Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Allies had not cooperated with the USSR?

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Eastern Front & Balka' started by dasreich, Oct 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Inspired by two previous threads, one on Britain being the key player in WW2 and the other being the "what if" thread on Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor, I began to wonder what would have happened had we chosen not to cooperate with the USSR.

    I don't even have an answer for that yet, as Lend-Lease had a very substantial impact on the Soviet War effort, and our intelligence did inform Stalin of many German moves, including the attack at Kursk.

    So what do you think? Could the Soviets have made it? Would they have fallen, still won, or achieved some sort of stalemate that Hitler would eventually grow weary of and negotiate a peace?
     
  2. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    The greatest downfall of Germany in their conflict with Russia was logistical in my opinion. Russia did get some logistical support from the US but the Germans did not utilize their entire industrial infrastructure to pursue the war they waged against the Allies until 1944.

    Russia was able to trade land for time and let the Germans try to figure out how to supply themselves over the vast distances of Western Russia while they quickly ratcheted up their industrial war machine. The production numbers that they achieved would have obviously overwhelmed Germany. The support from the US was important, but I have not seen enough information to determine if it was really crucial. I really think the US support helped shorten the time needed to overwhelm the Germans but that it would have happened anyway.
     
  3. TA152

    TA152 Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,423
    Likes Received:
    120
    I guess it could have gone the other way and Russia could have called a truce as they did in WWI and it would have released many German divisions for the west.
     
  4. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Hitler never had any thoughts of negotiating with Stalin. He had decided once the Barbarossa begun that it was all or nothing.

    For Churchill the opening of the second front was a welcome news. The German attention was directed to Russia( invasion threat gone and bombings lessened in the west ). So he did all he could to keep the second front alive.
     
  5. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup, if Germany had concentrated on fully gearing up their armaments and war industry much earlier in the war, we could get at least a stalemate on the eastern front and the Allies may not even have defeated the Luftwaffe.

    Hitler expected the war with russia to be finished pretty quick.
     
  6. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The war would have lasted longer but the Russians would eventually push the Germans out but at a slower pace. Because of the large amounts of trucks, the Russians were able to outpace the German retreat. Without the trucks, The Russians would resort slugging it out and keeping up with the German retreat. It would give the Germans time to set up defenses thus prolonging the war in the East. Perhaps, there would not have been an eastern bloc. Hmmmm
     
  7. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm....that is assuming that the initial German trust into Russia fails, right ? If the germans have enough and efficient supplies for a faster advance into Russia and they reach Moscow before Winter, would the Soviet Union have fallen with their capitial ?
     
  8. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    I would have to say no since Russia was preparing for the fall of it's western provinces. Look at how they moved their war producing factories to the East. This was not in preparation for end of conflict. The were in it for the long haul as long as Stalin lived.

    With their supply lines overextending already in 41', The German advance would have to halt at Moscow. That would be the extent of the advance for 41'. Lets not forget, they were not prepared for that first Winter. The Russians fought back with no help from the Western allies at this time. So all events from 41 -42 would not have been altered. So the German advance of 41 would have been halted nevertheless.
     
  9. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    ...What would Hitler do if Stalin would not surrender after losing Moscow? The Russians had their oil reserves and many factories behind the Urals so Hitler probably could not hurt the production there anyway. And Lend Lease would provide help as well to keep the war going on. Hitler should have read the book on Napoleon´s attack on Russia a couple of times before trying himself.
     
  10. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Ha! Great minds think alike master Kai :D
     
  11. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Must admit PzJgr, excellent timing...

    ;)
     
  12. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Russians offered Napoleon peace when he took Moscow, but he didn't accept. And during Barbarossa I believe Stalin offered Hitler a very favorable peace. Perhaps the mistake was not in invading Russia for Napoleon or Hitler, but rather not quitting in Russia while they were ahead.
     
  13. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    True. But it is like having a wolf in your backyard. How long before it bites you?
     
  14. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    The juggernaut that was Russian industry East of the Urals was slow to start rolling. I think it would have been slower still if the allies had not cooperated. It still would have ground on in the end. If the Germans had taken Moscow it would have been much more difficult, but still. . .

    Shifting German production to full in the late 1930s, not invading France and instead concentrating only on Russia. These things might have made a decisive difference, but I think the long war was not Germany's forte.
     
  15. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    The options available to Germany are to start war in the mid 40's as the Generals wanted but risking giving the Soviets time to build up their forces or attack in 39' and hope for a quick victory. Might have worked had England and France not declared war.
     
  16. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,539
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    A bit out of the title of the thread but...

    Hitler´s decision to attack was based on the fact that Russia would crumble from the attack. This was based on the assumptions made that 1. All the capable officers were killed in 1938 purges 2. The Red Army battle worthiness would be the same as in Winter war 1939-40 against Finland.

    Hitler did not count that Stalin made changes in the army that were learnt from the lessons in fighting the Winter War as well as what had happened in the West 1940.

    Of course the huge men resources count too. Just think if in 1944 Ike had lost, say , 400,000 men in one battle (!). What would happen? Stalin just kept fighting and he lost millions in 1941 alone.
     
  17. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the huge losses on the Russian side during operation babarossa, it's surprising that the Soviet Union didnt just collapse in 1941. I am pretty sure that most countries and it's citizens would.
     
  18. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Welcome to the Forum Hands! [​IMG]

    That is the result of a police state. After decades of living in fear of being sent to a gulag made them not even think of voicing against the state. So the Russian peasant or the German volk had no choice but to bear it out.

    [ 31. October 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: PzJgr ]
     
  19. bigiceman

    bigiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    3
    Russia being such a vast state and communication of news being primitive by today's standards, as well as being controlled by the state, that the citizens were not given the information to make a choice like that, even if they were allowed.
     
  20. Hands

    Hands Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, Thanks!

    It is really "too bad" the Nazis didnt take advantage of the fact that most Russians didnt like Stalin and win support from them at the beginning. If they did, they wont face such an opposition later on.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page