Russia Alone?

Hi,my first post-so if you have already discussed this one....
What if Germany made peace with Britian and the US remained neutral-could the USSR have beaten Germany alone?I say yes-but this would have dragged the war into 1947 or so.
Russia`s resourses were greater than Germany`s and lend lease,while useful,was not essential-any thoughts?

 

I think Germany would have had a very good chance of beating the Soviets since it would not have the West to worry about. Fighting a two front war did take a lot of resources. Focusing those same resources on one front would have tipped the balance in Germany's favor.

There is proof that the Soviets were actually making approached via the Bulgarians in 41 to make peace with Germany because they were getting hammered. The Germans turned them down. Then two things happened, the Russian winter and Lend Lease.

I disagree with your point of view concerning the impact of Lend Lease. Two crucial items were provided that set the Soviets on the road to victory. American trucks and food. Without these, the Soviets could not have won the war against the Germans as easily.

My opinion. Good post though.

 

I also think germany would win. With no threat in the west they would have more forces avaible for barassoa, they only had 55 percent of their army in the east with britian gone they would have a much larger percent of their army in east,plus with britian out of the way they could start barassoa in may instead of june because I think yugoslavia would have joined the axis with hungry, Romaina, and Bulgaria because they wouldn't have any one to give them surpport and greece would have given in too when the italaians invaded. So with an earlier start and more forces they would have been able to reach moscow before the onset of the russian winter.

 

I think the Germans would win simply because being a one front war. Realistically because, Finnland would still be an ally, and even if threatened by Russia, I think that if Germany had just the one front to fight on, the Finns would stay a steady ally of Germany.

Then you could see that more and more Russians would switch sides without worries and major repercussions from the communists. Therefore, the Germans would have access to all or most of the Cossacks (what was basically left of the White Russians also) plus Vaslovs army.

Then you can filter in all the volunteers from countries like: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Eastonia, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Etc etc etc.

Yep, I think the Germans would beat the russians, but, could still get a bloody nose from the fighting.

Just my 10 Pence worth.

PS, welcome aboard

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tilly45:
[QB]could the USSR have beaten Germany alone?I say yes-but this would have dragged the war into 1947 or so.QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great 'what-if' question, and obviously one that has generated a lot of good responses.

Like you, I think the Soviets would still have won, or at least fought the Germans to a standstill. While the Western Allies' contribution was significant, I don't see any single part of it as being truly decisive -- in other words, I don't see any Western contribution where you can say, "that was the one thing that made the difference between winning and losing for the Soviets."

If anything, the only third-party action that was really decisive might have been Japanese IN-action, not threatening the Soviet Far East, and allowing Stalin to transfer some of their finest, and most Winter-capable units to the Western Front just as Operation Typhoon was reaching its decisive climax.

Given an Anglo-German peace, but continued US aid to Russia, I'd say the Soviets still win in the end... though admittedly, a bit longer getting there. I doubt, though, that US aid to CCCP would have continued had the Brits made peace with Hitler. And besides, without active cooperation of the Brits and British Isles basing of antisubmarine forces, Doenitz could have played total hell on any US attempt to aid the Soviets. His targets would have all had to pass through a Baltic/Arctic bottleneck that could have been made even more dangerous than it was.

The 'what-if' question I would ask, however, and one I believe is far more illustrative of the dynamics of the war, would be; "Could the Western Allies have defeated Nazi Germany without the Soviets being involved?"

Debate the Soviet-vs-Nazi 'mano-a-mano' war all you want, but the Anglo-American war against Nazi Germany would not, could not, ever have been won without the Russians.

This is a far more hypothetical scenario, and admittedly, much less realistic than the idea of the West making peace and leaving it all up to the Soviets on their own.

But just imagine that the Hitler-Stalin peace pact had held out for, say, another 4-6 years.

Imagine all of Germany's resources concentrated against Britian, and also, Germany's resources as supplemented by what, up until Barbarossa, had been strategically critical Russian aid... petroleum, raw materials, agricultural products... things could have turned out really different if the Soviet flow of raw materials to Germany had continued, and Germany had all its resources concentrated against the Western Allies.

Honestly, I don't think it could really have happened this way, because I believe once Stalin saw the German forces fully engaged against Anglo-America, he would have upscaled his aggressive ambitions in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic, etc, until Hitler had to turn around and face his Arch-Tyrant nemesis. But, for sake of argument, assuming the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was held, I think the Western Allies would have had a hell of a time fighting Germany by themselves.

Imagine, just half the Barbarossa forces unleashed against the Brits in North Africa (which is what Guderian wanted to do). They would have won, no question, driven the Brits from the Mediterranean, and also moved into position to threaten the middle east.

It is highly doubtful that Churchill's brand of strong anti-Nazi 'fight them to the death' government would have survived such a thing; it's easy to imagine a much more negotiable, much more conciliatory British government winning control, based on that scenario.

And without the Brits in the war, and no 'launch pad' for the invasion of Western Europe, there's no way a US-only Normandy, having to go all the way across the Atlantic, unsupported by British-based Allied air forces, would have ever happened or even be considered. If the Brits made peace with Germany, no way the US would ever have gotten involved in Europe.

That would have amounted to US concentrated against the Japanese, and an (admittedly) very uneasy peace between Germany and CCCP. They probably would have wound up in conflict sooner or later... probably. Maybe Hitler would have launched a later-on Barbarossa, or maybe Soviet adventurism would have brought about conflict in some way.

THen it would really have been Hitler vs. Stalin with no tag-team help, and you can specualte about that one all day long.

But no matter what you speculate about the Allies' contribution to the German-Soviet war, there is a lot less room to question the Soviet contribution to the Anglo-American vs. Germany conflict. Compared to Lend-Lease, Normandy, North Africa, Italy, the North Atlantic, and everything else in the West and South combined, the Soviet contribution to Nazi Germany's defeat was greater than anything we did, or could have done, by ourselves.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzJgr:
There is proof that the Soviets were actually making approached via the Bulgarians in 41 to make peace with Germany because they were getting hammered. The Germans turned them down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The account I've heard/read about this was that Stalin, Beria, and Molotov approached a Bulgarian diplomat, who was actually a Soviet agent, asking him whether he could/would contact the Germans with a peace offer, and how it would likely be received. Molotov suggested some territorial concessions, for the Bulgarian diplomat's opinion on whether Hitler would 'go for' that kind of deal or not.

The Bulgarian's reply was, quoting here from Soviet archives via Volkugonov, 'What are you thinking? You can defeat the Germans. Even if you have to retreat all the way to the Urals, you'll still defeat them in the end.'

This interchange occurred early in the war. I don't know the exact date, but it was late Summer or early Fall 1941, at the height of Barbarossa.

If a peace deal was ever actually proposed to the Germans, I am not aware of it. I'd be interested to know about it, though, if you can direct me to a source.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzergrenadiere:
they could start barassoa in may instead of june {edit} with an earlier start and more forces they would have been able to reach moscow before the onset of the russian winter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple more months of good weather would have helped, certainly, but no matter what the situation on the other fronts, Germany could not have launched Barbarossa any earlier than they did.

There is a Russian word; rasputitsa, liberally translated as 'the season when the roads turn to mud.'

This occurs in the Spring and Fall of every year in Russia. The Spring rasputitsa was a bit heavier than usual in 1941, but even on an average year, you can't travel across Russian dirt in the month of May, and usually well into June.

Although 'General Winter' is often credited for the Soviet defense against Operation Typhoon, 'General Mud' played at least an equal role. The Spring mud delayed Barbarossa, and the Fall mud crippled it.

Whether it's General Winter or General Mud being given the credit, it is common to discount the Russian effort and ascribe Germany's failure to outside forces. But that's really missing the point.

Surely, someone in Germany must have heard about how muddy it gets in Russia in the Spring and Fall, and how cold it gets in the Winter. And, what is obvious but often forgotten: it was muddy and cold for the Russians, too.

There's no mystery about any of this, and it isn't a Deus Ex Machina, like God suddenly decided to inflict bad weather on the German invasion because He unfairly favored Stalin over Hitler.

Speculating that the Germans would have defeated the Soviets, if only Russia had the right kind of climate, is like saying the Japanese could have defeated America if only there hadn't been all that ocean lying between Japan and the strategic resources they needed.

Last time I heard, military commanders were supposed to have some clue about the ground they were fighting on and take it into account when making their plans. If the Germans launched an invasion into Russia, without bothering to ask anybody what the weather was like, that's still doesn't discredit the Russians.

[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: alath ]

 

Had the Japanese, had an ounce of brains, they could have used much of the 4 million men in the army (which was the figure that they had, AFTER both A-bombs had been dropped)

The Imperial Japanese Army, still had the capability left to give someone a heck of a hefty beating. True, they still would have lost, because their tactics, The Banzai Charges, were nothing but a total waste of good trained soldiers.

Surely that would have been enough of a draw on stalins resources, and a big concern--even though Zhukov whipped them earlier in the war. With that having happened, thus releasing alot of or some pressure off the Germans, Russia would have withered on the vine and most likely died.