I have read that Stalin put out peace feelers towards Germany in summer 42 when Germans were advancing towards Stalingrad. I wonder how feasible a peace agreement in Nov-Dec 41 would have been? Also a slightly different strategy with Leningrad a top priority to capture naval bases & Russian ships as well as a large chunk of Ukraine & then turn around & finish North Africa, land in Syria, move toward Portugal & Spain etc.

Pretty big change... Would peace be an option if you change the strategic goals in that way???

Not sure the Russians would have gone for peace in 1941, maybe if Leningrad had fallen...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I have a feeling it was up to big A ( Hitler ) that no negotiations ever were tried during Barbarossa. Of course there is no real hard evidence ( I think ) on these actions happeninng probably through Stockholm. As well after the Kharkov battles March 1943 both sides were quite beaten and peace was mentioned but Hitler´s political targets of total annihilation of USSR ( or themselves ) made it impossible to make anything happen. After Kursk the USSR was not anymore interested in peace talks of any kind.

__________________

Indeed, these alternative strategies depend on Hitler not being in power really. A coo I suppose I could have added to my scenario. Peace in summer 42 would have been even better as Sebastopol did not fall til 42, but if a peace settlement had been arranged in Dec 41, the troops would not have froze. And the Navy could have gone back on offensive, the navy went on half rations,( fuel ), when Barbarossa started, so with Leningrad in tow, the navy could have not only resumed offensive, but could have had extra ships & the port facilities to build more subs or ships. The Navy was very vocal about its desire to posess the Russian Baltic facilities.