Would the Allies win without Russia in the real war?

If Germany didnt declare war against russia in summer-41, the war would have ended after moths months. Japan would not bomb pearl, germany and Britain would eventually sign a truce, or brittain would have been forces to surrender.

But Germany wanted war against russia nomather what, Hitler hated communism as much as the jews.
So , if we say Russia didnt exist, USa wouldnt get involved in the war, and britain would loose against ger and italy.
End of story

Had Germany waited to defeat Britian before declaring on Russia, eithe rRussia would have declared on him (which I believe Stalin had planned to do) or he would have declared afterwards.

I don’t think Germany’s decision about Russia had any bearing on Japan’s decision on Pearl Harbor.

if you look at the russian front most of the major defeats on Germany were inflicted in the east…

battle of moscow, stalingrad, kursk…

People say that USSR would have declared war on germany had Hitler not backstabbed first, but you have to remember that the USSR wasnt exactly best pals with the US and UK…after all during the russian civil war the US and UK sent troops to fight against the bolsheviks.

also the reason that the Battle of Britain was one was because of germany withdrawing air power from France to the east (balkans and Russia)…had this not happened i think Britain would have been knocked out around early 1942, or maybe earlier then that.

with Britain gone it would be very hard for the US to attack trans-atlantic against a well defended europe.

also it was the Germans who declared war on the USA after pearl harbour not the other way round. USA might never have come into the european war.

oh btw just reading other posts on ‘could germany have broken USSR’ i think they could have easily…the invasion was meant to be in may but it was put back due to invasion of balkans…this meant that the german army was stopped before moscow (20miles) by the perma-frost…which had they invaded on time would not have been there. Germany made terible blunders…the fact that they went for a set-piece battle at stalingrad was dumb, as was the 1942 offensive on causasus oil fields in general. At kursk yet again due to massive delays to the attack the russians were able to prepare many defenses to stop it…which is what happened.

i think the soviet victory was more thanks to German blunders between summer 1942 and summer 1943.

The Soviet Union destroyed over 500 German divisions. All the other allies combined destroyed about 170.

THE ALLIS WOULD HAVE LOST. WHO TOOK BERLIN
WHO DISTRACTED HITTLER
THE MOTHER LAND

One could argue Russia was able to win because the Allies distracted Hitler. You know the whole d-day thingy. Not to mention the 600 000 man army Hitler threw at the allies in Dec 44’. Those division were desperately needed on the eastern front.

I’ll also like to mention that the allies agreed to let Russia take Berlin. Russia whined that they should be the ones to take it as they had suffered the most. The allies couldn’t agrue with that.

Ok, so the Allies only confronted a 600,000 strong army. The army that attacked Russia was 3 million strong with thousands of tanks as well.

This is my first post on this board. Reading the thread another question came to my mind. But first my answer on the topic at hand.

IMO it’s clear that without Germany having to bother about Russia, England would have been gone rather quickly. There was about 600 planes in England at the begining of the battle of Britain and a similar pathetic number of land troops. The battle of Britain had to be cancelled because too many ressources (especially plane had to be sent to fight Russia). Radar or not once the German would have landed on the Island the poor british would have surrender in a few weeks if not less.

I doubt the American would have fought Germany at that point, not having a foothold in the old continent.

Concentrating their effort on the Pacific the US would probably have won there.

But like other said Hitler was obsesed with Russia and saving europe from communism, because he knew that Stalin was preparing an offensive on europe. Now my question is: without the german army slaugthering the russian army like pigs, would England, France, an unprepared Germany and US have been able to stop the Russian army from making europe a communist collony and becoming the sole world power. Do european owe in some way their freedom and the US their economical power to germany?

you could also look at how fast germany collapsed in the east after d-day,because it was way out of proportion to the retreats they had made pre-d-day. They collapsed in the east after d-day.

either way i think that if the russians had attacked germany first, and tried to invade as the above poster said they would, they would have been smashed.

they wouldnt have the russian winter, which realy has saved them in countless wars, and they would be crushed.

we know this, napoleonic wars, every battle outside russia pre 1812 they lost to france, in the russian campaign 1812-1813 they lost until the winter.

russia realy has a terrible military history, they have been saved countless times by their enemies under-estimating the winter.

this also happened with germany, they failed to take moscow because of the winter freeze.

The Soviets were winning the war long before D-Day. The reason the retreats speedened were of course having a second front and split forces are going to reduce effectiveness. Without D-Day, I believe the Soviet Union would still have defeated Germany.

@Thebismarck:

@Guerrilla:

That is BM that you give no chance for development(like long range bombers, Radar, IT, and the A-Bomb)….Regardless of Russia being out of the war The US would have eventually been sucked in and given them a full wack…THey would have beaten the Germans… Industrialists for some reason always beat Craftsmen.

GG

Industrialists don’t beat craftmenship! It’s the other way around! Do you think 1000 spearmen could defeat 10 soldiers with sub-machineguns? Another exemple, US may have a bigger force then Canada does, but our troops are better trained because we have a smaller force. Also we have the best commandos,snipers and ground support units in the world!!! I saw a competition for it. It was so cool.

The reason both Italy and France were not well equipped for the war is because their industry focused on craftsmanship and not mass production. They made good weapons, but they could not turn them out fast enough to utilize them well. This was part of the reason that France was overwhelmed so quickly by Germany, and why Germany had to come to Italy’s rescue in Africa.

@Mercader:

you could also look at how fast germany collapsed in the east after d-day,because it was way out of proportion to the retreats they had made pre-d-day. They collapsed in the east after d-day.

either way i think that if the russians had attacked germany first, and tried to invade as the above poster said they would, they would have been smashed.

they wouldnt have the russian winter, which realy has saved them in countless wars, and they would be crushed.

we know this, napoleonic wars, every battle outside russia pre 1812 they lost to france, in the russian campaign 1812-1813 they lost until the winter.

russia realy has a terrible military history, they have been saved countless times by their enemies under-estimating the winter.

this also happened with germany, they failed to take moscow because of the winter freeze.

Then why did Paton was called back after the fall of Berlin? Why did the allied decided to make a temporary peace with the russian that could only lead to the cold war, if they were so easy to defeat outside russia.

Russia was completly disorganised but their number was incredible. Even after 20 millions had been killed they were still a threat to the west.

If we hadn’t landed in France I’m positive the Russians would not have stopped at Berlin. By the time we landed the war was already over, Russia had finally gotten its act together and Germany was doomed.

If Russia was a neutral country, somehow, then the U.S. would put a lot of effort into resupplying the U.K. to keep from it being taken over. At least I’d like to think that, 8)

@Thebismarck:

@Guerrilla:

That is BM that you give no chance for development(like long range bombers, Radar, IT, and the A-Bomb)….Regardless of Russia being out of the war The US would have eventually been sucked in and given them a full wack…THey would have beaten the Germans… Industrialists for some reason always beat Craftsmen.

GG

Industrialists don’t beat craftmenship! It’s the other way around! Do you think 1000 spearmen could defeat 10 soldiers with sub-machineguns? Another exemple, US may have a bigger force then Canada does, but our troops are better trained because we have a smaller force. Also we have the best commandos,snipers and ground support units in the world!!! I saw a competition for it. It was so cool.

Dude were not dealing with two seperate time periods… plus bad Ratio… Lets choose One Million Spears Vs. 100 Sub-machine Guns and limited Rounds (250 Each) and no supplies for 3 hours… If your really good you will knock out 250,000 if you shoot one bullet per man… but what about the other 750,00… this isn’t a 1970’s Space Alien Shoot 'Em Up with unlimited ammo… the logistics come into play… Back to WW2 comparison -wise it is the 1930’s(Russians and most Minor Allies) and 1940’s (Britain and US) vs. 1940’s (Japan and Italy) and 1950’s (Germany)… 10 years… and if I might add I think in some respects the Americans were better Craftsmen… look at such Creations as the M-1 Garand (compared to the Kar-98 Mauser or the Carcano) and the B-17 (compared to the Ju-88 Its German Equivelant for mainline Bombers)…

GG

Look how long we took to get through France a miniscule amount of terrain compared to Eastern Europe/Russia. And we had plenty of air support to tag along…

The Western allies were simply an inferior force only moving forward through sheer numerical superiority. Now, imagine the entire German army being in France instead of Russia. Now way America or Britain (or any other allies) get far, if off the beaches.

If Russia wasn’t in the war German would be owning France right now and probably parts of Africa as well. Quite frankly the U.S. and U.K. troops just couldn’t match up against the Germans. We won through air superiority and numerical superiority… Germany free from Russia can match us and thus defeat us!

the trick word in your statement is defeat… to “defeat” us required an Invasion plus destruction of the British Fighter Force(Which they had failed to do before BArbarossa) the British Bombing Force(Which was hard to knock out due too Night time bombing) and American Bombing Force (which even though it was Daytime bombing and taking heavy losses it was dealing a death blow to the German produciton might)… But lets switch all that Bombing Power to the Coast of Normandy particularly a Transport force… Granted it is covered by AA defenses but so is so many factories in the Heartland… to defeat us is to make us surrender something we would never do… “Come get across this channel and try to Invade”… So what if they have a ton of troops over there… they are doing nothing except making a Fortress Europe… Now we would have taken much longer then it did in real life to build any force stronger to Invade… D-Day 1948… But we would have had more production, more Materials, Machines, and Men… So would they but we were Larger and with a devoted effort and a real threat I see no reason why it would not have happened… Germans could have produced an Invasion navy but they weren’t too strong in that area in both production or Technology… You talk of Superior training which is a truth in the light of the Germans… But we are dealing with what if’s… Does that mean the Americans could not have become seasoned in fighting to the point that they could have defeated the Germans? I think it is possible…

GG

I don’t think you realize the scope of the German army simply being placed in France/Italy.

Look at Sicily where Hube got away with a minor army and then held off the Allies in Italy till the end of the war. If Allies try to invade through the Balkans the results would be even worse because the mountains in Greece are even worse than those in Italy.

So, we have France.

The beaches now have triple, maybe quadruple the defence they had in ‘real’ history + a constant flow of armor divisions and a strong Luftwaffe (the only reason the Germans lost the Battle of Britain was because Goring changed the gameplan too many times and –- yup — planes were needed to invade Russia; so what if the Germans never pulled back their attacks…?).

Germany bumps up their rocket development from the bottom of the list and maybe the Panther-tank is never produced (t’was a counter to the T-34, but since the Russians aint fighting Germany…) but the Me-262 comes out in '43/'44… Allied air-superiority is practically crushed right there and then.

The Allies could barely beat Rommel in the desert (an open playing field) despite having numerical superiority in every aspect (manpower, airpower, tanks, supplies) — so what if the Germans deploy more tank divisions in Africa because there wouldn’t be a war with Russia? Think the measly M3-Lees/Grants had a tough time with Pz IVs? What about some StuGs and even more Tigers (they already had two battalions there)? Air superiority?

We’re talking about the ENTIRE German army here plus any advances they were planning to make but couldn’t execute BECAUSE of Russia (rockets, jet-aircraft, nukes?). Germany could easily invade the Arabic lands from Egypt and have all the supplies necessary to continue their war to an eventual invasion of Britain (perhaps in '40/'41).

Russia is what wrought the end of Germany — without that harbringer sucking supplies, engineering, and manpower Germany could easily steamroll all other opponents in Europe/Africa. If anyone thinks otherwise you are really not thinking hard enough on it (or just lack the knowledge thereof).

If anyone thinks Americans are inferior fighters,just ask the Japanese…We utterly destroyed them during the island hopping campaigns