How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#1

Post by Futurist » 06 Dec 2020, 02:21

How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus necessitating the start of Operation Barbarossa in 1942 instead? You can personally decide how France manages to avoid falling in 1940 but not in 1941, but the key here is to give the Soviet Union an extra year of breathing room so that it could develop its military and industries further by the time that it will have to fight Nazi Germany. An extra year of fighting on the Western Front would, of course, weaken and exhaust the Nazi German military to a much greater extent than in real life, which would also help the Soviet Union.

I suppose that some additional questions for this scenario might be whether France would be willing to continue the fight from abroad if it would have already fought for another year as opposed to quickly losing the war in 1-2 months and whether FDR would still be willing to run for a third term as US President if France's position and situation still appears to be pretty good in mid- and late-1940 (as opposed to in 1941). If not, it would be extremely interesting to see who exactly is going to replace FDR as US President in 1941 in this scenario and what effects this is going to have on US policy in regards to World War II from that point onward--including in regards to massive Lend-Lease aid for both Britain and the Soviet Union (and of course for France as well if it will decide to continue the fight against Nazi Germany from abroad).

Some additional interesting questions for this scenario is just how much less World War II casualties is the Soviet Union going to suffer in World War II in this scenario in comparison to real life and whether D-Day is going to occur a year later in this scenario in comparison to real life (due to Operation Barbarossa and the Soviet Union's entry into World War II occurring a year later in this scenario in comparison to real life). Anyway, all of these are certainly very interesting questions.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#2

Post by Kingfish » 06 Dec 2020, 14:07

You need to fill in more pieces to this puzzle. Otherwise this thread could spin out in a hundred different directions.

How does the campaign in France play out?
When does Italy join the fun?
When does Japan?
Does Russia sit idly by during this entire time?

Each question -and there are many more- help frame the narrative for others to respond to.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#3

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 Dec 2020, 15:04

How deep is the US into this version? How does the U-boat campaign play out here?
What about Britain? Are they still involved? Is there a bomber campaign going on?
Are British casualties lighter or heavier (includes POW's) here?

For example, the US was building assembly plants for much of the war material France was buying in N. Africa. That way the components could be shipped there and assembled saving shipping space. Even if metropolitan France falls, the French would be in a much better position to continue the war from colonies by 1941.

Another issue is, how beat up is Germany? A victory in France that had heavy losses might put Hitler off invading Russia for the time being in order to get the domestic front under control.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#4

Post by Futurist » 08 Dec 2020, 05:47

Kingfish wrote:
06 Dec 2020, 14:07
You need to fill in more pieces to this puzzle. Otherwise this thread could spin out in a hundred different directions.

How does the campaign in France play out?
France holds out in 1940 but falls in 1941.
When does Italy join the fun?
When it looks like France is about to fall.
When does Japan?
Go after French Indochina in either 1940 or 1941.
Does Russia sit idly by during this entire time?
Yes.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#5

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Dec 2020, 02:46

On the U-boat war...

In this scenario, the Germans are limited to sending boats from German harbors, possibly from Dutch ones (if they invaded the Netherlands). Dutch harbors really buy them nothing though.
Anyway, they have to transit the North Sea to get into the Atlantic. This shortens the Type VII on station time and makes rotating boats on patrol harder. I'd think there'd be fewer boats on patrol, and that would result in a proportionate decrease in shipping losses for Britain. It also simplifies the British problem of trying to intercept / interdict boats in transit across the N. Sea as the Bay of Biscay is now out of the picture.
There'd also likely be no boats in the Mediterranean, and the number in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean would be close to zero.

This simplifies Britain's escort requirements as they now really only have to put escorts on convoys in the North Atlantic, Central Atlantic, and coastal waters.

At the same time, the Luftwaffe probably isn't putting any effort into maritime patrol whatsoever. I'd think they'd be focused on supporting the war against France and Britain entirely.

All of this means (most likely):

* The US is less involved in the war to this point as the U-boat campaign isn't pushing out as far as it did into the Atlantic. That would lower the diplomatic issues between the US and Germany.

* The British aren't as pressed for escorts and might not have taken the destroyers for bases deal they did.
* The French are putting in some effort to fight U-boats too.
* With the French fleet intact, things like the Bismarck or Operation Berlin sorties might not happen. Or, if they did might end more abruptly due to the addition of French ships.
* The US is still supplying masses of material to the French in particular but to the British too. So, neither is in as poor a shape by 1941 in terms of equipment for their armies.

In terms of Barbarossa, the worst of the purges is past and much of the Red Army is now on firmer footing and better organization. While I'd still think there'd be issues with training and quality, it isn't as bas as in 1941. Another likelihood is that the Soviets put in considerable effort to building field and permanent fortifications along their new border with Germany on a scale like the Stalin line on the 1939 border with Poland.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#6

Post by Futurist » 11 Dec 2020, 01:30

T. A. Gardner wrote:
09 Dec 2020, 02:46
On the U-boat war...

In this scenario, the Germans are limited to sending boats from German harbors, possibly from Dutch ones (if they invaded the Netherlands). Dutch harbors really buy them nothing though.
Anyway, they have to transit the North Sea to get into the Atlantic. This shortens the Type VII on station time and makes rotating boats on patrol harder. I'd think there'd be fewer boats on patrol, and that would result in a proportionate decrease in shipping losses for Britain. It also simplifies the British problem of trying to intercept / interdict boats in transit across the N. Sea as the Bay of Biscay is now out of the picture.
There'd also likely be no boats in the Mediterranean, and the number in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean would be close to zero.

This simplifies Britain's escort requirements as they now really only have to put escorts on convoys in the North Atlantic, Central Atlantic, and coastal waters.

At the same time, the Luftwaffe probably isn't putting any effort into maritime patrol whatsoever. I'd think they'd be focused on supporting the war against France and Britain entirely.

All of this means (most likely):

* The US is less involved in the war to this point as the U-boat campaign isn't pushing out as far as it did into the Atlantic. That would lower the diplomatic issues between the US and Germany.

* The British aren't as pressed for escorts and might not have taken the destroyers for bases deal they did.
* The French are putting in some effort to fight U-boats too.
* With the French fleet intact, things like the Bismarck or Operation Berlin sorties might not happen. Or, if they did might end more abruptly due to the addition of French ships.
* The US is still supplying masses of material to the French in particular but to the British too. So, neither is in as poor a shape by 1941 in terms of equipment for their armies.
All of your speculation here sounds reasonable. I might add that there is likely not to be a Luftwaffe bombing campaign over Britain in this scenario simply due to the Luftwaffe lacking the necessary resources for this.

If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?
In terms of Barbarossa, the worst of the purges is past and much of the Red Army is now on firmer footing and better organization. While I'd still think there'd be issues with training and quality, it isn't as bas as in 1941. Another likelihood is that the Soviets put in considerable effort to building field and permanent fortifications along their new border with Germany on a scale like the Stalin line on the 1939 border with Poland.
If the Soviet Union creates a new Stalin Line along its new western borders, how likely do you think that this will be a deterrent to Nazi Germany from engaging in Operation Barbarossa in 1942 (or later) in this scenario?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#7

Post by Peter89 » 11 Dec 2020, 08:09

"If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?"

They did OTL, so it's not really a question.

But Vichy France - the incidents of Mers el Kerbir and Dakar, the fight in the Levant, in Madagascar and in Morocco, etc. - is a real mystery in any ATL as well as in OTL.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#8

Post by Futurist » 11 Dec 2020, 10:12

Peter89 wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 08:09
"If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?"

They did OTL, so it's not really a question.

But Vichy France - the incidents of Mers el Kerbir and Dakar, the fight in the Levant, in Madagascar and in Morocco, etc. - is a real mystery in any ATL as well as in OTL.
By "French", I meant the mainstream French government, not De Gaulle's breakaway forces.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#9

Post by Peter89 » 11 Dec 2020, 13:57

Futurist wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 10:12
Peter89 wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 08:09
"If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?"

They did OTL, so it's not really a question.

But Vichy France - the incidents of Mers el Kerbir and Dakar, the fight in the Levant, in Madagascar and in Morocco, etc. - is a real mystery in any ATL as well as in OTL.
By "French", I meant the mainstream French government, not De Gaulle's breakaway forces.
The mainstream French would make peace with the Germans, but it is questionable whether they'd exist at all.

If they wouldn't, the idea of metropolitan French authority in the colonies would not exist either, so the DeGaullist and mainstream French would be the same.

The Italians might never join the Germans if they smell defeat, and most certainly would not join them if Britain looks strong and the US entry into the war is imminent.

If the Western front is won costly, Hitler might not consider Barbarossa, or at least not in 1941. Then the Soviets got another year of war preparation, which, in addition to the Wehrmacht's losses in the West, might result a no for Barbarossa.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#10

Post by T. A. Gardner » 11 Dec 2020, 19:31

Futurist wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 01:30
All of your speculation here sounds reasonable. I might add that there is likely not to be a Luftwaffe bombing campaign over Britain in this scenario simply due to the Luftwaffe lacking the necessary resources for this.
I'd think there would still be one, mostly in retaliation for Bomber Command strikes on Germany which would almost certainly still occur. But it would be a much reduced version to the original BoB simply because the Luftwaffe also has to strike targets in France, etc. I seriously doubt that Harris would allow Bomber Command to be caught up in the ground war in France.
If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?
This is more difficult to answer. I'd think that they might be more inclined to, particularly if there was more infrastructure in place to support continued combat like US assembly plants in N. Africa or the presence of colonial units being raised and trained for operations in France that haven't been sent yet. That would give these colonial governments more staying power than they had originally.
If the Soviet Union creates a new Stalin Line along its new western borders, how likely do you think that this will be a deterrent to Nazi Germany from engaging in Operation Barbarossa in 1942 (or later) in this scenario?
No more than the Maginot Line was to invading France. What I do think it would give is somewhat more capacity to withstand an invasion to the Soviets. The original Stalin line crumbled pretty rapidly for the same reason French fortifications did. The supporting field units (eg., "interval troops" in France) had been withdrawn or were not available. In place, such a line would have required considerably more effort on the German part to penetrate. While not a Maginot line equivalent, the individual fortifications were similar in design and would have made things quite difficult when supported properly.

Wat Tyler
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Apr 2020, 18:30
Location: Staffordshire

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#11

Post by Wat Tyler » 11 Dec 2020, 20:19

How does the British army fare in this scenario?. I would assume the BEF would have been increased in numbers from the OTL and probably there would be increased French mobilisation which i would think should mean German efforts and numbers would be increased if they were to take france in 1941. Does this mean larger British casualties , both dead or captured and how does that affect Britain's ability to continue the war. I would also assume there would be larger German casualties , and more destruction to French infrastructure , less equipment , less capacity for Germany to exploit and Barbarossa , should it take place in 1942 , would be weaker? Perhaps that would be put off for a further year or two. That might even be beneficial for the German war effort , wasn't the original expectation of the army for the war to start in the mid 40's?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#12

Post by Futurist » 12 Dec 2020, 00:43

T. A. Gardner wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 19:31
Futurist wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 01:30
All of your speculation here sounds reasonable. I might add that there is likely not to be a Luftwaffe bombing campaign over Britain in this scenario simply due to the Luftwaffe lacking the necessary resources for this.
I'd think there would still be one, mostly in retaliation for Bomber Command strikes on Germany which would almost certainly still occur. But it would be a much reduced version to the original BoB simply because the Luftwaffe also has to strike targets in France, etc. I seriously doubt that Harris would allow Bomber Command to be caught up in the ground war in France.
If France falls in 1941, do you think that the French will decide to fight on from abroad (specifically from their colonial empire)?
This is more difficult to answer. I'd think that they might be more inclined to, particularly if there was more infrastructure in place to support continued combat like US assembly plants in N. Africa or the presence of colonial units being raised and trained for operations in France that haven't been sent yet. That would give these colonial governments more staying power than they had originally.
If the Soviet Union creates a new Stalin Line along its new western borders, how likely do you think that this will be a deterrent to Nazi Germany from engaging in Operation Barbarossa in 1942 (or later) in this scenario?
Everything here appears to make sense.
No more than the Maginot Line was to invading France. What I do think it would give is somewhat more capacity to withstand an invasion to the Soviets. The original Stalin line crumbled pretty rapidly for the same reason French fortifications did. The supporting field units (eg., "interval troops" in France) had been withdrawn or were not available. In place, such a line would have required considerably more effort on the German part to penetrate. While not a Maginot line equivalent, the individual fortifications were similar in design and would have made things quite difficult when supported properly.
It's worth noting, though, that AFAIK the French weren't actually attacked on the Maginot Line in 1940 in real life but rather the Germans simply bypassed it by going through Belgium. Are the Germans going to do something similar in regards to the neo-Stalin Line in 1942 here?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#13

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Dec 2020, 03:02

Futurist wrote:
12 Dec 2020, 00:43

It's worth noting, though, that AFAIK the French weren't actually attacked on the Maginot Line in 1940 in real life but rather the Germans simply bypassed it by going through Belgium. Are the Germans going to do something similar in regards to the neo-Stalin Line in 1942 here?
In prolonged campaign in France, I can see the Germans hauling up the finished Dora railway gun(s) and Karl mortars and busting up some Maginot line forts. I could see the Rhine defense bunkers shot to pieces by 10.5cm and 8,8cm flak guns. Even if the Germans don't attack into the line, just the destruction of a Gros Ouvrage or two to shelling would have been a serious shock to the French high command. It would have been a pretty severe psychological shock to hear that one of the Gros Ouvrage had been smashed and defeated by shell fire.

The interesting part here might be how both sides react to a stalemate in 1940 and how they respond to that. Would the French, thinking their defensive strategy and extant doctrine of methodical battle were sound and only tweak things? Would the Wehrmacht reject their concepts of blitzkrieg? How would this effect either side in terms of new equipment design?

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#14

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Dec 2020, 05:56

RKKA could have been much, much stronger in this ATL than in OTL '41. Could have been twice as strong easily.

If that's the case then ATL '42 Barbarossa goes not quite as well as OTL Blau: Germans advance but casualty ratio is not nearly so lopsided. Germans would have trouble reaching the Dniepr/Dvina line and would be deeply damaged by the time they get there. They're possibly smashed by the Soviet counteroffensive that would then follow. At least critically wounded, meaning no further advance past D-D line. With SU retaining left-bank Ukraine and the entire Smolensk-Moscow region, it's significantly stronger in '43 and is probably on the Vistula by year's end.

The reason I say could instead of would have been significantly stronger is that some of SU's pre-Barbarossa "quiet mobilization" owed to Germany's defeat of France. How do things look to SU in ATL 40/41, i.e. how much notice do they have of the impending German threat?

Regardless of ATL facts, the RKKA's strength will have increased over ATL '41 by more than would the German strength - especially given higher casualties in France.

Regardless of ATL facts, the SU would have continued to benefit disproportionately from M-R trade, especially machine tools that made Soviet production more efficient.

There's also the issue of what happens in Romania: Is Germany strong enough to guarantee her after Stalin's Bessarabia move if that move occurs before France's fall? Seems doubtful. Absent German presence in Romania, SU might move against Ploesti with British blessing. Or, threatened with such move, Romania may sell all its oil to Britain/SU.

Too many balls in the air to answer this hypo in any specific manner.

But in general, time was not on Germany's side vis a vis SU.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
Location: United States

Re: How would Operation Barbarossa have fared had France held out until 1941, thus making Barbarossa start in 1942?

#15

Post by History Learner » 03 Jan 2021, 22:57

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
12 Dec 2020, 05:56
RKKA could have been much, much stronger in this ATL than in OTL '41. Could have been twice as strong easily.

If that's the case then ATL '42 Barbarossa goes not quite as well as OTL Blau: Germans advance but casualty ratio is not nearly so lopsided. Germans would have trouble reaching the Dniepr/Dvina line and would be deeply damaged by the time they get there. They're possibly smashed by the Soviet counteroffensive that would then follow. At least critically wounded, meaning no further advance past D-D line. With SU retaining left-bank Ukraine and the entire Smolensk-Moscow region, it's significantly stronger in '43 and is probably on the Vistula by year's end.

The reason I say could instead of would have been significantly stronger is that some of SU's pre-Barbarossa "quiet mobilization" owed to Germany's defeat of France. How do things look to SU in ATL 40/41, i.e. how much notice do they have of the impending German threat?

Regardless of ATL facts, the RKKA's strength will have increased over ATL '41 by more than would the German strength - especially given higher casualties in France.

Regardless of ATL facts, the SU would have continued to benefit disproportionately from M-R trade, especially machine tools that made Soviet production more efficient.

There's also the issue of what happens in Romania: Is Germany strong enough to guarantee her after Stalin's Bessarabia move if that move occurs before France's fall? Seems doubtful. Absent German presence in Romania, SU might move against Ploesti with British blessing. Or, threatened with such move, Romania may sell all its oil to Britain/SU.

Too many balls in the air to answer this hypo in any specific manner.

But in general, time was not on Germany's side vis a vis SU.
Only thing I can think of that would work out better for the Germans is if the Soviets assume an offensive posture by early 1942, and thus are mostly deployed into the frontier regions with the associated poor logistics. The Germans could thus achieve their 1941 goal of destroying the Red Army in the first 400 km or so.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”