What if western Allies agreed to truce with Germany

What is everyone's opinions on what would have happened to the eastern front if Great Britain and US decided to agree to a truce with Germany in the Summer of 1942. The result was Germany to remain in control of continental Europe and leave North Africa and Norway as part of the truce agreement.

Would this have led to a stalemate on the Eastern front? Could the Soviet Union still defeat Germany because of the manpower advantage? Would this have forced Stalin to a truce giving up large swaths of USSR territory? Could Germany have prevailed against the Soviets on a one-front conflict?

Please remember this is a "what if" and not meant to be a discussion of whether the western allies would have ever agreed to a truce with Hitler.

 

That would be dependant on whether or not lend lease was still in effect. Either way, I believe the Russians could still overtake the Germans so long as Hitler was at the Helm.

 

Lend lease - good point. In this scenario, I would have to say that Lend Lease was stopped when the US/Britain signed the truce with Germany.

 

You know, there has been debates on whether the lend lease material such as food, medical and specifically the trucks contributed much to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. I for one believe they did. So, I think it may have prolonged the Soviet victory over Germany but the Soviets would still win. The year 1942 was a year that the Soviets were at the turning point where they were learning how to fight the Germans successfully and their newly trained manpower was available for largescale offenses. That's my two cents worth.

 

good u said it
in fact this is an IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO! and for many reasons.....

- the british could never agree on such a deal with hitler. it would have been a suicide: a potential nazi europe from spain to urals distant only 25 km from britain!

- if the british did not surrender in summer '40 (fighting alone) i don't understand why they should have surrendered in '42 (with US on their side)

- everybody knows that FDR had been planning war with nazi germany longer before pearl harbour. he always gave priority to the war in europe instead of pacific.

i could list many others....

but since this is a what if, please go on guys..... it'll be funny to read it

 

Things were not going as smoothly for Germany in the summer of 1942 as she had planned. Germany had failed to accomplish 2 crucial objectives and no progress was being made at either one of them, Moscow and Leningrad. Many of the best men that Germany had, had already fallen victm in the previous battles and were slowly starting to be replaced by a smaller number of less experienced men. Germany's last real push for an objective was going to be used by the same army which captured Paris at Stalingrad and we all know what good that did them.

And what Lend Lease did the Soviet Union receive in 1942?

 

Ah ha! Good point Slon. Just when did the 'good' stuff begin to arrive in the USSR? I know some obsolete equipment made it in the intial stages.

 

From my knowledge, Lend Lease truly started to come in after the battle of Kursk in late 43'.
Even then it only amounted to 8-10 percent of what was actually needed. While very important, it had no effect on the overall outcome of the war in the East.

But what do I know!

 

The Russians would have held there own and eventually won. I spent a week in Leningrad in 1975 to help celebrate the 30th anniversary of the defeat of the fascist and the Russians are fiercely nationalistic. Every rusted out tank was a war memorial. The town still had war damage after 30 years! No doubt in my mind, the Russians would never have given up.

 

My home town!!!!

 

Okay, sticking to the parameters set by this what if even if they're highly unlikely, I'd say the obvious result would be a bloodier and costlier war between the two combatants.

First off, a truce between Germany and the Allies would possibly allow trade of goods to resume, thus alleviating the Germany's lack of resources. This would take time but Germany can take advantage of this because it's only fighting a one front war. Business is business and businessmen from both sides of the Atlantic will just be too happy to take advantage of a truce. Remember, there was a large pro-German organization in the US that included Charles Lindbergh in the US before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Another thing, German industry wouldn't suffer from the effects of strategic bombing, allowing it to eventually ramp up and meet the demands of the fighting in the East.

Despite the one front war, Russia still has a huge manpower advantage. Germany cannot concentrate its ground forces in the East because of the need to maintain garrison units in the occuppied territories in the West. However, the Luftwaffe would be able to concentrate its aircraft allowing it to maximize its support for the ground units. This would offset Russia's manpower advantage.

A truce would also allow Germany to send more of its subs and other naval units for interdiction of Russian shipping and supply German forces in the east.

A big factor would be the reaction of the other neutrals in the East to the development of a truce in the West. Many other threads in this forum has discussed the possibility of Turkey entering the war on Germany's side but I feel the good points raised there have to be revised given the paramaters of this what if.

I respectfully disagree, though, that Russia would win the war in this what if.
I think the fight might end up in a bloody stalemate with both sides exhausted (look at the Iran-Iraq War).
The result, a bloody war that went nowhere and probably followed by a Korean Peninsula-like DMZ between the two sides.

That's about it. I have some other things in mind for this what if but I'd like to see your replies first.

 

That is a good analysis and I agree with you on most points. I am sure the Eastern Front would have ended up even bloodier than reality with the extra German forces pounding away on the Red Army.
I believe that the situation most likely would have ended in a stalemate with USSR ceding some territory to the Germans.

 

Im a little bit confused as to what "extra" German troops you gentleman are referring to?

There was no 2nd front in Europe till the landings in main land Italy in 43'. The Germans had a Skeleton force in Europe, the manning of only 67 thousand troops at the Atlaintic wall is proof. How many men would be needed to turn the tide in Russia?

The reason why the Allies were able to bomb German industry with the success is due in large part to the majority of the Luftwaffe operating in the East.

 

If Britain and the US had for whatever reason aggreed to a truce with Germany, then as part of the truce there would be an end to lend-lease, that would be one of Germany's conditions and if we stay true to this then the Soviet Union would be in serious trouble.

Germany alone could deploy an extra 100 divisions against the Soviets, Italy could send in as much as 70 division. Plus one thing Germany's industrial base would never have been attacked, and Roumania's oil facilities would be undamaged and running at full production.

Hey Sloniksp, i'll try to gather the divisions that could have been sent to the Eastern Front.

 

Please read the top posts. Soviet Union received virtually no Lend Lease in 42'. The majority only started to arrive in in late 43' by which time the fate of the 3rd Reich was sealed. Also Lend Lease was only helpful in shortening the war and saving lives NOT determening the actual outcome of the war in Soviet Union.

Not sure where you are getting these 100 extra divisions from as Germany would still need to keep garrisons in occupied nations. Even then these men were far from battle hardened veterans which were fighting in the East. Italy's 70 divisions would have changed nothing.

 

Good question? I believe that there was a battalion of Shermans at Kursk so I would have to say that there was some influence there.

I dont know that the Lend Lease in 42 or 43 was tide turning important?

Shall I go on? I think I shall. According to this what if Norway and Africa were evacuated thus providing some 20+ divisions. I know you will question the ability of these division but we can assume that at least 5 of these would have been full strength and combat ready. With the knowledge that the allies would not have been landing in Europe more men from France not just the Atlantic wall could have been moved. With no threat of bombing more of the industrial energy expended on AA guns and defenses. While there was no direct front in Europe in 42 the threat was there and resources were allocated to it.

Not to mention that the Russian people we glad to hear, in fact they received hope from the promises of Churchill to open a second front in 42. Hope give people something to fight for. I am not denigrating the nationalism of the Russian people just pointing out a fact.

I dont know that I know the outcome I need to think about it more.

 

Hey I never said that help was non existent

So how many more troops German troops would be needed in the East to turn the tide?

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

When I mean "extra" German troops, Germany can now afford to send more troops to Russia. In essence, Germany can maintain minimum garisson units in the West with a truce in place. Also, troops that would have otherwise been in the Med theater would also be freed up to go east.

With a truce in place (which I believe in reality is highly improbable) more Luftwaffe squadrons can be sent East for the same reason I mention above.

Historically, German industry was able to ramp up its production despite Allied bombing. Imagine what Germany could've done with its ramped production without Allied interference.

Still, this is a what if.

 

mmm... yes and no.

NO:
german industry was spread across the country and therefore despite so many bombing missions it was actually impossibile to seriously cut down war production. So in case of no bombing i don't think the nazi could have increased production significantly.

YES:
strategic bombing was devastating, but in an "indirect" way: infrastructures, communications, railways... (many tanks were produced but never got to the front). also, even if disputed, it had a morale effect in urban areas.
Another relevant "indirect" effect was that it deverted many resources from the eastern front (many anti tanks weapons were used as anti aircraft) and don't forget that many highly qualified men were required to defend german cities.
it is estimated that the effect of strategic bombing was an averall reduction of more than 30% of nazi capacity (that's a lot!!)

Conclusion: with no strategic bombing tha nazi could have used 100% of their miltary/industrial force to fight russians. would have this been enough??? mmm.... i don't think so.

 

Maybe just one? Maybe 100,000? Maybe 1 million?