Would the Allies win without Russia in the real war?

@Anonymous:

ok, I think u need a historical lesson. There would have been no war without Russia, so the topic is foolish. Hitler explaines in “Mein Kampf” that if you want to conquer land in Europe, u have to take Russia. He wanted land in the east. His first target was Poland. He tried to convince the french and the britts that a war between these countries would mean in great losses at both sides. But the allies decleared war. This was perfect for Stalin. He wanted the Germany to fight with the allies, and then rush into poland. But france lost unbeliveable fast, when you see on the french army´s strength. Then Stalin did not dare an attack on Germany. Now Hitler could do what he had allways wanted, conquer russia.

Back to topic: No, the allies could not win a war without russia. The entire german army fought at the eastern front. Imagin this front at the cost of U.S. This army killed 27 000000 russians. The tiny army stationed in France killed 300000 americans. The allies would have no hope. Germany was ten times stronger then america in 1941 :wink:

This is all true, however, the 27000000 Russians killed is kind of a misleading figure to show the skill of the Nazi soldiers when you consider that many of them didn’t actually have weapons.

'[[size=9px]size=9]@Panzersatsen:

In 1939, the Wehrmacht attacked France with a 1:1 ratio in manpower. It took 3 weeks to overrun it.

In 1944, the US and the UK landed with combined force in Normandy and advanced with a 3:1 manpower superiority, with a 5:1 superiority whenever they attacked. They had near complete air superiority. It took them 7 months to conquer France.

That’s Prussian military tradition in action.’

True, but remember that in the attack, all armies suffer a drawback and this applies to both Allied AND German. In 1944 the Germans attacked Bastogne with a 9:1 superiority. In fact, bear in mind that the Germans only launched one actual offensive in the West and that was the Bulge and they experienced the same problems experienced by the Allies.

‘The Dunkerque evacuation was only possible since Hitler panicked and ordered the panzer divisions to halt. A proper surrounding with the following tank shock would have destroyed whatever the British could have used to defend against an invasion.’

Possibly, but don’t forget that the Germans also needed time to regroup and allow their rear-echelon formations time to catch up. It wasn’t entirely Hitler interfering and stopping his forces for long term political reasons.

‘During fall 1941, Hitler ordered his troops to, instead of conquering Moscow, go towards Ukraine and its abundant food stores. Hitler moaned about how his generals don’t understand war economics, while the effects of conquering Moscow would have outweighed Ukraine heavily. The entire railroad network of USSR would have been messed up with the fall of Moscow. The army would have got proper winter shelter. The soldiers’ spirits would certainly have risen, and the Russians would most certainly have felt a huge blow to their morale.’

This is also of interest and is frequently cited. However it was Clark who insisted on a drive for Rome instead of an attempt to cut off retreating German units (after Monte Cassino taken). Clearly a focus on capturing capital cities versus wiping out enemy formations is not always wise.

‘And, most peculiar of all must be the failure to deal with Operation Overlord. Only a few hours’ drive from the beaches, there was a Panzer army which probably could have thrown back at least a few beachheads into the sea. It was though under Hitler’s personal command. At the time of the landing, Hitler was sleeping, and nobody was allowed to wake him up regardless of anything. Consequence? When Hitler finally woke up, several hours had passed and the beachheads were too well fortified to be assaulted.’

Not sure I agree with this. After Salerno and Sicily landings the Allies played hell with German counterattacks with armour. It doesn’t matter how good your panzers are if they put themselves in range of 5 inch Naval guns. Rundstedt and Rommel disagreed about how to defend against D-Day. The former wanted mobile formations in the rear kept out of range of those Allied destroyers, cruisers and battleships- with good reason.

One of the posts recently asserts that Russia was NOT supplied by the Allies. Whilsts the various five year plans instigated in the thirties by the communists did help industrialise the USSR they still were in need of, and very grateful for, Allied assistance.
Convoys sailed into Arctic waters landing at Archangel and Murmansk. Supplies also came through Iran which was jointly administered by the Allies and Soviets. It is true that the Soviets were not in need of weapons but they still needed help. In WW2 the Americans alone supplied them about 25,000 Ford trucks.
Finally, lets try to keep the insults out of these postings.

USSR would have become involved either way at one point… Hitlers belief of the lebensraum, was directly related to russia. If anything the question would be would russia win the war alone! :wink:

@MuthaRussia:

USSR would have become involved either way at one point… Hitlers belief of the lebensraum, was directly related to russia. If anything the question would be would russia win the war alone! :wink:

In that case, I don’t think so– but it would have depended on how fast the Russians got slaughtered.

its a very interesting question. IMHO, a couple of points; number one, technology. Personally, I think the Third Reich was not interested in wonder weapons until the heady days of early victory were long gone. THerefore; I would assert there would have been no Tigers, no rockets and no predecessors to the AK 47 in a campaign against Russia.
Second. Even after Barbarossa had begun German troops were being demobilised and the German economy did not reach a total war-footing until 1944. So an assault against USSR would not have been a wonder army qualitatively and quantitatively greater than the 3 million men committed in 1941. (I promise not to use the terms ‘quantitative’ or qualitative’ in any form for at least a week).
Plus, Stalins army is still crippled by the purges amongst its upper and middle management.
Therefore, with the above in mind, could the Germans have broken the USSR? Assuming they could have given it all their attention? No distractions from the West what-so-ever?
tricky……
I would say ‘no’ albeit with some hesitation, because the above situation described is what the Germans actually faced in 1941. I think there would probably have been a stalemate for a while. But in the long term? Who had the greater resources on which to draw? USSR or Nazi Germany?
Plus the big issue; Stopping a German offensive is one thing but hoisting the Red Flag over the Reichstag is another.
Could the Allies have actually crushed Nazi Germany without one another?

Chindit.

Tough question …
did the loss of Battle of Britain (e.g. lots of airforce), and the Battle in the Atlantic chew up that many ressources?
If i assume no war with the west, that would also count for Italy, and thus no African Corps…
And of course, no terror/strategic bombing on germany. Although their economic impact has to be discussed, as the time of the bombings doesn’t allow to clearly state its impacts.

But still: I think the soviets alone would have won. Just the facts of industrial capacities, manpower, length of supply lines and guerilla resistance IMHO made a german victory impossible.

What Chindit wrote about German technology if there was no war with Russia is a good point.(I would quote him but I dont know how). Tiger Tanks, Panthers, and anyother armoured monstrasity they made after 1942 was to counter the powerful russian tanks. Although his point about the AK47 is wrong. The AK47 was derived from the SKS, not the MP44.

The germans had a poor wartime economy until 1943, mostly because they had over 300 types of tanks, over 150 types of aircraft, and even 50 types of lorries. This made mass producing very hard because with so many different types of tanks and aircraft, each piece had to be different. There was a joke among German generals that they would order a tiger one day, then a couple of panthers another day, and maybe a mortar here and there. :P

I think that a war that involved only Russia and Germany would be just the same as the war was originally. The Germans pushed almost every tank, man and artillery into russia in the first place. Only in 1944 the allies came to a sort of “rescue” and then Russia had full controll. The answer is clear :D

Not even close. :D Check out the “Existance of God” forum.

There was one forum about the war in Iraq, I think 15 pages (correct me if I’m wrong).

One of the Iraqi threads or the one about the UN are the longest AFAIR.

Donkey Kong Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:52 am Post subject:

–------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that a war that involved only Russia and Germany would be just the same as the war was originally. The Germans pushed almost every tank, man and artillery into russia in the first place. Only in 1944 the allies came to a sort of “rescue” and then Russia had full controll. The answer is clear

you know its interesting, how much of a contribution did the West make?
I remember reading that the Germans kept back about 300,000 soldiers to man AA batteries and attempt to cope with round-the-clock USAF/RAF bombing.
Also, the Germans had 50 divisions committed to counter D-Day. Hitler believed that with D-Day taken care of those could be sent east to deal with the ‘greater threat.’
Again the Ardennes offensive sapped the Germans of any chance of holding the USSR back.
I think a point someone made some time back stands; a stalemate was likely if it was only USSR v Third Reich. But a victory against the latter needed more.
(And to think someone once said this posting belonged in the General postings)

Also, the Germans had 50 divisions committed to counter D-Day

Hmm…I guess thats would explain how less than 10,000 allied soldiers secured a beach head on France facing a 50 division strong army. :D Germany had more like 1-2 divisions facing the allies on D-Day.

@Zhukov_2003:

Also, the Germans had 50 divisions committed to counter D-Day

Hmm…I guess thats would explain how less than 10,000 allied soldiers secured a beach head on France facing a 50 division strong army. :D Germany had more like 1-2 divisions facing the allies on D-Day.

you got me!
(I meant 50 divisions in the west, The Heer)
The Germans didn’t know where the Allies would land so they spread them right around the Atlantic wall. In Normandy the Allies faced (initially) 3 German divisions to their 8.
Big problem of course faced by the Germans was getting their reserves into the fight.

The Soviet Order of Battle during WW2 had something like 500 divisions that were put to use against Hitler. The Germans had something near 450. The US’s target was near 100 Divisions and they ended up with something like 70. I don’t know much about the British OOB, but it was definitely less than Ameirca’s.

@Chindit:

Big problem of course faced by the Germans was getting their reserves into the fight.

I thought the big problem of the Germans on D-Day was that Hitler believed that it was a fake and kept his forces waiting for the mythical 1st Army under Patton. All right, it’s the same, but different. :roll:

Thats bull sh*t. The tanks weren’t anywhere near Norrmandy. Maybe they already had 10 there but that still wouldn’t have made a difference. After Rommel was forced out of Africia he was on his way to the West Coast. If we had forced him out of Africia sooner or delayed D-Day, he would have made it. And if he was there with all his tanks, we would have lost D-Day. But no whoop. We would have just launched a bigger assult a half a year later.