They Came From the Sea: WI Hitler goes for *just* the Baltics
- Thread starter iddt3
- Start date
The Baltic states were SSRs after the Soviet Union made its move as per Molotov-Ribbentrop. At a guess, focusing exclusively on them would make the Heer vulnerable to encirclements from Byelorussia.
I think the other posters have it right here. The problem was not taking that the Nazis took too much of Russia and should have limited themselves. The problem was that they took whole swathes of it, and it still wasn't enough to make the Soviets give up and come to the table. To defeat Russia on her own soil, you cannot take some of it and try to call a ceasefire (except when she is falling apart from internal revolution a la WWI). You need to drive to Moscow, demolish Russian morale, take her wheat, take her oil, take her everything.
If you have to do that in order to secure meager gains in the Baltic States... well. Why not try to keep what you've having to spill blood for anyway?
If you have to do that in order to secure meager gains in the Baltic States... well. Why not try to keep what you've having to spill blood for anyway?
Deleted member 9338
I am assuming that this happens without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement. Also does Germany still invade Poland?
One of the main reasons that OTL's Barbarossa failed was that even when the Germans were 20 miles outside Moscow, Russian industry had retreated behind the Urals. This meant that, with the support of Western supplies shipped in through Murmansk, the USSR could only really be beaten by conquering virtually the entire country. Any attempt German to conquer and hold only part of the country, in this case the Baltics would have to hold fierce Soviet counterattacks, something I doubt the Germans could do even if the Soviets were their sole opponent.
thaddeus
Donor
unclear if the OP meant no joint invasion of Poland , etc?
assume everything happens as OTL but a more limited Operation Barbarossa to only "liberate" the Baltic states and seize the rest of Poland?
add a larger naval operation, which was an unheralded success already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn
seems like a better plan than drive towards Moscow but leaves the Balkans for a Soviet attack (and of course since the Germans would not be buying any more Soviet oil the Romanian fields would be critical.)
not sure how far an advance in the south would need to be? guess the Romanian interest would be (present day) Moldova or perhaps as far as port of Odessa?
one scenario would be bring u-boats and s-boats overland (as was done but not until 1942) and attack the Soviet Black Sea fleet in concert with the LW. if they controlled the Black Sea logistics would have been a lot easier.
end with control over the Baltic states and possibly Leningrad (and/or Murmansk) in the north.
control of the Black Sea and (present day) Moldova, Crimea (?) and NW area of Caucasus ( Maykop oilfields) in the south.
assume everything happens as OTL but a more limited Operation Barbarossa to only "liberate" the Baltic states and seize the rest of Poland?
add a larger naval operation, which was an unheralded success already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn
seems like a better plan than drive towards Moscow but leaves the Balkans for a Soviet attack (and of course since the Germans would not be buying any more Soviet oil the Romanian fields would be critical.)
not sure how far an advance in the south would need to be? guess the Romanian interest would be (present day) Moldova or perhaps as far as port of Odessa?
one scenario would be bring u-boats and s-boats overland (as was done but not until 1942) and attack the Soviet Black Sea fleet in concert with the LW. if they controlled the Black Sea logistics would have been a lot easier.
end with control over the Baltic states and possibly Leningrad (and/or Murmansk) in the north.
control of the Black Sea and (present day) Moldova, Crimea (?) and NW area of Caucasus ( Maykop oilfields) in the south.
Ja. Destroying the Soviet Union and seizing huge chunks of land ("Lebensraum") was the whole POINT of Hitler's scheme.
Besides. If he's not going to defeat and dismember, the USSR, why the heck attack the Baltics? Stalin's perfectly willing to supply Germany with raw materials she can't get anywhere else, and the M-R pact made so much sense that a 'sane' Hitler (i.e. a Hitler replacement) would leap on it and milk it for all it's worth. Losing that for just the Baltics? ???
Sure some people thought control of the Baltics would satisfy Hitler. Many thought annexing Austria would. Probably the same people. How well did THAT work?
So. No.
iddt3
Donor
Is trying to bite off a manageable chunk any more insane then trying to grab the whole thing in one go? The M-R pact was becoming increasingly unfavorable to the Nazis as Stalin grew more confident, had it continued indefinitely it would have essentially turned Germany into an economic satellite of the USSR.
In OTL, German logistics were a disaster and Germany massively overextended itself. While the Baltics would leave the Soviets free to counter attack, the Germans would be in a much more secure supply position, with less restive locals. I'm not saying they could win this way, but the nature of the war would be different.
No it isn't more insane, the point is it isn't Nazi to do so. The whole point of the war with the Soviet Union was destroying the USSR, exterminating its population, erasing the evidence it had ever existed, and securing those lands as "living space" for Germany. Asking for Hitler to moderate his war aims requires him to be someone other than Hitler.
Rubicon
Banned
Eh no, Barbarossa failed because the German forces outran their supply due to the horrible conditions of the roads, lack of railroads (when compared to western Europe) as well as being the wrong size meaning the German army had to convert them to the same size as German railroads and a miscalculation of the amount of Soviet trains the Germans army would capture during its advance.
Logistics, logistics, logistics.
Having a disproportionate number of available trucks and supplies sent to a sideshow in North Africa didn't help either.
Yes it is more insane. Taking the Baltics does no good to Germany at all. Taking the Ukraine gives them wheat. Taking the Caucasus gives them oil.
Taking parts of the USSR that are useful makes some sense, if you're a megalomaniac dictator.
Taking parts of the USSR that are a) useless, b) a drain on your resources, and c) cause the USSR to stop providing you with all the materials you can't buy yourself is indeed insaner than what they tried IOTL.
The Baltics had no oil, no Lebensraum, and weren't a breadbasket.
That's the thing people have to remember, the USSR was by and large self sustaining as a state, if push comes to shove they can draw on vast resources from their own border. Hitler wanted Germany to have that ability and seizing the resource areas of the USSR was a way of achieving this. The Baltics as history has shown, tend to be a headache to occupy and don't offer what Hitler was looking for.
thaddeus
Donor
well they did have oil resources http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...ias-oil-shale-bolster-europes-energy-security
contributed an outsized number of troops to fight the Soviets.
would be an essential part of controlling the Baltic Sea which was critical to Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_evacuation_of_Tallinn
seized the rest of Poland (which included the oil producing area) and the Baltics. then fight a defensive war against the Soviets without all the logistical troubles they had OTL?
From what I can tell, it looks like the oil from Estonian oil shale was maybe a tenth of what the Nazis got from the Soviets. AND it was heavy oil, instead of regular petroleum.
So, not a good trade.
So, not a good trade.
thaddeus
Donor
couple the Estonian oil shale and the oil producing region of Poland (which IIRC was large portion of oil the Soviets sold to Germany?) with Romanian oil and Axis would be well supplied.
to the other point, Germany needed to eliminate the threat from the Soviet Baltic fleet also or at least bottle them up per OTL.
iddt3
Donor
To what they got OTL? Other than an initial wave of looting, they didn't get all that much use out of the conquered Russian territories anyway. If Hitler decides that Russia is so big it needs to be taken out in two stages (Maybe the winter war goes better or something to that effect) Than taking and holding the baltics + Poland might be ideal. They can send punitive wrecking/looting expeditions into the Ukraine, but maintain a relatively stable logistical base to launch them from.
The plan, as I see it is destroy the Soviet Aries at the border as OTL, advance to a hold able line in Poland, keep the other Eastern European countries out for now (That's for round two), with a few fast columns going on ahead, keep army group North supplied from the sea advancing on a narrow front towards Leningrad, with the aim to take it by storm before the Russians get their shit together. Given that logistics aren't nearly as shit, there's no need to implement a hunger plan as OTL, and the Germans can sweep through the Baltic as liberators, and slip arms and encouragement to Ukrainian nationalists, and aim to develop the held territories for the medium term rather than loot for the short term. When the Soviets inevitably counter attack, retreat a bit, and backhand blow them, pocket as much as you can, then move back to original defensible positions. Start offering Stalin ceasefires in place, after every beaten offensive. Once you get a ceasefire (Unlikely, but less so than OTL), you can further develop the taken territories (and fixed up the rail gauges) and be in a much better position for launching round two directly at Moscow.
Now I think the Nazis would still fuck things up, and the USSR can still beat them in the long run, especially with lend lease, the Germans are no where near as fucked logistically in this scenario, which in turn means they don't give the Soviets the early victories before Moscow, to allow them practice with the Germans at their weakest. They're also not capturing a bunch of troops they did capture OTL, but manpower wasn't really something Stalin was short on.
A lot of people are assuming that the OP means simply invading the Baltics than trying to sue for peace, but i assumed OP meant limiting the 1941 campaigning season only to the Baltics, then continuing on in 1942.
As for whether that would work? Not sure. Even with logistics, transportation and frontline issues, Germany historically did much better on offensive operations than defensive operations. On the other hand, 1941 and 1942 Red Army weren't exactly gods of war yet when it came to attack and counter attacks either. But deliberately limiting the Wehrmacht would hinder Germany's own opportunities to take advantage of Soviet extension.
A seaborne attack on Leningrad though, that sounds like a recipe for disaster. And in the end, slow and steady probably isnt going to win the race.