Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

You dont mind if I pick at you for a moment do you?

The Molot-Riben pact was signed by SU to buy time which the SU needed. In this pact there was a clause which would allow the Russians to inspect German weapons especially tanks but not Germans. If Russia is taken out of this equation and peace exists between the 2 nations, then Germany will continue to receive all she needs in order to fight the West as long as she does not attack Russia and keep giving her military secrets. Stalin (IMO) would have no problem continuing to supply Germany in a prolonged war with the West, especially if that guarantees SU's isolation. It seems this thread does just that.

There are sources that claim Germany lost as many as 20k planes in Russia. True, these aircraft were not all fighters and the majority were ground attack aircraft and bombers, however; they were bombers out of necessity not because of a shortage of fighters (yes, when Germany launched Barbarossa she had fewer aircraft then when she fought BOB). The war over Russia unlike in the West was a medium to low level altitude (mainly to support the ground forces). Germany built planes to fit this role in Russia. If one takes Russia out of the equation then one also has to take out all of the planes and their types out of the East as well.... Since Germany needed high altitude fighters in the west, I think it would be safe to assume that way more ME109's would be built vs JU-87's to fit the role in the West. Since Germany and Russia are at peace, the Mol-Riben pact is still in effect. This means virtually no shortages of resources of any type for Germany. The fight for air supremacy over the skies of Western Europe, was no cake walk by any means historically. How long and how costly might the same battle over the skies of Europe be if Germany had an additional 15k ME109's up there? With no other major fronts/distractions, whos to say Germany wouldnt speed up the engineering and production of say ME262's or say the HE-162's? In this scenerio aerial combat would last longer then it had historically and IMO quickly benefits Germany as the Allies now face what Germany had in the skies over Britain.... A lost aircraft means the crew as well.

The issue I have with the "equilibrium" is that it only seems equal in comparison with what the Allies historically faced (it must also be mentioned that the SU had a larger land army and airforce than the U.S.). What happens to the allies "equilibrium" when you add an additional 3-4 mil men and an additional 20k aircraft to the German side? Also, all of Europes industrial output will now be put to work only against the Allies... IMO, the allies Navy will have no effect on the outcome of the war in Europe unless they can prevent trade between Hitler and Stalin.

IMO, Allied victory over the skies of Europe (without Russia) is not guaranteed.

Germany will not capitulate simply by being bombed. Troops have to be on the ground. How many will be needed to face the numbers of Barbarossa? How many casualties might GB's and especially the U.S.'s populations take before getting tired of it?



The only sure way I see the Allies victorious over Germany is with the use of nuclear weapons.




PS
The war in the east was fought the way it was fought out of necessity not inability to cope with or adapt to.

 

Several posts in this thread re-iterate false claim that Nazis have attacked Soviets to gain access to the strategic raw materials. That is a poor excuse.

None of Nazi targets in SU was a location with a mine of strategically significant ores. The closest significant mines were located at Marchegorsk, Murmansk region. Other mines were far behind the Urals. However, only the oilfields at Maykop were targeted, unsuccessfully. Even if Germans could have conquered any location with strategic raw materials, Soviets still had a chance to destroy the facilities and postpone exploitation for many years.

Germans had other objectives: Byelorussia, Ukraine and European part of Russia. German driving force was immense hunger for soil. Many among them got a proper measure of Russian soil: six feet.

 

1) No Uboats :that's dubious :if Britain was out,the Germans would need UBoats to protect the occupied coasts of Britain against a US threat,I do not claim that Overlord would be possible,but the danger would not disappear .
:even if "no UBoats" was true,I don't see the importance of it :you are making the classical mistake by thinking :1 UBoat =X tanks or aircraft .The yards producing UBoats could not produce aircraft,and,it was not so that Speer could say to Messerschmidt:I give you the raw materials of 100 not produced UBoats,use them to produce 1000 more fighters.
2)About LL:see my earlier post
3)It is also not so,that no war in the west in june 1941 would have given the Germans millions of men more(and,without these,they had no chance):in june 1941,the German field army had 208 divisions,152 were earmarked for Barbarossa,most of the remaining 56 were unfit for active service in the east;whatever,even Britain was out and thus ocupied,the occupation of Britain and Ireland would have claimed some 20 divisions .From where would these come ?Would it not mean less divisions for Barbarossa ?
4)Most of the T34 were lost in combat ? From what I have read,most German ,British?US and Soviet tanks were not lost in combat,but by mechanical breakdowns.
5)If Britain was out,why would Germany attack the SU ?The Lebensraum was not the cause of Barbarossa in the OTL;one also can argue that there would be no Barbarossa,but a cold war with an Iron Curtain .

 

I will have to organize some sources, but I can and will prove everything I'm saying.

At the momment I will stop this discussion for some days to organize my arguments. But in the mean time, I would like to envite Tamino, Sloniksp, LJAD and von, to the What If section of the Axis forums to show their points to my friends there.

 

Jenisch, While I value your view's I think you put too much stock in certain fields. Who has the best training, Who has the better air fields, Who has the better equipment? etc etc etc.. None of these while helpful ever guarantee a victory. There are multiple instances of weaker air forces or countries with out them holding out and do some amazing feats.

As for the transfer of Luftwaffe planes from the East to the West, Have you ever thought about the possibility that the extra planes could provide just the right amount of number's needed to rip apart escort fighters and destroy larger portions of the bomber formations? If for example you lose 30% of your force in engagements, That does not mean you have to increase the size of your force that much, You may only need an increase of 10% to tip the balance.

For the belief Russia would be unable to hold back the German war machine as no war with the West would suddenly give Germany a fully mobile army and the fuel sources to feed it is a little far fetched. Germany still would have gotten no further, Not with Hitler in charge and Russia would have sooner or later beaten down the German forces and pushed them back to Berlin. But in any case this topic is not for here as the parameters of this thread are very simple, No war with the USSR but I'd be happy to discuss it if you want to start a thread.

Thank you Jenisch for the link to the other forum, But i don't agree that Axis supply problem's were impossible to solve. WWII is filled with times men did the 'impossible', The word impossible should not be in a military leader's hand book, Any operation can be made to work to some extent if you use your forces right. Hence why in WWI an Australia officer/General?? when ordered to take a town in France declined using the British strategy (not sure if it was politely or what might be considered rude uncivilized Dominion behavior) and came up with there own one that turned the battle in there favor with far lower casualties then the British expected. You dont have to be the biggest and the baddest to win a war, You just have to now how to lead and fight.


And thank you for the invite Jenisch, I'll probably be around soon.

 

von, thank you for your good faith, I also have the same with you.

I also think WWII was a war of strategy too, not only industry. However strategy can be appliable to any side. I think the Soviets could have won alone, as I already stated here. However, the Allies also could have done a thing or two if they were alone. For every action there's a reaction. Get stuck in a single possibility is the worst thing.

 

This is absurd. You can't put something as complex as this as fact, there are many variables, I will just show one:

The greatest contribution to winning the war made by Bomber Command was in the huge diversion of German resources into defending the homeland; this was very considerable indeed. By January 1943 some 1,000 Luftwaffe night fighters were committed to the defence of the Reich – mostly twin engined Me 110 and Ju 88. Most critically, by September 1943, 8,876 of the deadly, dual purpose 88 mm guns were also defending the homeland with a further 25,000 light flak guns – 20/37 mm. The 88mm gun was an effective AA weapon, it was a deadly destroyer of tanks and lethal against advancing infantry. These weapons would have done much to augment German anti-tank defences on the Russian front.To man these weapons the flak regiments in Germany required some 90,000 fit personnel, and a further 1 million were deployed in clearing up and repairing the vast bomb-damage caused by the RAF attacks.
This diversion to defensive purposes of German arms and manpower was an enormous contribution made by RAF Bomber Command to winning the war. By 1944 the bombing offensive was costing Germany 30% of all artillery production, 20% of heavy shells, 33% of the output of the optical industry for sights and aiming devices and 50% of the country's electro-technical output which had to be diverted to the anti-aircraft role.

RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


While you praise the Russians had they been alone against the Germans, you put the Western Allies down, underestimating them worse than Hitler underestimated the Soviets. I will never accept such arrogance towards such really powerful nations.

And yes, I want to discuss this with you, but if possible I would like to do that in the Axis Forums, as I have many friends there who underestand better than me areas such as economy and armamments, but have the same view. When you be enter there, sent me a PM here that I will create a topic there.

 

If in any way you believe I have in some way given the impression that the Allies were less capable then the Russians then that was not my intention. I merely ment to get along that Russia was capable of winning without the other Allies, But it would just take longer, The same would be with the Allies. They could defeat the German's alone but it to would take longer. At the same time it was possible of Germany defeating (in the sense of coming to a peace deal in Germany's favor) the Americans/British forces or the Russians if not facing both at the same time.

Ill be on the Axis history forum within the week mate, Looking forward to it.

Cheers, von_noobie

 

I'm sorry, I understand your view of the German possibilities in Africa with your view about the Soviets as meaning such.

The problem of Russia defeat Germany just "with time", is, as I already stated, that Russia didn't had an "equilibrium" as the West. In this scenario, if Hitler managed to invade Russia just like historically, I frankly belive it would be difficult for the Russians survive. You see, all the advantages I alreay cited would be with the Germans, and this would include the Italians, which would be fully involved in Russia, and there would also be the likely possibility of a Japanese participation. Hitler pressured the Japanese to attack the Pacific, because he wanted Britain and the US occupied elsewhere while he conquered Russia, but would be the case in such scenario? The Japanese didn't like from the Soviets, so it would be natural to convince them to join in the war against Russia. If the Allies didn't care about German expasionism, I presume they would not care about Japanese expasionism as well.

What is the difference of the Western Allies in all this? They were already at war with Germany, they were already at war with Italy, and they were already at war with Japan. The Soviets were involved in a global war, but they were not waging war globally. And in this case, their enemies would wage war globally against them.

Ok, you seems to like from discuss about the Axis, you will like from the place.

 

I'm sorry, I understand your view of the German possibilities in Africa with your view about the Soviets as meaning such.

The problem of Russia defeat Germany just "with time" is, as I already stated, that Russia didn't had an "equilibrium" as the West. In this scenario, if Hitler managed to invade Russia just like historically, I frankly belive it would be difficult for the Russians survive. You see, all the advantages I alreay cited would be with the Germans, and this would include the Italians, which would be fully involved in Russia and there would also be the likely possibility of Japanese participation. Hitler pressured the Japanese to attack the Pacific, because he wanted Britain and the US occupied elsewhere while he conquered Russia, but would be the case in such scenario? The Japanese didn't like from the Soviets, so it would be natural to convince them to join in the war against Russia. If the Allies didn't care about German expasionism, I presume they would not care about Japanese expasionism as well.

What is the difference of the Western Allies in all this? They were already at war with Germany, they were already at war with Italy, and they were already at war with Japan. The Soviets were involved in a global war, but they were not waging war globally. And in this case, their enemies would wage war globally against them.

Ok, you seems to like from discuss about the Axis, you will like from the place.

 

About the air forces in the east,both sides only had tactical air forces,which were subordinate to the land forces (there was no Ural Bomber),and which had only short-range capability;even when the Germans/Soviets had air superiority,this never was decisive .

 

War is ultimately a clash of wills, the Soviets would never surrender and the German policies practically guaranteed most of the people would stick with the leadership, yes I know aboul Vlassov and the hiwi but they were a rather small minority, there will always be some collaborators. So it boils down to a battle of attrition with the better trained but less numerous Germans doing one high risk operation after the other and the Soviets gradually learning, guess how that's going to turn out in the long run? IMO by 1944 the Red Army operational leadership was better than the Germans, Bagration was not just numbers. The problem with this scenario is what happens if the Germans go to the strategic defensive before a Stalingrad occurs, winning an attrition battle against a German army that has not ovestrectched itself (and with no immediate pressure from the west they may choose to do it) with half the population in German occupied areas may prove impossible, on the other hand a stalemate is unacceptable to both dictators.

Airpower is important but does not generally win ground battles, look at the Italian campaign and Vietnam are instances where the side with absolute air superiority was still was unable to achieve victory, at Stalingrad the Luftwaffe still had he upper hand.

 

The air power was always decisive, even in a tactical warfare. When you control the skies, you attack the enemy at will, specially logistic services.

 

The Germans also woud learn, in this scenario they would have conditions to inflict phrohibitive losses in the Soviets.

It was not only numbers, but it was in great part by the Lend-Lease, and the Germans taking out air forces and elite ground forces to the West. Anyway, just imagine a big force of Panthers built with quality materials and well trained crews, supported by Tigers and proper air support, together with infantry armed with StG 44 rifles, Panzerfausts, Panzerschreks, lots of 88mm guns (not needed in the air defense). A force like this would leave a trail of destruction.

My statement about air power in general was not correct, but for the Eastern Front is. Why? The German Air Force always proved very efficient against the Russians, and this can be seen by the IL2 losses:

While the Il-2 was a deadly air-to-ground weapon, and even a fairly effective interceptor against slow bombers and transport aircraft, heavy losses resulted from its vulnerability to fighter attack. Losses were very high, the highest of all types of Soviet aircraft, though given the numbers in service this is only to be expected. Sturmovik losses (including Il-10 type), in 1941-1945, were of 10,762 aircraft (533 in 1941, 1,676 in 1942, 3,515 in 1943, 3,347 in 1944 and 1,691 in 1945).[SUP][31][/SUP]The main defensive tactic was flying low and power down as the fighters closed in to let the fighter overshoot and fly into the Il-2's firing range.

Ilyushin Il-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quiet impressive that the majority of the IL-2 losses were in 1944, when there were relative few German fighters in operation, and most AA guns were in the West. This confirms one main point of Jhon Mossier, like from him or not, that the Russians paid a heavy price for every meter of territory they taked back from the Germans.

The German Air Force was capable of deal with the Soviet for most of the war, it was not so the case with the Americans and British, but it was with the Soviets. In this scenario, it would be even better, while the Soviets would be in a worse situation (no Lend-Lease aircraft, widely used in the North and South). There would be no fuel shortages for the LW, and it would employ better aircraft, such as the Fw 190 fighters in huge numbers, specially in their ground attack variants (most 190s were used in the West). And it's simpley not true that one offensive could be launched with the enemy controlling the skies. In this scenario particulary, had the Russians tried this, they would suffer, suffer what they couldn't suffer, because the planes would beat them badly, and the tank hunters and and infantry would be waiting for them, certainly better supported than historically, with more replacements, more ammo, etc.

I don't want to make absolute claims here, I just considerate the fact that in comparison with the Western Allies, the Soviet Union was the Allied power that Germany was more capable of confront with success if alone. It could have been beaten industrially, in the air and in the ground.

 

I am no fan of WI's,because a WI is essentially changing some elements of the OTL ,and ,assuming that the rest will not change ,with the risk that the whole ATL will fall apart as a house of cards.
Let's take ATL number ONE:Britain give up and Germany attacs the SU
1)If Britain was out in june 1940,would the SU not immediately attack the German east border ?
2)What would be the influence of the fall of Britain on the US?
Would this strength the position of the isolationalists=Lindbergh becoming GOP presidential candidate and defeating Roosevelt ?
Or,would it strength the position of the interventionalists=the congress declaring war on Germany
3)Would the US not sacrifice China to help the SU =no embargo against Japan,giving Japan a free hand in China,and starting LL to Russia
4)What would be the attitude of Japan if Britain was eliminated?
5)Would the position of Germany be strengthed,would it have a stronger invasion force on 22 june 1941?
On 22 june 1941,Germany attacked the SU with 152 divisions,while it had only 144 divisions which were capable for offensive tasks,and while some 10 of these did not participate on the attack.If Britain was out,would the Germans have more divisions which were capable for offensive tasks ?
There are to many variables .

 

I also think this, LJAd. The things are so complex that even in a scenario were "apparentely" one side would be doomed, like in a case of U-boat losses started to become hard to sustain the Allies, it would be possible that answers would appear by the necessities. In my example, an answer would have been the Hughes Hercules cargo flying boat. There are many alternative ways for things we propose here that great imagination would be needed, but they certainly could have appeared, and in ways we can hardly imaginate.

In my view, this stuff of "one side defeat Germany alone," is still much something of the Cold War. The Russians like to say "hey your British and Americans, you didn't done almost nothing, we did the most, we were strong enough, we didn't need you", while the British would say "if we had made peace with Hitler in '40, all Europe would be in trouble!", and the Americans would say "if we didn't supplied everyone, fought against Japan and bring our campaign and D-Day, nobody would win!", and so forth.

I like to discuss about ALL Allied nations in WWII, all of them are uniquely fascinating, and I think everyone, regardless of the opinion, would agree that for absolute certain, each of them was vital to the final victory.

 

The Axis History Forum is a real source. For one thing claims their are if not required to be strongly encouraged to be well documented. In the various threads that discuss this topic you will find a wealth of info with sources.

 

I guess it depends on why you are creating and/or responding to a what if. A well constructed one can act as a lense or focus on actual events and why they happened and grant considerable insight into them. A key element is having the initial POD reasonable and well described and for those involved to be willing to admit when an alternative seems to be unreasonable.

Highly unlikely. Stalin wasn't the gambler that Hitler was and he's getting stronger faster than Hitler at that point.

That would depend a great deal on why Britain was "out" and what happened in the following period. Not enough data to make any worthwhile speculation at this point.

Why would they? The US was no real friend of the Soviets prior to WWII or after for that matter.

That depends again on what happened and how the settlements went. Where for instance does the Dutch governement in exile go?

Clearly Germany would be stronger. The question is how and what part could be brought to bear. I suspect that the initial ground invasion forces wouldn't be much if any stronger. There's also the question of whether or not it would be as much of a surprise. The Soviets apparently had intel suggesting a German attack but one of the reasons Stalin discounted it was he didn't think Hitler would start a two front war. If Germany isn't at war in the West the equation changes.

 

There´s also the possibility that without operation catapult FDR might not have helped Britain at all....and personally I consider that Germany lost the war when they declared war to the US.

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/38875-operation-catapult-1940-a.html#post462536

 

I only was giving some exemples of things in the OTL which could be changed,if one is changing one item .
On point 3 :the attitude of the US:in the OTL,the US policy was (even before PH) :Germany first.Would this change,if Britain was out? If not,how would "Germany first" be possible ? IMHO,only by aiding the SU .
What would Japan do,if Britain was out ?
Would Britain have the German consent to send its fleet to the east,to defend its empire ?
Would Germany attack the SU ?
Etc,etc .
I don't like the OP :he is unanswerable,he also is assuming that the Germans would defeat the SU in a short campaign,or that Barbarossa would not happen,the Germans choosing to send Rommel to NA to chase some Mirages .