate. Presumably if the British thought the figure was 3,000 or over they would have used the number 3,000 not 2,000.

According to this very informative site page 22 bottom, the Luftwaffe front line strength in the east at the start of the invasion was about 2,700 aircraft.
http://www.ww2.dk/Dan%20Zamansky%20-%20The%20Study.pdf

Interesting to read British intelligence thinking on a German attack, they make Hitler look like a pessimist with his three month campaign.

Return to “What if”