Could the loss of one kept victory from the others?

This poll is to serve as a precursor to a thread following closely behind. The question is posed as follows: Could any of the big three been able to win the war, had any of the other powers been eliminated? Or, could three minus one or two still fight the Axis?

 

IF and only if it got the Atomic bomb first. But without aid from Britain's rock air-craft carrier called England, and without Russia it is possible Germany could have had the bomb. Subtract the bomb entirely from both sides and keep it a conventional war I don't think any one of the Allies could have beaten Germany alone. Reason: if only Russia was in, that would mean the allied bombing of German industry would not happen. Germany could have out produced Russia and could have moved all its forces to the East. If only Britain was in the war might have lasted a while but would likely have ended in a stalemate or England invaded. With only the USA in the show - Americans have no heart for long wars. The business of America in the 1940s was really business, not war. Without a foothold in Europe America couldn't do much but harass Germany, and Germany could only harass America. The true KEY to allied victory was the the island of England.

 

By the time that the allied bombing took place, the war had already been lost.

 

If Germany had conquered Stalingrad or Moscow in 1942 there is a good chance that the other, and Leningrad, could have fallen as well, forcing the Soviet Union to move beyond the Urals or surrender. This would have given Germany a victory but it would have been quite weakened through the effort. By this time the US was already pouring its resources (and military) into Britain. Even with the USSR out at this point I think it is possible that the US and UK could have ultimately defeated Germany. It would have been one hell of a fight but the resources that the US had were truly staggering and not subject to the same kind of bombing that Germany was. Remember that Germany knocked Russia out of World War I and still was defeated by the Allies. So long as the US had a toehold in Europe in the form of Britain it had a good chance of defeating Germany, whether Germany was still fighting Russia or not.

 

Sloniksp - I disagree. The war was not lost if both Britain and the USA would have dropped out of the war - you forget that my outline was that JUST Russia was still in the game in that scenario. Germany would have had NORMAL trade and open sea lanes if it had only faced Russia. Germany's industrial output actually increased as the war went on, but with open sea lanes, and likely new trade with the US as a neutral power, there IS NO WAY RUSSIA could have won. Plus the moving of at least (at least) 40 divisions from the West to the East. Plus the removal of huge war supplies from Russia given to it from the USA simply because the US was at war with its common enemy. There is no way Russia could have won. Even near the end there are accounts of Panthers taking out 10 Russian tanks for every 1 German tank loss. Germany's Jet program and rocket programs would have taken off by many orders above what it did had the US and Britain NOT been in the war.

Note: also in my thinking was the fact that without a two front war Hitler may have stepped back from his mindless policies of holding ground at any cost in the East, thus allowing his panzer generals to once more use their full skills.

I forgot to add, had Germany had fuel near the end of WWII the Lutfwaffe could have continued to fly. Part of the reason Russia did so well near the end was because Germany could no longer put planes up. Take out the Allied bombing, allow Germany to get fuel from overseas through normal trade with the West and Russia would have been up a creek without a paddle. For example the final Russia push across the Oder and into Berlin - before that attack Siegfried Knappe reported that the Russians had thousands of big guns just stacked up out in the open with ammo all around. Knappe was sad that the Lutfwaffe was not still flying as it had in old days because even a few Stukas could have turned those Russian arty positions into vast areas of chaos. By taking out American strategic bombing the Russians would have had to face more divisions, up thousands of Jet fighters and bombers - and a strong Lutfwaffe. Its very long supply lines would have been neutralized. German man power was of course weak, but it is likely technology would have made up the shortfall.

So what I am saying is even up till late October 1944 had the Allies signed a separate peace with Germany, Russia could have been taken out by Germany - over a three year period ending in late 1947. In that time there would have come a moment when Germany could have launched heavy bombing on Russia and even something like a V-2s if not V-4s. I personally don't think Stalin would have whipped up his countrymen a 2nd time, had the Germans recovered and advanced back into the Russian heartland. The Soviet Union was always a 1 dimensional tyranny. I have always felt its war effort - though huge - was always over rated and skating on thin ice.

 

No, if you look at the resources the English, United States, and the Soviet Union had, any one of them could of out produced the Germans. Of the above three the weakest obviously was the English position, yet they still could of held out against Germany by themselvies as they proved in 1940. The Soviet Union out produced the germans by themselvies which is also true for the US. So it would of been harder but any combination would if you look at GDP, resources and just public support could of probably of beat Nazi Germany. There is no doubt that the Germans supported Hitler, but how long would the French, Slavs and Poles just sit back, the empire Hitler built was untenable over the long run.

 

As you are allowed to.... After all this isnt Communism.

Now this sounds more lie an opinion. There is simply no way tha Germany would have been able to out produce the Soviet Union at its full capacity.
Even though German's industrial output increased, it was still much smaller that of Soviet Union's, not to mention unable to resupply men power lost by 1943 due to a smaller population and a huge number of casualties. From 1941 to early 1943, the Soviet Union for the most part DID fight the German war machine practically by itself along with along with about 1 million German allies and began winning. ( Take away the African campaign and a few skirmishes, the war at this time was fought entirely on the Easter front. )

Also what makes you think that the U.S. would have continued trade with Germany when it stoped trade with Japan?

An additional 800,000 men would have prologed the war that is all. As is argued by historians. Your so called HUGE war supplies from the U.S. accounted to only 10% of what Russia actually needed and most of which only started pouring in, in mid 1943 at which the German fait had already been sealed by the wars largest battles in which Germany had already lost. ( biggest help from the Lend Lease was the mechanised Infantry such as trucks and jeeps which really did help the Russians advance faster and which Russia till this day does not downplay ).

Source?? From what I have read those were Tigers not Panters and the ratio drastically diminished towards the end of the war.

This again sounds like an opinion. Reading this makes me realize how little know of the Russian rocket program. Katyusha ring a bell??

Now I strongly disagree... The luftwaffe's main reason for not flying was due to lack of planes and pilots. I believe it is Erich ( with his velodrome ) at one point stated that their are estimates that might be as high as 15-20,000 German planes shot down in the East.

By the way, where would Germany get its fuel from??

My friend you are living in the land of OZ!

Just out of curiosity , if the Germans failed to defeat Russia at their prime and when Russia was at its weakest, how would they have done so when the table were turned?

 

A lot of big ifs, but if Germany had struck a peace with Britain immediately after Dunkirk that included free trade transit, and if then they concentrated on Russia, and if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, but instead attacked Russia, then Germany and Japan could have won against Russia.

 

The problem with this what if, is that Japan already went to war with Russia in 1939 and didnt do so well for this reason it never wanted to again, even when Hitler insisted.

Also Japan fought in jungles, once the cold would hit, they would only wish that they could trade places with the Germans.

The fact that the Japs had pretty much no tanks makes conquering Russia a little difficult as well.

 

Sloniksp must be Russian or something. The 10% America gave the Russians was mainly trucks but also radio sets (both valuable for the long supply routes Russia had to maintain by 1944). At the start of the war Russian tanks were lacking good radio sets. Thanks to the Americans radio sets appeared in one out of 10 Russian tanks. Still Otto Carius reported taking out several companies of T-34s near one village with his Tigers and the Russians of that large group were not able to warn another column of on coming T-34s of the attack or the danger that awaited them. So it appears that none of those T-34s had radios. Certain actions around Michael Wittmann's Eastern front follies seems to show that Russians were having a hard time communicating in his areas of combat. The average kill rate WAS 1 German panther to 10 Russian tanks (Tigers did even better) - so the so-called advantage of Russian production didn't mean much since their tanks were so crappy. No one in the West could actually judge how strong or weak Russia actually was by 1944. Russia claimed after the war the loss of 13 million soldiers (that number has changed some in the last 40 years) and a loss of 25 million people. If true it would mean Russia was about bled white. One thing for certain Stalin was such an sinister and inveterate liar no one can really judge what condition Russia was in by late 44. That he kept throwing masses of men into the meat grinder is without question. But this much the Germans continued to state: Russian planes - though improved, were not very good. Russian tanks had a bad kill ratio. The Russian supply system was highly exposed and very long and the Russian rail and road system was just as bad in late 44 as it had been in 41.

Germans wasted a great many pilots and planes fighting the Brit and US bombing attacks on its industry starting in mid to late 44. Had that not happened - all the German air power could have been shifted to the eastern front by Oct. 1944. That air power was enough to cause a great deal of pain to the American air forces, and would have done better damage to the Russians. Me262s instead of making runs at the Battle of the Bulge would have made their runs in Poland.

It is funny but every German who was in the war I have read, and every American writer I read 35 to 40 years ago made it plain that the reason Germany couldn't get planes aloft was mostly because of fuel. With normal trade at sea, and without allied bombing of Germany's Petrochemical system and without the loss of all the pilots lost in trying to stop Allied bombing in Germany, Russia WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED.

Now I admitted that this turn around would have been slow as I placed Germany's victory at around 1947. But I should here outline what I meant by victory. I meant that Germany could have driven Russia back to around Smolensk. In my opinion at about that point the REAL SOVIET weaknesses would have began to kick in and Stalin would have found a bullet between his eyes. We know Hitler was capable to enduring the VERY WORST WAR NEWS - lasting right up until Russians were practically knocking on his bunker door. But not Stalin. I don't think the Soviet System would have allowed that level of bad outcomes, before removing uncle Joe.

Simply put I don't believe anything about how powerful the Soviets pretended they were in 1945. The Germans who were sent to various parts of Russia after the war got a good look at the pathetic nature of Russia. As Knappe stated, being in Russia was like going back in time 200 years.

Russia seemed more advanced by the 50s because of all the Eastern European wealth they stole and because of German scientists they took. But let's consider the basic Mig fighter. That fighter was lifted from the German drawing boards. In fact the Germans had build a proto type Mig before the allies captured it. The Mig was the hottest jet in the Korean war. BUt Germany could have sent them aloft by late 1945. That about says it all for who would have won by 1947.

There is only one fly in my ointment. Hitler. My whole theory depends in him standing aside after the Americans and Brits sign a peace. Likely to happen? No. But to make my theory work I had to image Hitler returning to his love of architecture and redesigning Berlin, rather than trying to micromanage the war. Only then would Germany's generals be allowed to do what they always could have done, beat the crap out of the Soviets. But if Hitler continued to interfere then what it would all boil down to is Hitler vs Zukov (a bad match for Germany).

Point then: Russia had a large output of junk. A low promise of improved future high tech innovation. Germany had a high promise of high tech innovation (and if Russia could not steal that then Russia would be toast). Russia could, without stolen know how, fight a high production 1944 war for years to come. Germany, with out attacks from the USA and Britain, had every likelihood of changing the battlefield from a 1944 war to a 1946 war. High Tech wins. In fact without the USA in the mix, Germany had a chance to finally make the Atomic Bomb - though late. Without captured German scientists Russia would not get the bomb until the 1950s - if even then.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone would say Japan had not done well against the Soviets in their early fight with it. Every book I read 40 years ago suggested that the Soviets had done crappy against the Japanese and in Finland. That it was these two areas of conflict that made Hitler think Russia would be easy. Perhaps I haven't read enough books printed in Moscow.

 

I'll stand by my premise. Not likely, but the Japanese had no real qualms about cold weather. They were not good at it, but a joining of Germany and Japan would have eventually cut off Russia from any source of supplies. If Germany and Japan had treated their prisoners and the locals with respect, they would had greatly increased their odds. With the way Stalin treated his people, it would have been easy for the Germans to eventually take over.

The facts are that Britain would not be likely to talk peace with Germany after the events leading to Dunkirk. Hitler could not afford to leave its western borders in place. He would have needed to take France, Holland and the others just to satify his public.

Another potential is that if somehow, Germany had found a way to establish and support a landing on Great Britain, they had a possibility to take the country over. Very unlikely, but within the realms of possibility. And if Hitler had refrained from attacking Russia, and if the US did not get involved before England had fallen, and Germany had condemned the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What ifs are interesting . If a cow had wings, it might fly. If Germany had the ability to see the future, they might have made better decisions and won.

 

Seatco, do yourself a favour and try and read a couple of books written less than 40 years ago.

For instance:
- When Titans Clashed, David Glantz and Jonathan House, University of Kansas
- Red Storm on the Reich, Christopher Duffy, Da Capo Press, N.Y.

The last time I looked on a map both Kansas and NY were not located near Moscow, and the authors' names seem western enough.

 

Same for the other side. If the Allies had had the ability to see the future, they might have made better decisions and won again but earlier.

 

I think Ultra did this actually....

 

Hmm, the Soviets did not have Ultra but they had Red Orchestra. For some reasons the Nazis were never able to raise the same kind of sympathy allowing them to raise a similar network in the other side's command structure, another reasons to thank the Nazis for.

 

Za Rodinu --that's silly. A lot of modern authors try to revise everything just to have an excuse to sell their book. Such as topics like, Daddy was wrong - Rommel was an idiot, or The French were just crappy cause Blitzkrieg was a silly myth... and etc. Of course I am being a bit sarcastic, but it conveys the truth - somewhat. Of course I read newer books. But what I have before stated comes from Germans who were there and not here, 60 years later. I trust the people who lived it and not those who try to make silly arguments having never lived it.
The German records haven't changed all that much.

But point in fact after WWII the US military did assessments of the German war machine and why it lost based on interviews with German captives and the captured records. My mother dated a guy who was a full colonel of a reserve base in Okla. City. He give me a stack of all kinds of 1950s 'Department Of The Army Pamphlet' reports along these lines. I still have several here in storage I hope, but one in front of me is "Historical Study - Operations of Encircled Forces - German Experiences In Russia - No. 20-234 RESTRICTED Security Information. 1952' Anyway from reports like these I learned that America believed that Russia was almost bled white and it was for this reason Gen. Patton believed the US would have a fairly easy time clearing Stalin out of Eastern Europe - even though the US was still at war with Japan. It ran something like this - Uncle Joe had played his hand - going for broke - and his ability to maintain his war production and man power at early 1945 levels was unlikely. Personally I believe the reports of my nation's military after their study of the facts more than I would any modern civilian writer or author.

But I admit, my theory of a last minute German victory if the Brits and Americans checked out is on thin ice due to the fact that the Hitler ball-and-chain was still around the neck of the German generals. And even with Hitler out of the way - but not dead - the German chance of victory would only be at odds of 1.4 to 1.0. Slim, but possible - as long as Germany reestablished normal trade by sea and played very carefully through 1945-1946. Hence I placed the victory date at 1947 (late 1947).

lol

 

This really doesnt even warrant a response as im pretty sure that everyone that has just read your intellingent post, realizes that not only do you know nothing but that you still live in the cold war era where a Russian to you is nothing more then a comi. I strongly recommend that you take ZA's advise and read some of those books as im sure that you will learn a lot considering the fact that you had a 40 year absence from them.

Oh and I particularly like the " Slonik must be Russian or something " comment as it gave me preview of what im about to read.

 

are you two? Look I came here and you guys were saying the Balkans had not delayed Hitler's invasion of Russia - by your agreement. Even though records show that Hitler was angry that the Balkans had delayed the invasion of Russia? What should I do erase my existing books or ignore your OPINIONS. Now to call me an anti-comi when I was as a young man a Communist, pro Castro - shows what a child you are. What did I make up, the 40+ divisions in France that could have been thrown east in my scenario? The German divisions and Tiger IIs that Hitler wasted in Dec 1944 Attacking the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge? Did I make up the German divisions wasted in Von Lucks' book about the German second battle of the bulge that took place near the Maginot line soon after? If all those divisions had been used in the east Stalin would not have reached Berlin when he did.

You do seem to have a childish idealistic view about what Stalin's Russia was all about. Even Communists in the 60s didn't much like him or have illusions about what was really going on in Russia back then. You sound like a neo-communist. Neo-people always have illusions - and now I understand why you are so worked up. Be that as it may - I am not a web Pugilist as you appear to be - so I will just ignore your postings.

 

First I do not knock what Russians accomplished in WWII. There were somethings they did that were not so nice and some of which that actually lengthened the war for themselves. But nor do I view the Russians to be at the level they imagined themselves to be – anymore than I believed that the American view of the role of the USA in WWII was all that valid. I also know that according to the Germans themselves the Russians had amassed just for the attack on Berlin a greater force than the Germans had ever been able to deploy at anytime during the whole war in the east! And that was just around Berlin. But I also know that the German kill ratio was very high against the Russians and as Knappe stated in his book the Germans only had about 2 divisions in Berlin (from a purely manpower point of view) and yet it took the Russians way too much time to crush this tiny force when all the Shock armies deployed against it were considered. The Germans, even weak, still fought better. The idea that just large armies can win wars, while it was always an Eastern concept (the Persians thought this for example) was not a Western concept - the Greeks and Spartans or later Xenophon’s outfit, and then later again Alexander proved it a false concept. The silly Eastern notion even turns up in the New Testament where Jesus says that ‘when a king sees his enemy come out with an army twice his size he moves quickly to sue for peace.’ Showing that Jesus had apparently never heard of Alexander the Great. But such was the Eastern view of warfare. The Romans proved this view wrong over and over.

The only reason the Germans could not withstand the Russians was because the Russians had Zukov and the Germans had the ball-and-chain named Hitler running their show, and he believed in Pocket-Warfare.

But I am not saying Russia was always over-rated. I will tell you when the Soviets were on the ball and had a masterful setup. That was in the late 70s and 80s when America was planning for a nuclear war of hours, but the Soviets were planning for a nuclear war of weeks and months. The Soviets didn’t plan one major attack, but an attack with repeated salvos, one after another spaced for maximum effect. And they had developed up to 50 super bio-agents to be launched into America on large ICBMs, with the idea that if an American could somehow survive one bioweapon, he would not survive the next, all the way to the 50th. It was a plan for total destruction far beyond what the US Government imagined. True scientific warfare (per Soviet Doctrine). It was much like the Israeli doctrine: ‘If force does not work, use more.’

America lost a great deal when it lost the Soviets for an enemy. A nation is not challenged to become great unless it has a great enemy. Steel on steel sharpens both. Steel in wood dulls the steel. I miss the old Ruskies. Iraq, Iran, what can you say….