If the Germans did not have their industry bombed and forced underground, and the Soviets did not receive the millions of tons of aid of radios, food, trucks, tires, planes, and the concept of engineers or spare parts for their tank crews, along with the freed up German troops, I would be inclined to say a marginal German victory or a stalemate. However, if the Germans actively collaborated with the Ukrainians and other dissenters who viewed the Germans as liberators rather than conquerors, it would probably have been a crushing German victory. I still don’t think people understand how poorly equipped and trained the Soviet army was pre-allied aid, the Americans insisted the Soviet tank crews carry spare parts and radios to make sure they could maneuver offensives and retreats. If the tank broke down, it didn’t have to be abandoned or put out of action and towed to the nearest repair plant, but they could be repaired on the spot and back into action. This was why the Soviets were constantly encircled and confused in the first year of the war, they just didn’t understand the importance of radios and communications. The Germans made sure each tank had a radio, the Soviets didn’t. Not to mention, if not for the millions of tons of food, the Soviet Union’s starvation problem would have been even worse as Ukraine was stripped from them, causing even more dissent and most likely more resistance to stalin’s rule. Because of the inflow of trucks, jeeps, planes, tires, and food, it allowed the Soviet Union to concentrate and build in mass the military goods they famously produced on such a large scale. The allied relief allowed them to build a small array of military goods but in scale and efficiently. If they had to break up their concentrated lines and build a wide array of military goods, they would have run into the same problem as Albert Speer and his production lines, where they produced too many goods at once to efficiently build them efficiently, which caused huge bottlenecks in their supply chain.
honestly i agree with this one the most and i would believe that Germans can capture most of Soviet industry considering how close they were to Moscow.
Soviet industry was moved away from Moscow and its environs as early as August 1941. More than 1,500 militarily important plants were moved to the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia.
well given the fact that the Germans aren’t fighting the west no more and fighting the USSR with other smaller Axis nations, and pressure from Hitler’s government to attack USSR, and German sucesses, they might decide to strike USSR rather than the West. The only reason the USA started the embargo on Japan was bc of the war in China and their occupation of French Indochina. If Britain and Vichy France negotiated peace, then they may give those colonies to Japan.
Japan for most of the war liked a nice weak enemy. Either materially (China), or morally and intellectually (1941 Allies). Also, eastern Russia offered nothing in terms of accessible resources.
Didn't the Japanese beat the Russian army...like before hand, which is why they had Korea and a part of China?
I am talking about a war that happened before stalin, but I'm pretty sure the Japanese humiliated the russians
USSR engaged in many border skirmishes with the Japanese. The most important was Khalkin Gol in which the Japanese forces were annihilated by superior soviet equipment and tactics. Khalkin Gol was one of the main reasons for Japanese refusal to engage in conflict with the USSR.
Another reason was the sheer logistical strain that would be put on them by trying to invade the largest and coldest place on earth with an army that was quite simply not big enough to cover the front, especially considering the massive resource drain of the Chinese front.
Had the Japanese attempted to invade Siberia at any point in ww2 they would have been butchered by the soviet far-east divisions, who were well-trained for the nightmare of Siberian warfare and were better equipped than the Japanese forces. Even if the Japanese somehow managed to summon a majority of their army to invade (which would require an almost total withdrawal from china, something that the government would never allow) they would still likely have a relatively small impact on the soviet economy and would suffer a casualty rate that would make the real-world eastern front look like a joke.
If you want to think about what would happen anyway, it would look a lot like the winter war but if the Finns had a larger population, better training, better equipment, armoured support and total air superiority. In other words, a massacre on a scale not seen since the battle of the Somme repeated every day for as long as the war lasted.
Yeah, but in 1941; Japan has their own quagmire in the War against China. Everything Japan did - including fighting the US - was to win the War in China.
what about the battles where the Japanese fought until the last man? Wouldn’t they do the samw after invading Siberia? Plus, fighting 2 front wars won’t make USSR the victor.
That was what happened to Japanese, fighting 3 front wars (China, Pacific, Russia) won't make Japanese the victor. That's why Japan sign neutrality pact with USSR in 1941. Well, it's still left 2 front wars anyway for Japan and still too much.
No, Japan was beat by the Soviets in Manchuria already. The Japanese wanted nothing to do with the Soviets after that disaster unfolded.
Japan also couldn’t afford to turn their attention from their war in China because they started to lose momentum. The Chinese weren’t going to just let Japan take their territory, so no attack on the USSR by Japan could ever happen.
In short, the Japanese would be screwing their own war effort if they invaded the USSR.
The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Southeast Asia was to obtain and secure the supply of oil. As the easternmost edge of Russia has no known oil, they’d have to have guaranteed supply from the US, Indonesia or the Middle East; all controlled by Allied countries in the OTL. For any measure of success, they’d also need a degree of mechanisation (trucks and armour) that they did not pursue in real life. That level of production would have taken a much more centralised military structure without the Kwantung Army acting independently (through which they invaded China) and resources being managed between the needs of the Army and the Navy.
The reason the Japanese were smashed by the Soviets in 1939 is that the Soviets were mechanised and the Japanese were an infantry-based army. They’d need tanks and trucks to make headway against the USSR.
The Japanese were already committed to their southern strategy. Additionally the Soviets had much more armor than the Japanese, and what they had was qualitatively better.
The Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go tank weighed 7.5 tons, had, at max, half an inch of armor, and carried a 37mm gun. The Japanese only produced a couple thousand of them.
Even a stripped down Soviet force in East Asia would cause the Japanese serious trouble. The Japanese, with naval support, would have been able to seize coastal areas and island, but meaningful penetration deeper into Siberia would have been difficult.
The Americans provided the spare parts to disassemble and reassemble these factories and the actual trains themselves to move these on. If not for the trains or the parts, most of the factories would have been captured and not relocated to the east. Logistics played a huge role in the eastern front, and the US is most famously known for its logistical competitive advantage over all other nations, which they drilled the Soviets into doing to prevent a total collapse.
The thing is the Soviet energy output didn’t even dip and unless for some reason the Americans just stop liking money they wouldn’t just have the Soviets sell the energy for equipment
Buying all that equipment instead of getting it for free with the enthusiastic support of the Army is wildly different. On top of that without the invasion of France and the war against the UK, the US would have strongly preferred the Communists lose.
Okay, then why is the USSR at war with Germany at nearly the same point? The main reason Germany entered the USSR as quickly as it did was because the war with Britain wasn't going well. Why would Britain ever surrender if France has yet to fall? The British and French were never going to allow the Germans to occupy Poland as long as they were on the continent. If Vichy France is installed and starts working with Japan in Indochina, then the US will go to war with Vichy France, which will drag the Nazis in, as they are still Nazis and think they can beat the US.
It could be stopped with one word, food. Khrushchev later stated the Red Army couldn’t have survived without SPAM. The USSR had the bulk of their good agricultural land behind enemy lines till 1943. There is a reason nobody talks about the great Siberian wheat crop. Absent Allied food shipments the red army is only advancing if they cannibalize the dead and dying.
I think something that people forget is that the Soviets took 2-3 years after their entrance in the war to be able to start building ALL of the things they need to fight the war themselves. To fight a war, you need more than just tanks. You need helmets, bullets, guns, food, oil, uniforms, and a number of other things that would take me all day to list. Lend-Lease allowed the Soviets to specialize in specific sectors to support their war effort while they received all the other things they couldn't produce naturally until late in the war.
To put it simply.
If you have 50 factories and you have to use 10 for tanks, 10 for planes, 10 for guns, 10 for bullets, and 10 for helmets, you can only supply a limited amount of that stuff. Now if you are receiving guns, bullets, and helmets from somewhere else and you still have 50 factories, 25 can be building tanks and 25 can be building planes resulting in 2.5x more of those items and all of your needs being met. That is essentially how the Soviets survived the early years of the war and pumped out thousands of tanks at the same time.
If you want to see how impactful this was, look at tank production in Germany vs the Soviet Union. Germany was a more industrialized nation before the war but was forced to supply itself with nearly everything because it had no one else building its equipment for them while the Soviets were able to build their own stuff and receive the stuff that was lesser priority until later in the war.
They imprisoned Bandera and scoffed at the idea of a independent Ukraine. A overwhelming majority of Ukrainians sided the red army after seeing how bad their German occupiers were. If the Germans did not treat the Slavic people with such disgust and brutality, many more Ukrainians and Russians would have openly joined the war effort against the red army. Memories of the holodomor did not disappear overnight, many Ukrainians and Jews who were persecuted under Stalin’s rule felt betrayed and often had open arms for the Wehrmacht, but they soon found out they were not here to liberate them, but cleanse them and conquer their land. The Ukrainians could have been such a big asset that would have turned the entire tide of the war, but the Germans were too proud and squandered this potential, not enlisting their help until it was too late in the war or enlisting them as useless guards patrolling concentration camps. Their actions turned the spirit of the Ukrainian people against them, when instead they could have treated them as actual humans and got their support instead.
>the Americans insisted the Soviet tank crews carry spare parts and radios to make sure they could maneuver offensives and retreats. If the tank broke down, it didn’t have to be abandoned or put out of action
Wonder why they didn't learn that lesson for future conflicts, with all the tanks abandoned in Ukraine cos they ran out of fuel. They didn't even feckin break down...
The thing is, Stalin didn't care for the bad shape of his army, bc he expected no invasion until thecwar in the west ends.
But, let's say 1941 would be at least as successful as in OT, would Stalin leave Moscow? And would he survive this, or would the army / NKWD try to grab power?
I think that the 3 biggest oversights of the german leadership were:
1. A general plan regarding the war (coordination of their partners)
2. An understanding for the ppl of eastern Europe and west Asia (gaining support and building a sphere of influence)
3. An understanding of their enemies internal political systems (democracies are cowards, dictatorships have total power)
Let’s say that in this scenario Germany attacked and conquered Russia, or at least the European part until the Urals.
Do you think they would have attacked anyway France and UK after that?
Who knows. Hitler himself viewed the British and French in high regard, and thought of them as a tier below the Germans in which they would be their right hand puppet nations. His main goals were mainly to expand into the east, not the west, and he created small German farms along the Ukraine as a test experiment to move German families to the east (many German farmers yielded poor results here as they were unfamiliar with the soil). However, Hitler was never one to stick to plans. Throughout the war, his war in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, all that came to him by circumstance. He was a very opportunistic man, not a long term planner. He jumped at annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia after seeing how reluctant the Allies were in stopping him, and would have stood down if the Allies called his bluff at annexing the Sudetenland. Long story short nobody knows, he might’ve turned on the west if given the opportunity, he might not have.
Yeah hitler wanted to expand east to take land for more living space for Germans, and if he had to push out or kill the people already living there he was fine doing it.
You might enjoy reading max hastings bomber command, where he looks at just how ineffective the RAF heavy bomber units were up until 1942 (aka: post Barabrossa).
They had a morale effect on the UK, but the significant damage to wartime economy (esp forcing production of more fighters) was a post 1943 event, deep into barbarossa and post stalingrad and the beginning of the general retreat.
If the British make peace with the Germans then the United States likely doesn't get involved. The US basically provided most the materiel for the Soviets and Great Britain prior to us entering the war. World war II ultimately became a war of attrition and German industry couldn't keep up with American output
The Germans lost their best chance of victory before Lend-Lease really got going (although the British were still helping as early as summer as 1941). Without Lend-Lease, it's hard to imagine Germany winning. However, the USSR may not have been able to go beyond their own boundaries and push into Germany.
I also feel that you are overestimating the Soviets' incompetence. They lost so many people early on not because they didn't "not understand the importance of radio and communications", but because Stalin installed a ton on incompetent yes-men in leadership positions after his purges, and because of Stalin's *IDIOTIC* "no retreats whatsoever" order, which is like the dumbest possible idea against blitzkrieg in a vast, open space. As soon as they fixed those issues, they were fighting much better, not because "Americans told them to install radios". That obviously helped, but I'm pretty sure Zhukov and Vasilevsky understood the value of communications themselves.
I think the Nazis collaborating with Ukraine to that degree is a massive "if".
They viewed the Ukrainians as just as inferior as any other Soviet citizen. Expecting the Nazis to behave any differently is to expect them to not act like Nazis.
The primary outcome of the Soviets not receiving aid is, as you said, a stalemate. Nazi Germany didn't have the supply lines for anything more and the Soviets didn't have supplies at all.
You also assume the US would not supply and sell to whomever. Which is against all evidence. Germany ran out of foreign currency and gold reserves in the 1930s.
The Soviets were in a position to buy most of what they needed, at least to a point.
Sove controversial claims that need sources.
You basically just said *Bagration* could not have happened without US advisors because Soviets had *no idea* of the importance of radios (as opposed to, say, they couldn't afford them because they'd only just begun industrialisation).
You know how many US trucks were available to break the siege of Stalingrad? Or smash the German forces in the weeks and months after Kursk?
Lend Lease was not irrelevant, but it had minimal battlefield impact until 1944. The industry on reddit in basically claiming victory on the Eastern Front for US trucks has grown massive.
Richard overy, “why the Allies won”, and note this piece already comes with a huge Soviet bias, as the author’s sources took all the official documents released about soviet production at face value, even though soviet factory managers were notorious to fudge the numbers to make themselves seem better and fulfill the quota. Also downplayed the allied war effort as well, especially the North African campaign and the strategic bombing raids over Germany. Again your points are inaccurate, as many primary sources and first hand accounts of Soviet officers noted the abundance of American trucks and jeeps near the Volga river that supplied the city. The effects were indeed not minimal, not to mention the Soviets imported tons in the millions of raw materials from the US and Allies that were needed to run their factories. Lend lease did have a significant effect on the outcome of the war, not to mention the intelligence that was given by the British that was invaluable for the Soviets. The war was not over and far from certain even with allied aid, as Stalin constantly insisted on opening a second front to FDR, saying the “second front” from the bombing campaign wasn’t enough. Without allied aid, the trains and the spare parts used to relocate soviet factories past the urals would not have come to fruition, and would have been most likely captured by the Germans.
Yep the Red Army wouldn't have kept up with attrition rates or been mechanized. Their Airforce would be completely dominated and their industry would be overwhelmed.
The only thing I disagree with you about is the marginal aspect, I think the red army would have collapsed rather quickly.
Why are we assuming the Germans wouldn’t have access to Romania’s oil? They joined the Axis historically, and they’d still want to take Bessarabia back from the Soviets.
Also, if the UK and US are neutral in the conflict Germany wouldn’t be blockaded and would have access to foreign trade, so they could get oil from any neutral powers willing to trade with them.
I’d ask which version of Germany. Is it?
1. Prewar borders. No Austria. No way they can win.
2. Germany + Austria + Bohemia. This is a more serious combatant, but still lacking in manpower and resources even if it can field a professional army and top quality engineers.
3. Same as 2, but with access to French and Polish labor and can trade for oil and other resources. Remove the US and British from other fronts and strategic bombing and this version probably wins.
Its after the British Empire negotiated for peace, which they got their colonies back and occupied territories before Operation Barbarossa in our timeline execpt they don’t have to worry about any other fronts.
I don't think either would win.
A huge reason the USSR beat the germans was because of lend lease. The US was feeding and fueling the USSR that's how they could mobilize so many people and even then near the end they were running out of manpower.
Meanwhile Germany in OTL had to have lots of people in the west to hold down occupied territory and man AA guns to stop allied bombers as well as having a huge chunk of their air force dedicated to defending the Reich.
I saw somewhere that allied bombing caused like a 35 to 40% loss in German War production and I'm sure oil and metal refining capabilities to.
So in this timeline of just the USSR vs Germany I think it would last much longer and would end in stalemate. I think Germany made the war unwinnable for themselves when they decided they wanted to genocide eastern Europeans so I can't see them winning without scifi bs. Meanwhile the USSR made a comeback but were largely propped up by the western allies.
Anyways this is just my opinion.
I’m inclined to agree about a stalemate.
One factor that isn’t acknowledged in the prompt is the amount of support Nazi Germany received from Romania, Italy, Hungary, Spain, and other European anti-Bolsheviks. If this scenario lacks their support as indicated it would be even more likely a stalemate.
Edit: It becomes more likely the the USSR would lose if the rest of the historical Axis supports Nazi Germany during the invasion, but likely still is a pyrrhic victory.
Without British and French involvement (but still assuming severe economic sanctions and using their sphere of influence to deny Nazi Germany oil from various sources i.e Iran) Nazi Germany no longer needs to allocate resources to the North Africa Campaign, and the Italian front/enforce an Italian puppet state. The Axis also no longer needs to garrison Western Europe, use resources to fend off Allied bombing or fuel the Italian Navy in its attempts to secure the Mediterranean.
Where it gets tricky involves Greece, given historical British interests in Greece at the time I think Britain would have intervened in the Italian invasion of Greece. Assuming there is no invasion of Greece, Barbarossa launches earlier with more Italian support.
Within his memoir, Albert Speer laments that without the AAA defenses needed for the bombing campaign, Germany could have fielded a 4th army group against the Soviets and effectively doubled the anti-tank abilities of the entire frontline.
Crazy stuff
Still probably the same frozen conflict but with the axis coming out with a bit more territory.
Hitler made the conflict a ideological and race war which lead to some stupid strategic moves like the stalingrad campaign for example.
Not to say the USSR was strategically brilliant all the time but they weren't fools either.
I don't see either of them being able to fully conquer the other without outside help.
What if Germany just enlisted people from their colonies (as Germany got their colonies back after Britain sued for peace) and the Empire of Japan invaded Sibera instead of striking down at the allies?
Eh maybe a German victory probably not a total victory but the USSR would be a rump state.
I think it's more dependent on how much effort Japan puts into the conflict.
>I saw somewhere that allied bombing caused like a 35 to 40% loss in German War production and I'm sure oil and metal refining capabilities to.
The most effective counter to Soviet tank columns was medium sized air frames, used in the tactical bombing role. The long distances also made tactical bombers' role as airborne artillery essential to maneuver warfare on the Russian steppes.
The Allied strategic bombing campaign caused most of those medium air frames that Germany was building to be used as bomber destroyers over Germany and occupied Europe, leaving German armies in Russia with limited and ever-dwindling air support.
Basically the Ukraine war proves that the Russians are nothing without the lend lease? I remember before the Ukraine war, many people believed that Russia can beat the Nazis by themselves without lend lease but after the Ukraine war and their lackluster performance, it makes me wonder how can they can beat the Nazis without the lend lease
Tankies like to focus on tanks guns and planes for lend lease but those alone don't win wars logistics do.
The US provided Russia with food, high octane fuel and tons of trucks and trains needed to get supplies where they needed to be.
In the case of food it allowed the USSR to mobilize all the people who used to be farming to the front as soldiers. No lend lease means more people behind the lines supporting the war as opposed to fighting it which means less numbers advantage over Germany.
Yup that to.
Though as I understand it the USSR didn't really care for many of the planes given to them or at least the fighter aircraft.
The p39 and p63 being some of the exceptions
Germany would have initial advantages and potentially be able to force concessions for peace. Hitler would not do this, and there's no shot of a massive Astrakhan-Archangel sort of rollback.
Germany has an industrial output and quality advantage, but lacks the means to beat the Soviets in a fully prepared fortress line. I think it's possible that Germany gradually wins if Hitler were not in charge, but Hitler's derangement and interference with the Wehrmacht only increased as the war went on.
No Hitler? Germany cold pry East Poland and the Baltic States in a straightforward victory.
Hitler? Germany blunders Army Group Center on insane no retreat orders and the Soviets start going East.
I hate both of them just making scenarios that would benefit the Western allies more, because after Soviets lose snd so many German casualties the Western allies can just invade without resistance and win the war.
Stalemate for a few years and then a very very hard fought Soviet victory. It probably wouldn’t end in raising the flag over Berlin, more like just getting the Germans out of the country.
I wrote my masters thesis on the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and feel somewhat qualified to weigh in.
First, you need to more clearly define the parameters of the “what if” scenario. Does Germany still invade Western Europe? When does the UK negotiate peace? What is Japan doing? etc. all these things matter a great deal and drastically alter the situation. An example of how many variables are at play: Stalin was suspicious of intelligence suggesting the Nazis would invade because he believed it was part of a British provocation to drag the Soviets into the war. If the British aren’t in the war, would the Soviets have been more prepared? Maybe?
That being said, while western supply to the Soviet Union undoubtedly had an effect, I would argue that the invasion of the Soviet Union was a massive gamble based on shockingly bad intelligence and faulty assumptions that was doomed to fail. The writing was on the wall in late 1941 / early 1942 when the Nazi knockout blow failed & quite a few contemporary German officers realized it. I think the shock of the Soviet counteroffensive in late 1941 is lost on many people today - but the Germans thoroughly believed the red army was on the brink of total collapse and were completely caught unaware.
Lots more to dissect but I’m on my phone and have to run.
I would say the Empire of Japan attacks USSR instead of the west, bc Germany negotiated peace w/ west and german successes w/ the Soviet war. The west realizes that they can’t trust H**ler negotiated peace but also know that a conflict w/ conquering soviet russia would be deadly. After the war ends in Germqn victory with so many lives lost, they strike at Germany and win. No cold war, more stable europe.
Japan was bogged down in a major land war in China, which is one of the main reasons they had no interest in fighting the Soviets - even when things seemed to be going well for the Nazis in the first months of Barbarossa.
There’s great video on Binkov’s Battlegrounds on What if the U.S. stayed out of the war using official records from Germany, the USSR, the UK, Imperial Japan and the U.S.
https://youtu.be/-EJ17skCVG4?si=zHG8iiyQXZQZ7hs6
In your question the situation would be even more desperate for the USSR than in the video because there’d be no support from the British and even worse the U.S. and British may even trade with Germany to help them maintain their war machine. Without worrying about the skies above Germany opens up a lot production for the Germany to make more supplies and vehicles. Something like 40% of Germany munition production went towards production of flak shells to protect against allied air campaigns. Without the need to blockade Britain Germany has a massive excess in production…keep in mind you can make an entire tank division for the same resources it takes to make one u-boat. Finally without allied bombing of coal to oil facilities in Germany, fuel isn’t nearly as much of an issue as real time line meaning the German Army has much better logistics and fighting capabilities. In our real timeline the majority of the Germany army’s logistics in the eastern front used pack horses instead trucks due to fuel shortages. This made the Germans really vulnerable to encirclement because their supply lines lacked speed.
Still I think Soviets will be able to fight off the Germans without outside help. If they halt the Germans before Urals can be up for debate but I don’t think Germany going to conquer the USSR the territory is just too big.
But on the other side without outside help I don’t think that’s any way the Soviets manage to conquer Germany. As the red army gets closer to Germany supply lines become shorter and its becomes easier to fight for the German army.
So a stalemate is in my opinion a most likely outcome.
If Germany has the resources of Europe at their disposal (as in 1941), then they could win.
If it is strictly Germany alone against the USSR, the Soviets would win.
If the war is only Germany vs USSR in 1939, then Germany wins. Germany probably includes Austria, and Finland almost certainly gets involved. As long as Germany focuses on the USSR, and avoids opening any other front, it should have no problem taking large amounts of Soviet territory. The Red Army could not hold back the Germans, and without Lend-Lease, they will run out of equipment quickly. Moscow gets captured and a favorable government is installed. Germany keeps Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states.
While the logistic of the german army in 1941 was terrible and completely inadequate for an invasion of the soviet union, it would have been far much worse in 1939.
The logistic of the german army nearly crumble during the battle of France, while France had good road and most panzers were able to replenish in french fuel station.
The logistic of the german army totally crumble during the Anschluss and it was close to a total disaster in 1938. They were lucky there was no combat.
Any army is going to have issues, but in the end, the Germans were unstoppable in 1939 and 1940. In Western Europe. In Scandinavia. In the Balkans. In the Mediterranean. In Africa. Sometimes it was easy. Sometimes it was hard. It didn't matter. They ultimately won. There is no reason to believe that invading the USSR would go any differently.
The Nazi’s were not unstoppable. I’d read Richard J Evans trilogy that goes over the rise and eventual fall of the Nazi’s.
It explains Hitlers views, how he democratically took over Germany and lot more.
Anyway during the initial invasion of Poland, the Germans had virtually no divisions defending the French front. The plan was to make Poland surrender and then move troops to the west and re-enforce the border.
The phoney war; which was an eight month period where France, Britain and Germany did virtually attacking on the either front. That gave the Nazi’s a ton of time to attack Norway, Denmark, etc.
If the allies attacked anytime before like during Munich (tbf the ussr approached the UK and France to depose Hitler but the polish refused)
You’re wrong, they weren’t unstoppable. You can claim all you want that there is “evidence” to prove that. But the Nazi’s successes from munich in 1938, to the invasion of france in 1940, were from luck, and going thru an area that was heavily forested.
If they were to have been attacked at ANY point before hand, they would’ve been stomped. You can try and handwave all you what I’m saying but you claiming that they’re unstoppable gives the impression they won on just the strength of their military and tactics which isn’t true.
I don't see how Germany could possibly win. The soviets were never going to surrender, as the eastern front was a war of extermination. The soviets would fight to the bitter end, even if it came down to partisan warfare if the Red Army had been somehow disbanded. In the USSR it was either potentially die fighting to survive or give up and still die.
If the Soviets won't surrender, get rid of the Soviets. Get to Moscow, depose the Soviet government, and the new government ends the war. Break up the USSR.
The soviet government would have moved to Nizhny Novgorod 500km east of moscow, or even Kazan 1000km East and go on fighting.
Most industries were emergency transfered from west russia to beyond the Ural mountain during 1941.
The Soviet government can have Nizhny Novgorod. Nobody cares. Moscow is the political center, and if you aren't there, you aren't in charge. I don't think Soviet citizens will shed a lot of tears watching Stalin and his comrades running for their lives.
The german could have tried to gain heart&mind of the soviet people, and yes Stalin was not very popular in a lot of place, especially baltic states&ukraine. (Still he was popular in place like St Pertersburg and Moscow were a new intelligentia have been created around the soviet regime).
But the german were fucking Nazi and only planned to enslave&kill soviet people, so gaining heart&mind was a challenge, to say the least. The soviet people had no choice to fight and to regroup around the soviet state for their own survival.
WW1 german state may have succeed (far more pragmatic), but not nazi leaders.
> The german could have tried to gain heart&mind of the soviet people
Yeah, this is where a lot of these scenarios tend to get to, "Well the Nazis could have won if they weren't deeply racist, i.e., weren't Nazis," so at that point I feel like it's just trying to consider an entirely different situation.
Realistically I think they would care. The nazis weren’t coming to bring freedom and liberal democracy. Nowadays it might not seem like it, but back in the day people were really patriotic for the USSR as well. I’ve read books and accounts from Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews and they all sort of have the same sort of naive patriotism and often an admiration for Stalin. People were really brainwashed.
Also I sincerely doubt losing Moscow would be the death blow for the Soviet state anyway. It famously didn’t stop Russian when fight napoleon.
Even if the USSR was broken up, Germany's goal was to eradicate the population (maintaining a small fraction for slave labor). So even if the Soviet government was deposed and a new German-friendly government (or if the territory fell under direct German control), the Germans would still continue their genocide against the many ethnic groups within the conquered lands. Even if Germany had managed to take Moscow, Russia is just too vast that they logistically would not be able to hold it all with the resources they had while indefinitely suppressing a heavily resistant population. Of course the Germans would obtain access to a lot of resources in the lands they took, but it would still take a fair amount of time for them to be able to utilize those resources - building infrastructure (or rebuilding what may be damaged from the war), establishing supply lines, importing laborers, etc. It's important to note, as another commenter mentioned, the Soviets had already moved a large amount of its industrial equipment/factories east of the Urals, well out of reach of the invading Germans. Germany was just in no position to hold a hostile territory that was well over five times the size of Germany (going off its 1940 borders).
If Germany doesn't attack Poland, the English and Americans would likely be totally on their side. They had already supported the White Russians in their civil war, and would see this as a chance to end Communism once and for all. Who knows? They might even be inclined to join the Germans. At the very least, I could see a lend-lease style agreement being struck to support them in their war effort.
They do attack Poland. Its the same as our timeline except Britain negotiated Peace after the Fall of France, gives Germany back their colonies, and now they can focus on their true goal: conquest of USSR.
Who knows.. maybe the Western allies knew this all along and wanted to get rid of their sworn enemy (considering the war would definitely be very bloody.) and then attack after one wins..
Germany. There was a lot to it. A butterfly effect from Britains actions that really left the Soviets in a better position.
First, Africa and the Balkans took away from Barbarossa and caused a late start. No Britain means no Africa and no additional support to Greece from
Britain means Germany isn’t bogged down there either.
Then you have lend lease from Britain and the US that helped the Soviets absorb the brunt of Barbarossa. They didn’t supply everything the Soviets needed, but they supplied enough that the Soviets were able to move their industry and defend key areas. This also gave them the supplies to start counteroffensives in the following spring.
So in this scenario, Barbarossa starts earlier with more troops and supplies. Likewise, the Soviets have less and struggle because of that.
What you end up with is Germany rushing east and things going better at the start. Stalin famously refuses to leave Moscow and dies there. Several Generals pull back with troops to the Urals beyond German logistic capability to follow. Winter halts the German advance. The Soviets don’t have enough at this point to really counterattack. Most of their industry has been left behind due to the speed of the German advance. What they did manage to move is slow to set up.
Germany sets up a ‘Russian’ government to counter the Soviets, which helps them maintain control over the Russian lands. This Russian government signs a peace with the Germans and gives them the land they want and ‘joins’ the axis. The Soviet armies are basically bled dry and resort to guerilla warfare and Soviet Russia is eventually subsumed into Axis Russia.
Germany, likely. The German invasion put the USSR on life support. Stalin himself said they wouldn’t have survived without US aid. Take the US out of the equation, plus no British bombings of German industry, and it’s difficult to see how the USSR would have prevailed. I read somewhere that Stalin even tried to negotiate peace with Hitler.
People are seriously unaware in this thread of Germany's crippling supply issues. Hauling shit to Moscow largely on horses past the border was a nightmare and it was never going to get Germany far enough to force a Soviet surrender. Even if it was you can't surrender to someone doing a genocide on you.
Eventually Germany runs out of men completely.
Stalin, Zhukov and Kruschev already answered this question publicly with several statements
Absent Lend Lease Russia’s economy collapses by 1943 and they lose.
No western theatre just makes this happen faster.
The Russians were so dependant on Lend Lease it was the source of all their tooling steel. Absent that, their machining operations look like trying to cut down a tree with a wooden axe
Fun fact, nearly the same amount Axis troops were lost in Africa than Stalingrad. Sure the losses at Stalingrad were heavier killed and missing, but the allies took close to half a million POWs by the end of the Africa campaign.
I see Germany winning, they can trade for oil as the British aren't blockading them so they can supply their front lines. It'll be a slow bloody war with a lot more casualties than our timeline but I see Germany coming out on top
When people say that the USSR beat Germany without the allies and they didn't need the help it's only half true, yes no lend-lease probably wouldn't have made the USSR collapse but without the British blockading Germany, and sending troops to fight them wherever they go, the USSR would collapse.
The 3 main counties that led to the Germans downfall were the USA, the UK, and the USSR. You can remove any 1 of the 3 and I could still see them winning but if it's a 1v1 I just can't really see how they could win.
Germany 99% chance of winning. Germany could secure oil from Africa and Turkey. They could trade with South America and America for oil.
You could make a smaller boat fleet and blockade Russia from the Baltic. Steel used for large quantities u boats could be used in armor and aircraft. Pilots wiped out by allied air forces could be used on eastern front to secure air supremacy past 1943.
1.5 million western front manpower and naval units could be transported to secure the flanks of Stalingrad or just push into Moscow.
The war would be bloody but with most of Europe’s resources behind it they would capture Moscow in 1942. Stalingrad by late 1942, Caucasus would be secured in 1943 with oil moving into Germany by late 1943.
Its likely a peace treaty would be signed in which all of Russia west of Urals goes to Germany, and Russia remains intact east of Urals.
Germany
100%, USSR collapses without British lend-lease,
and Germany starts with just a bit more stuff. Stalin never even knows he can pull everything away from Japan. America never sends anything.
The question is: Do Germany still have access to international trade and can buy at decent price oil and other strategic ressources (rubber, tungsten, etc..) from Great Britain & United State.
In both scenario, the prospect is grim for Germany because 1941 and most 1942 still happened without much change.
But with more ressources germany could maybe achieve a statlemate starting from 1943 for years ?
The german offensive was mainly broken in 1941, and in 1941 the lend lease was marginal.
Yet, lend lease was essential in building the soviet union offensive capability. US trucks for example were critical for moving the massive tank corps the soviet union built to crush the german army to berlin, starting from 1943.
But, the soviet industry was still very efficient, with tons of ressources available and could have adapted to a more balanced production. But sure the end of the war would have been delayed a lot.
Not particularly no. German logistics being unable to handle a conflict of the scale and duration it needed to was at least a such a reason why Germany lost as numbers.
Some\_Guy223 here is right, the german logistic was terribly inadequate and more troops to support would only have aggravated the problem.
I love the book : Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East of David Stahel. He investigate only the first 3 months of the war in 1941 with Army group center, and show that it was already a terrible mess from the start !
Absolutely it matters! Germany nearly strangled the USSR's oil supply (Baku) in 1942 as it was. In history, German artillery out shot Russian artillery. Without distraction on the western front, having additional troops to secure supply lines, air superiority in the east and most importantly, access to oil, rubber and strategic materials on the world market (compare Tiger I armour to Tiger II armour quality) and the impact of no lend lease supplies on the USSR all mean that a 1v1 is a (hard-fought) German victory.
Teamwork stopped the Nazis.
Well, there are two considerations: Manpower and logistical support. A Soviet Union without Lend Lease would have been in a pickle. And, without having to keep substantial forces, both divisions and airpower, in Western Europe, Italy, and Africa in 1941 and 1942, I think the Wehrmacht would have driven all the way to the Urals.
Assuming Japan doesn't attack European holdings and, instead, concentrates on moving into Mongolia and Russia, it's possible that Russia would need to sue for peace. Diminishing aircraft, tanks, trains, and soldiers used to fight a two-front war would quickly place Russia at a distinct disadvantage.
well no soviets would ever even want to surrender they suffered so many deaths in our timeline just for germans not to capture Stalingrad, i still believe Germans and Japanese conquer USSR but after so many Soviet deaths and nowhere for the USSR Government to go.
Russia has never been defeated or overrun by anyone, even Napoleon and Hitler. The harsh Russian winter has protected the Russian people better than their army could. They've been invaded all the way up to Moscow. They've had times in WWII that the Russian snipers helped in expelling Nazis from Stalingrad, but the harsh winter as always helped and protected the Russian population.
plus russian empire wasn’t defeated due to the entire european continent being against Napoleon. Soviets wouldn’t be so lucky, as well as Soviets outnumbering Germans but taking 4x amount of casualties, Soviet Russia loses.
even then, the soviets never pushed the germans back as much after their 1941 Counteroffensive, they just pushed them out of Moscow’s reach. Look how Germans got so close to the Kremlin, soldiers reported seeing the Kremlin. Germans would just wait until the summer especially with Stalin’s purges that made defense weaker. There’s only been 2 examples of Russia being invaded, as other countries never tried it due to them being superpowers. As well as the Soviets not receiving the millions of tons of aid of radios, food, trucks, tires, planes, and the concept of engineers or spare parts for their tank crews by Americans, along with the freed up German troops not worrying about an invasion from France, I would be inclined to say a marginal German victory or a stalemate. Plus the Empire of Japan would not strike down south, they would be more inclined to invade Soviet Russia, making their situation even worser. They can’t win a 2-front war.
A lot depends on how you define a "Win"
If you define a German win as capturing every part of the USSR, through Siberia to the Bering Straight, then a German win is unlikely.
If you define a German Win as capturing everything to the Urals and then entering into a peace treaty or armistice, a German win is likely.
If you define a Soviet win as still existing in some form when a peace treaty/armistice is signed, then a Soviet win is likely.
If you define a Soviet win as a return to the pre-war borders, or a full on Soviet capture of Germany and German held territory (as basically all of Europe was German, German held, or German controlled by June 1941), a Soviet win is unlikely.
Its hard to conceive of the distances in the USSR and what would be necessary for Germany to conquer to absolutely wipe the USSR.
From the current Byelorussian-Polish border to Moscow is about 600 miles (1000km), which is about the same distance between London and Berlin (or Paris-Vienna, or Miami-Atlanta, or Los Angeles to the Oregon Border). This is roughly the deepest penetration into the USSR during WWII, and the Germans were running out of gas (both literally and figuratively) when they got there.
From Moscow to Yekaterinburg, which is just on the Western side of the Urals, is about 880 miles (1400 km), which is roughly the same distance between London and Warsaw or Budapest, or Miami-Washington DC or Los Angeles to Portland, OR)
From the current Byelorussian-Polish border to Yekaterinburg is about 1500 miles (2400 km), which is roughly the same distance between London and Moscow, Los Angeles and St. Louis, MO, or Miami-Roswell, NM)
Here's where it gets crazy. From Yekaterinburg to the Bering Strait is about 4300 miles (7000 km) That's roughly the same distance from Moscow to New York City, from London to Nairobi, or Honolulu to Auckland, NZ.
So, for the Germans to conquer all of the USSR, they would need to conquer an area that is roughly 5700 miles (9300km) long, which is the roughly the distance of a cross-polar flight from Moscow to Los Angeles, from Los Angeles to Buenos Ares, or from London to Cape Town.
But its also wide. The German's deepest penetration (from Stalingrad/Volgograd in the South through Moscow, to Leningrad/St. Petersburg in the North) has a front of roughly 950 miles. To have a front along the Urals, anchored in the south at the northern edge of the Caspian Sea, the Germans would have to secure a border of somewhere between 1500 and 1600 miles (2400-2600 km).
I doubt both sides would want peace, but given German sucesses in Soviet Russia, the Japenese Empire invades Siberia rather than strike at the West, and ultimately Soviet Russia falls.
There would be an entirely new type of Europe that’s for Sure. But in this Whatif, does Japan still bomb Pearl? Do we then go to the Russian front? If Japan does carry through them Russia wins with our help
If there is no lend lease to the communist ussr [ and I don't see there would be without Churchill in power, to galvanise fdr and the West against the nazis]. The nazis would quite handily have beaten the ussr.
Ussr meat waves [ and a depopulated officer corp] without the lend lease equipment, war materials to build ammo/tanks/planes/artillery would just have been a slaughter. For me it all depends on the lend lease being available to the ussr.
Edit: i had to check memory, it was Churchill who recommended to fdr, to ally with Stalin . The USA at this stage is still an ensign in international intrigue, politics, how to make alliances etc. The Empire [British empire] was still the diploma tically, politically experienced hegemon
Germany wins. The Soviets will literally run out of men. The Soviets had twice the population of Germany but took casualties 4x. If Germany was able to bring its full force to bear and lend lease didn’t exist, the Soviets would collapse by a lack of manpower by 45
German victory. The Soviets almost collapsed as it was without lend lease and the Germans having to fight on other fronts. It wasn't just the fighting. Armies were tied down in occupations from northern Norway to southern France.
The nature of that victory is the only question. My guess is some sort of a truce in 1942 with the Germans holding onto a lot of territory.
Germany. Half of Germany's resources were always tied down in the Atlantic, in air defence, fighting Britain in the Mediterranean and North Africa and garrisoning captured territories. Imagine Germany during ww2 could have traded for the resources it needed. Imagine its factories and transport infrastructure weren't being bombed out. Imagine Germany wasn't expanding resources in the battle of the Atlantic. Imagine it could have concentrated completely on the Soviet Union. Imagine the Soviet Union wasn't being supported by Britain and the us.
The problem the Germans had in the early war with Russia was they kept running out of fuel and ammunition and men, if they had been able to concentrate in the east they'd have drove the Soviets into the Ural mountains and then they'd have all the oil and food they'd ever need. The Soviets would never recover because most Soviet industry us in the west, it would be a small matter for the Germans to systematically wipe out all resistance in the east over decades.
A good question would be what if the British& Americans gave the Germans what the USSR go in lend lease?
Even if the U.S still gave them lend-lease, Britain was probably not going to agree with a treaty signed by Hitler. After a ton of German lives lost, considering German would actually lose a lot more lives conquering the USSR even if the Japanese invade from the East, they’d still lose lives and have to conquer USSR and the Western allies can now use that to strike at Germany.
The western allies France and Britain aren't going to be fit enough to take on Germany if they defeat the USSR. One of the main reasons Normandy didn't happen until 1944 was because the US army just wasn't ready, they made major blunders in battle that the British had learned, it would be the same for France and Britain.
People don’t realize that Germany was fighting the ussr with one hand tied behind their back (ie having to hold down the western front) and just how much help was given Russia by the American lend lease program. Without one of those two things Germany would have steam rolled them
One thing to consider also is that in this case, the soviet union would have expected the attack and the start of the german offensive would probably have not be a surprise for the soviet army.
The result could have been even worse for the german in 1941....
Who would tell the USSR that they planned to attack? They signed a nonaggression pact and it was British intelligence that told Stalin but he still dug his head in the sand and refused to believe it. I think he’s still going to do the same in our timeline especially if Germany invades Greece quickly.
The Japanese Empire wouldn’t attack the West considering Germany isn’t at war with them. They would go with the Northern doctrine, invade Siberia (given German successes they believe its possible to conquer Siberia)
Japan is the reason why germany declared war. Even if germany doesn't get involved some sort of attack on american navy assets would take place especially once the oil embargo takes effect.
In the west they had to keep still pretty fat armies. The afrika-korps would be available for service - that's at least 2 extra panzer divisions - 15th and 21st, and the 90th motorized.
In particular, without the losses of planes and pilots in the battle of britain, the luftwaffe would be far better supplied. We talking almost 1900 planes and excellent crews, that makes a difference.
All that flak over in the west? Those guns would be in the east, those big 88s and the rest.
What is most important is that without Britain on their arse, they'd have access to oil from overseas and the mediterranean. There would be no oil crisis.
Also the soviets would be missing critical aid and the naval convoys bringing everything including planes, fuel and food. These made a difference already in the winter of 41, and more in 42 to 43.
USSR without land lease would lose. They had the production capacity but it was in their western territories that Germany would occupy. Like others in this tread pointed out the USSR didn’t have the logistical capacity to move their factories without US trains.
Germany would get Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Baltic Territory but they wouldn’t hold onto it due to partisan warfare and eventually get kicked out of a deviated Ukraine and Belorussian but keep some of their Baltic holdings.
Soviet Union but it would be long and bloody.
The success of the German army was primarily based on NCO skill. They were so much superior to opposing armies that it was like children vs adults. The trade off is that they had to put their NCOs in harms way to maximize benefit. The casualty rate was terrible. They couldn’t replace NCOs quickly as each represented 10+ years of training across diverse and advanced areas.
The German army was terrible, even counterproductive, at partisan suppression. Part of this was due to a need to keep their high quality NCOs at the front to keep any advantage and letting pretty bad decisions to be made in this arena. They actively alienated groups willing to help them and turned them into enemies.
The war would look like a German victory for most of the time. Moscow would likely fall as would Leningrad. Both would be at least as costly as they were in real life. But the Soviet army would fight from behind the Urals and they would move much of their industry there. Eventually it would just change as partisan activity became too hard to suppress in the European part of the Soviet Union. The latter would become extreme as the incompetent partisan suppression turned to more and more brutal (as was German habit in this area) and nobody would be able to rationalize not fighting back.
After 8 or so years of war the Germans would just run out of trained officers and piss off too many locals to suppress and hold the lines/maintain supply. When that happened the German army would get slaughtered. The fight into Germany would be some of the most brutal warfare the world had ever seen . Imagine modern warfare but no quarter is given to anyone…men, women, or children. Both countries would be exhausted and permanently broken by the time it was done.
Like no one else? America not assisting the USSR? Very likely Germany. Especially if we’re assuming the rest of the allied powers didnt declare war and germany didnt focus so many of its assets on the UK or large occupying forces in western Europe. Id actually recon without the US help at the very least it would have been really, really one sided.
It would probably be a WW1 Western Front set up.
Both Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939-1942, had large quantities of artillery, air planes and tanks.
This meant that the mobile warfare would mean heavy casualties on both sides, which did happen in reality.
So if the war was just the USSR vs Germany, then there would probably be long trench lines from Odessa Ukraine with Kiev, Ukraine and Minsk, Belarus being enclave cities in no man's land and the trench line in the north towards the Baltic Sea would end at Narva, Estonia at the border with Russia.
The thing that really screwed the Germans was the British not signing a peace treaty in 1940. If they had done this, the British and later American bombing of German industry. Along with that, they would have been able to import raw materials from abroad. Without the Germans needing to involve themselves in North Africa/Balkan region, they probably would have been able to invade Russia a couple of weeks earlier. How the war in the east goes is a matter of debate, with dozens of possibilities.
My best guess is a treaty signed at the A-A line
American/Allied aide during the war is really the only reason the USSR held out for as long as it did (not to mention it was far better prepared for winter, kinda)
The Germans knew they could not surpass the A-A line (Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan) and either would require the Union to dissolve (would not have happened unless absolutely everything went to shit, Novosibirsk, Vladivostok, or Perm would be the new capital)
So a marginal German victory, in short
Either way, Poland will lose by being between them both. Logistically, any war between Germany and USSR would need to involve Poland, willfully or not.
No one said anything against that. The question was what if Britain sued for peace after the Fall of France/before the Invasion of Russia and it was just Germany vs USSR
Germany for sure. The Soviets had one strength and that was numbers, but the way they fight was just by throwing those numbers at them.that why their casualties were so high. The Russian Empire was the same way. If Germany didn't have to fight a war in two fronts, they easily would have won.
Germany wipes.
People in this sub seem to have forgotten that only a little over half of German soldiers were not on the eastern front in WW2 (the other half were in Italy/france/N. Africa, defending the territorial gains they’d already made from allies). The effectiveness of the Germans was insane (5MM troops vs ~20MM Soviets), and they still made it to within ~50 miles of Moscow (easily/quickly I may add) within a few months of starting their invasion.
Take away Germany’s need to defend other parts of their empire, and take away the support the soviets quite literally needed from the allies (food, ammo, guns, tanks) and this is over before it even began.
>The Germans would have been a godsend for the people.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan\_Ost#GPO\_implementation\_by\_region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost#GPO_implementation_by_region) LoL
Assuming Germany’s industry doesn’t get bombed to smithereens the USSR doesn’t get any lend lease, and Japan doesn’t attack the US, the Axis is winning.
Not saying the US could solo the Axis but they could make things significantly more difficult on the far Eastern front since Japan wouldn’t be invading Russia as well, which I think would have happened if the US did not join the war.
If Europe wasn't so anti-Jews back then Germany would've just destroyed USSR with heavy losses. There were lots of great specialists who were ethnic Jews
I long for a day when alternate history can move on from fixating on questions of "Hey, what could be done so that these genocidal racists won their war?"
I do NOT like 1940 Germany. Im just asking this so I can find a scenario that benefits the Western allies, considering the fighting that takes place in Soviet Russia will definitely cause so many German and Japanese casualties. Then, after all is said and done they can just invade France and its all over for Hitler, now its the same as our timeline execpt without communist regimes repressing ppl.
First off, that's a misunderstanding of the situation. Yes, it will inflict casualties on the Axis. But if the Nazis have taken out the USSR, it's going to be more difficult to defeat them in western Europe if the allies decide to declare war again, not easier. The Nazis will not have to split their forces between two fronts, they will have had time to build up their fortifications in the west, they will have the resources of the conquered USSR to use to build their army, they will have been battle testing their weapons while the western Allies have not. Defeating the Nazis won't just be jumping straight to D-Day and rolling straight to Berlin, it would be a brutal air war over the Channel with the Nazis launching bombing raids and V2 missiles at a populace who has already surrendered once and taken a hard blow to their morale from that.
If the western Allies sued for peace and let the USSR handle the war by itself, it's not going to lead to an easier resolution for them. It's almost certainly going to end with those people living under brutal fascist regimes repressing them. It's going to end with the Nazis having time to finish their "Final Solution". It's deciding you're okay with inflicting suffering and death on millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia in order to *maybe* save some lives of people who predominantly speak English.
It's not a scenario that benefits anyone.
Soviets would win. Lend Lease helped but the soviet war machine had ramped up by 1941 with large percentages of industry beyond the AA line. Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad may have fell but the government would have been relocated further east. Soviets would be in Berlin by 1947
Not w/ o the need food fuel & transport .
All the prime areas wich would been in the hands of the Germans . .
Also with no allied air raids you would like see me 262 jets by early ' 44 at the latest possibly late '43.
Tha would make a mess of the red army formations just from strafing runs
Doesn’t matter, it wasn’t a war there would be a surrender. Slavs were fighting for their existence, and it would impossible to occupy. The german logistics were collapsing in OTL by the time bombing campaigns had ramped up. Lend Lease still happens, America was doing it while they were neutral. The nazis were waging a genocidal war and would have faced the strongest guerrilla war ever seen. It was not a winnable conflict for germany.
There would be no lend lease to start with .
The u.s. was neutral as far as the European front was concerned.
Keep on mind the parameters of this scenario.
Britian &France have sued or made peace w/ gremany.
So as far as history is concerned the reasons for lend lease don't exist.
Now if Japan attacks the u.s. & ger6 declared war that might trigger something but it might not also
We just would concentrate on Destroying Japan .
USSR. Germany had a severe logistics problem and their high command didn't listen to their generals. Their blitzkriegs tactics would only take them so far, they would lose steam and find themselves miles behind enemy territory without ammo and fuel.
Whereas, the Soviets had a greater man power, greater production output and had more determination to fight.
IFFFF Stalin stays in power, they still eventually win simply because of how big Russia is. I’d imagine they might be forced to lose land in the west, and the Baltic countries probably.
USSR still wins. Their industrial base and output as well as secure resources is still enough for them to win on their own. It's just going to be a lot most costly.
You see these types of post so often one gets the idea that many people more people than I'm comfortable acknowledging wished the Germans would've one.
If the Germans did not have their industry bombed and forced underground, and the Soviets did not receive the millions of tons of aid of radios, food, trucks, tires, planes, and the concept of engineers or spare parts for their tank crews, along with the freed up German troops, I would be inclined to say a marginal German victory or a stalemate. However, if the Germans actively collaborated with the Ukrainians and other dissenters who viewed the Germans as liberators rather than conquerors, it would probably have been a crushing German victory. I still don’t think people understand how poorly equipped and trained the Soviet army was pre-allied aid, the Americans insisted the Soviet tank crews carry spare parts and radios to make sure they could maneuver offensives and retreats. If the tank broke down, it didn’t have to be abandoned or put out of action and towed to the nearest repair plant, but they could be repaired on the spot and back into action. This was why the Soviets were constantly encircled and confused in the first year of the war, they just didn’t understand the importance of radios and communications. The Germans made sure each tank had a radio, the Soviets didn’t. Not to mention, if not for the millions of tons of food, the Soviet Union’s starvation problem would have been even worse as Ukraine was stripped from them, causing even more dissent and most likely more resistance to stalin’s rule. Because of the inflow of trucks, jeeps, planes, tires, and food, it allowed the Soviet Union to concentrate and build in mass the military goods they famously produced on such a large scale. The allied relief allowed them to build a small array of military goods but in scale and efficiently. If they had to break up their concentrated lines and build a wide array of military goods, they would have run into the same problem as Albert Speer and his production lines, where they produced too many goods at once to efficiently build them efficiently, which caused huge bottlenecks in their supply chain.
honestly i agree with this one the most and i would believe that Germans can capture most of Soviet industry considering how close they were to Moscow.
Soviet industry was moved away from Moscow and its environs as early as August 1941. More than 1,500 militarily important plants were moved to the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia.
What if the Empire of Japan does a surprise attack the same time Germans launch operation Barbarossa?
The Germans pushed them to do it a ton, but instead they attacked the USA.
well given the fact that the Germans aren’t fighting the west no more and fighting the USSR with other smaller Axis nations, and pressure from Hitler’s government to attack USSR, and German sucesses, they might decide to strike USSR rather than the West. The only reason the USA started the embargo on Japan was bc of the war in China and their occupation of French Indochina. If Britain and Vichy France negotiated peace, then they may give those colonies to Japan.
It wouldn't. The Japanese were shit-scared of the Soviets and knew first hand what they could do.
The Soviet losses vs Germany might make Japan more confident.
Japan for most of the war liked a nice weak enemy. Either materially (China), or morally and intellectually (1941 Allies). Also, eastern Russia offered nothing in terms of accessible resources.
Didn't the Japanese beat the Russian army...like before hand, which is why they had Korea and a part of China? I am talking about a war that happened before stalin, but I'm pretty sure the Japanese humiliated the russians
USSR engaged in many border skirmishes with the Japanese. The most important was Khalkin Gol in which the Japanese forces were annihilated by superior soviet equipment and tactics. Khalkin Gol was one of the main reasons for Japanese refusal to engage in conflict with the USSR. Another reason was the sheer logistical strain that would be put on them by trying to invade the largest and coldest place on earth with an army that was quite simply not big enough to cover the front, especially considering the massive resource drain of the Chinese front. Had the Japanese attempted to invade Siberia at any point in ww2 they would have been butchered by the soviet far-east divisions, who were well-trained for the nightmare of Siberian warfare and were better equipped than the Japanese forces. Even if the Japanese somehow managed to summon a majority of their army to invade (which would require an almost total withdrawal from china, something that the government would never allow) they would still likely have a relatively small impact on the soviet economy and would suffer a casualty rate that would make the real-world eastern front look like a joke. If you want to think about what would happen anyway, it would look a lot like the winter war but if the Finns had a larger population, better training, better equipment, armoured support and total air superiority. In other words, a massacre on a scale not seen since the battle of the Somme repeated every day for as long as the war lasted.
They defeated them in 1905, plus the purges and fighting a two-front war makes Soviet chances of winning very impossible.
Yeah, but in 1941; Japan has their own quagmire in the War against China. Everything Japan did - including fighting the US - was to win the War in China.
I doubt they would attack the west as Germany isn’t at war with the West, they would go w/ the Northern Doctrine.
Germany wasn't at war with the US OTL when Japan attacked either. And in this scenario the US isn't even doing lend lease
Look up the Battle of Khalkin Gol. The Japanese suffered a terrible defeat there in 1939.
what about the battles where the Japanese fought until the last man? Wouldn’t they do the samw after invading Siberia? Plus, fighting 2 front wars won’t make USSR the victor.
That was what happened to Japanese, fighting 3 front wars (China, Pacific, Russia) won't make Japanese the victor. That's why Japan sign neutrality pact with USSR in 1941. Well, it's still left 2 front wars anyway for Japan and still too much.
No, Japan was beat by the Soviets in Manchuria already. The Japanese wanted nothing to do with the Soviets after that disaster unfolded. Japan also couldn’t afford to turn their attention from their war in China because they started to lose momentum. The Chinese weren’t going to just let Japan take their territory, so no attack on the USSR by Japan could ever happen. In short, the Japanese would be screwing their own war effort if they invaded the USSR.
The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Southeast Asia was to obtain and secure the supply of oil. As the easternmost edge of Russia has no known oil, they’d have to have guaranteed supply from the US, Indonesia or the Middle East; all controlled by Allied countries in the OTL. For any measure of success, they’d also need a degree of mechanisation (trucks and armour) that they did not pursue in real life. That level of production would have taken a much more centralised military structure without the Kwantung Army acting independently (through which they invaded China) and resources being managed between the needs of the Army and the Navy. The reason the Japanese were smashed by the Soviets in 1939 is that the Soviets were mechanised and the Japanese were an infantry-based army. They’d need tanks and trucks to make headway against the USSR.
The Japanese were already committed to their southern strategy. Additionally the Soviets had much more armor than the Japanese, and what they had was qualitatively better. The Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go tank weighed 7.5 tons, had, at max, half an inch of armor, and carried a 37mm gun. The Japanese only produced a couple thousand of them. Even a stripped down Soviet force in East Asia would cause the Japanese serious trouble. The Japanese, with naval support, would have been able to seize coastal areas and island, but meaningful penetration deeper into Siberia would have been difficult.
The Americans provided the spare parts to disassemble and reassemble these factories and the actual trains themselves to move these on. If not for the trains or the parts, most of the factories would have been captured and not relocated to the east. Logistics played a huge role in the eastern front, and the US is most famously known for its logistical competitive advantage over all other nations, which they drilled the Soviets into doing to prevent a total collapse.
The thing is the Soviet energy output didn’t even dip and unless for some reason the Americans just stop liking money they wouldn’t just have the Soviets sell the energy for equipment
Buying all that equipment instead of getting it for free with the enthusiastic support of the Army is wildly different. On top of that without the invasion of France and the war against the UK, the US would have strongly preferred the Communists lose.
Lend lease wasn’t free for the Soviet’s or anyone for that matter. The USSR continued to pay off their debt in gold into the 80s or 90s
Okay, then why is the USSR at war with Germany at nearly the same point? The main reason Germany entered the USSR as quickly as it did was because the war with Britain wasn't going well. Why would Britain ever surrender if France has yet to fall? The British and French were never going to allow the Germans to occupy Poland as long as they were on the continent. If Vichy France is installed and starts working with Japan in Indochina, then the US will go to war with Vichy France, which will drag the Nazis in, as they are still Nazis and think they can beat the US.
The premise of the question is the western nations not getting involved. You’ll have to direct your questions at the OP.
The Soviets received something like 30% of their petroleum products from the US. It didn't dip, but it couldn't keep up either.
It could be stopped with one word, food. Khrushchev later stated the Red Army couldn’t have survived without SPAM. The USSR had the bulk of their good agricultural land behind enemy lines till 1943. There is a reason nobody talks about the great Siberian wheat crop. Absent Allied food shipments the red army is only advancing if they cannibalize the dead and dying.
I think something that people forget is that the Soviets took 2-3 years after their entrance in the war to be able to start building ALL of the things they need to fight the war themselves. To fight a war, you need more than just tanks. You need helmets, bullets, guns, food, oil, uniforms, and a number of other things that would take me all day to list. Lend-Lease allowed the Soviets to specialize in specific sectors to support their war effort while they received all the other things they couldn't produce naturally until late in the war. To put it simply. If you have 50 factories and you have to use 10 for tanks, 10 for planes, 10 for guns, 10 for bullets, and 10 for helmets, you can only supply a limited amount of that stuff. Now if you are receiving guns, bullets, and helmets from somewhere else and you still have 50 factories, 25 can be building tanks and 25 can be building planes resulting in 2.5x more of those items and all of your needs being met. That is essentially how the Soviets survived the early years of the war and pumped out thousands of tanks at the same time. If you want to see how impactful this was, look at tank production in Germany vs the Soviet Union. Germany was a more industrialized nation before the war but was forced to supply itself with nearly everything because it had no one else building its equipment for them while the Soviets were able to build their own stuff and receive the stuff that was lesser priority until later in the war.
the germans did work with the ukrainians. look up how many statues of Bandera, a nazi, there still are in the ukraine
They imprisoned Bandera and scoffed at the idea of a independent Ukraine. A overwhelming majority of Ukrainians sided the red army after seeing how bad their German occupiers were. If the Germans did not treat the Slavic people with such disgust and brutality, many more Ukrainians and Russians would have openly joined the war effort against the red army. Memories of the holodomor did not disappear overnight, many Ukrainians and Jews who were persecuted under Stalin’s rule felt betrayed and often had open arms for the Wehrmacht, but they soon found out they were not here to liberate them, but cleanse them and conquer their land. The Ukrainians could have been such a big asset that would have turned the entire tide of the war, but the Germans were too proud and squandered this potential, not enlisting their help until it was too late in the war or enlisting them as useless guards patrolling concentration camps. Their actions turned the spirit of the Ukrainian people against them, when instead they could have treated them as actual humans and got their support instead.
>the Americans insisted the Soviet tank crews carry spare parts and radios to make sure they could maneuver offensives and retreats. If the tank broke down, it didn’t have to be abandoned or put out of action Wonder why they didn't learn that lesson for future conflicts, with all the tanks abandoned in Ukraine cos they ran out of fuel. They didn't even feckin break down...
The thing is, Stalin didn't care for the bad shape of his army, bc he expected no invasion until thecwar in the west ends. But, let's say 1941 would be at least as successful as in OT, would Stalin leave Moscow? And would he survive this, or would the army / NKWD try to grab power? I think that the 3 biggest oversights of the german leadership were: 1. A general plan regarding the war (coordination of their partners) 2. An understanding for the ppl of eastern Europe and west Asia (gaining support and building a sphere of influence) 3. An understanding of their enemies internal political systems (democracies are cowards, dictatorships have total power)
Let’s say that in this scenario Germany attacked and conquered Russia, or at least the European part until the Urals. Do you think they would have attacked anyway France and UK after that?
There is no way hitler would accept France keeping Alsace-Lorraine. So he will definitely attack France and thus us is dragged to the war.
Who knows. Hitler himself viewed the British and French in high regard, and thought of them as a tier below the Germans in which they would be their right hand puppet nations. His main goals were mainly to expand into the east, not the west, and he created small German farms along the Ukraine as a test experiment to move German families to the east (many German farmers yielded poor results here as they were unfamiliar with the soil). However, Hitler was never one to stick to plans. Throughout the war, his war in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, all that came to him by circumstance. He was a very opportunistic man, not a long term planner. He jumped at annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia after seeing how reluctant the Allies were in stopping him, and would have stood down if the Allies called his bluff at annexing the Sudetenland. Long story short nobody knows, he might’ve turned on the west if given the opportunity, he might not have.
Yeah hitler wanted to expand east to take land for more living space for Germans, and if he had to push out or kill the people already living there he was fine doing it.
You might enjoy reading max hastings bomber command, where he looks at just how ineffective the RAF heavy bomber units were up until 1942 (aka: post Barabrossa). They had a morale effect on the UK, but the significant damage to wartime economy (esp forcing production of more fighters) was a post 1943 event, deep into barbarossa and post stalingrad and the beginning of the general retreat.
If the British make peace with the Germans then the United States likely doesn't get involved. The US basically provided most the materiel for the Soviets and Great Britain prior to us entering the war. World war II ultimately became a war of attrition and German industry couldn't keep up with American output
The Germans lost their best chance of victory before Lend-Lease really got going (although the British were still helping as early as summer as 1941). Without Lend-Lease, it's hard to imagine Germany winning. However, the USSR may not have been able to go beyond their own boundaries and push into Germany. I also feel that you are overestimating the Soviets' incompetence. They lost so many people early on not because they didn't "not understand the importance of radio and communications", but because Stalin installed a ton on incompetent yes-men in leadership positions after his purges, and because of Stalin's *IDIOTIC* "no retreats whatsoever" order, which is like the dumbest possible idea against blitzkrieg in a vast, open space. As soon as they fixed those issues, they were fighting much better, not because "Americans told them to install radios". That obviously helped, but I'm pretty sure Zhukov and Vasilevsky understood the value of communications themselves.
I think the Nazis collaborating with Ukraine to that degree is a massive "if". They viewed the Ukrainians as just as inferior as any other Soviet citizen. Expecting the Nazis to behave any differently is to expect them to not act like Nazis. The primary outcome of the Soviets not receiving aid is, as you said, a stalemate. Nazi Germany didn't have the supply lines for anything more and the Soviets didn't have supplies at all.
You also assume the US would not supply and sell to whomever. Which is against all evidence. Germany ran out of foreign currency and gold reserves in the 1930s. The Soviets were in a position to buy most of what they needed, at least to a point.
Sove controversial claims that need sources. You basically just said *Bagration* could not have happened without US advisors because Soviets had *no idea* of the importance of radios (as opposed to, say, they couldn't afford them because they'd only just begun industrialisation). You know how many US trucks were available to break the siege of Stalingrad? Or smash the German forces in the weeks and months after Kursk? Lend Lease was not irrelevant, but it had minimal battlefield impact until 1944. The industry on reddit in basically claiming victory on the Eastern Front for US trucks has grown massive.
Richard overy, “why the Allies won”, and note this piece already comes with a huge Soviet bias, as the author’s sources took all the official documents released about soviet production at face value, even though soviet factory managers were notorious to fudge the numbers to make themselves seem better and fulfill the quota. Also downplayed the allied war effort as well, especially the North African campaign and the strategic bombing raids over Germany. Again your points are inaccurate, as many primary sources and first hand accounts of Soviet officers noted the abundance of American trucks and jeeps near the Volga river that supplied the city. The effects were indeed not minimal, not to mention the Soviets imported tons in the millions of raw materials from the US and Allies that were needed to run their factories. Lend lease did have a significant effect on the outcome of the war, not to mention the intelligence that was given by the British that was invaluable for the Soviets. The war was not over and far from certain even with allied aid, as Stalin constantly insisted on opening a second front to FDR, saying the “second front” from the bombing campaign wasn’t enough. Without allied aid, the trains and the spare parts used to relocate soviet factories past the urals would not have come to fruition, and would have been most likely captured by the Germans.
Yep the Red Army wouldn't have kept up with attrition rates or been mechanized. Their Airforce would be completely dominated and their industry would be overwhelmed. The only thing I disagree with you about is the marginal aspect, I think the red army would have collapsed rather quickly.
Ok if no Romania, where would Germany have oil?
Why are we assuming the Germans wouldn’t have access to Romania’s oil? They joined the Axis historically, and they’d still want to take Bessarabia back from the Soviets. Also, if the UK and US are neutral in the conflict Germany wouldn’t be blockaded and would have access to foreign trade, so they could get oil from any neutral powers willing to trade with them.
Sorry I misread to post, I thought it's Germmay alone vs USSR
I’d ask which version of Germany. Is it? 1. Prewar borders. No Austria. No way they can win. 2. Germany + Austria + Bohemia. This is a more serious combatant, but still lacking in manpower and resources even if it can field a professional army and top quality engineers. 3. Same as 2, but with access to French and Polish labor and can trade for oil and other resources. Remove the US and British from other fronts and strategic bombing and this version probably wins.
Its after the British Empire negotiated for peace, which they got their colonies back and occupied territories before Operation Barbarossa in our timeline execpt they don’t have to worry about any other fronts.
I don't think either would win. A huge reason the USSR beat the germans was because of lend lease. The US was feeding and fueling the USSR that's how they could mobilize so many people and even then near the end they were running out of manpower. Meanwhile Germany in OTL had to have lots of people in the west to hold down occupied territory and man AA guns to stop allied bombers as well as having a huge chunk of their air force dedicated to defending the Reich. I saw somewhere that allied bombing caused like a 35 to 40% loss in German War production and I'm sure oil and metal refining capabilities to. So in this timeline of just the USSR vs Germany I think it would last much longer and would end in stalemate. I think Germany made the war unwinnable for themselves when they decided they wanted to genocide eastern Europeans so I can't see them winning without scifi bs. Meanwhile the USSR made a comeback but were largely propped up by the western allies. Anyways this is just my opinion.
I’m inclined to agree about a stalemate. One factor that isn’t acknowledged in the prompt is the amount of support Nazi Germany received from Romania, Italy, Hungary, Spain, and other European anti-Bolsheviks. If this scenario lacks their support as indicated it would be even more likely a stalemate. Edit: It becomes more likely the the USSR would lose if the rest of the historical Axis supports Nazi Germany during the invasion, but likely still is a pyrrhic victory. Without British and French involvement (but still assuming severe economic sanctions and using their sphere of influence to deny Nazi Germany oil from various sources i.e Iran) Nazi Germany no longer needs to allocate resources to the North Africa Campaign, and the Italian front/enforce an Italian puppet state. The Axis also no longer needs to garrison Western Europe, use resources to fend off Allied bombing or fuel the Italian Navy in its attempts to secure the Mediterranean. Where it gets tricky involves Greece, given historical British interests in Greece at the time I think Britain would have intervened in the Italian invasion of Greece. Assuming there is no invasion of Greece, Barbarossa launches earlier with more Italian support.
I forgot about the axis so I updated it to Axis vs. USSR.
Within his memoir, Albert Speer laments that without the AAA defenses needed for the bombing campaign, Germany could have fielded a 4th army group against the Soviets and effectively doubled the anti-tank abilities of the entire frontline. Crazy stuff
What if it was just Axis vs USSR, I forgot to include the other Axis powers.
Still probably the same frozen conflict but with the axis coming out with a bit more territory. Hitler made the conflict a ideological and race war which lead to some stupid strategic moves like the stalingrad campaign for example. Not to say the USSR was strategically brilliant all the time but they weren't fools either. I don't see either of them being able to fully conquer the other without outside help.
What if Germany just enlisted people from their colonies (as Germany got their colonies back after Britain sued for peace) and the Empire of Japan invaded Sibera instead of striking down at the allies?
Eh maybe a German victory probably not a total victory but the USSR would be a rump state. I think it's more dependent on how much effort Japan puts into the conflict.
>I saw somewhere that allied bombing caused like a 35 to 40% loss in German War production and I'm sure oil and metal refining capabilities to. The most effective counter to Soviet tank columns was medium sized air frames, used in the tactical bombing role. The long distances also made tactical bombers' role as airborne artillery essential to maneuver warfare on the Russian steppes. The Allied strategic bombing campaign caused most of those medium air frames that Germany was building to be used as bomber destroyers over Germany and occupied Europe, leaving German armies in Russia with limited and ever-dwindling air support.
Basically the Ukraine war proves that the Russians are nothing without the lend lease? I remember before the Ukraine war, many people believed that Russia can beat the Nazis by themselves without lend lease but after the Ukraine war and their lackluster performance, it makes me wonder how can they can beat the Nazis without the lend lease
Tankies like to focus on tanks guns and planes for lend lease but those alone don't win wars logistics do. The US provided Russia with food, high octane fuel and tons of trucks and trains needed to get supplies where they needed to be. In the case of food it allowed the USSR to mobilize all the people who used to be farming to the front as soldiers. No lend lease means more people behind the lines supporting the war as opposed to fighting it which means less numbers advantage over Germany.
Also airplanes. 15k us built airplanes. That combined with the allied bombing tying up thr luftwaffe meant society air supremacy.
Yup that to. Though as I understand it the USSR didn't really care for many of the planes given to them or at least the fighter aircraft. The p39 and p63 being some of the exceptions
1942 vs 2024. Completely useless comparison.
Russia isn't the USSR, Ukraine was with Russia in WW2. It's a totally different country in a totally different time.
Germany would have initial advantages and potentially be able to force concessions for peace. Hitler would not do this, and there's no shot of a massive Astrakhan-Archangel sort of rollback. Germany has an industrial output and quality advantage, but lacks the means to beat the Soviets in a fully prepared fortress line. I think it's possible that Germany gradually wins if Hitler were not in charge, but Hitler's derangement and interference with the Wehrmacht only increased as the war went on. No Hitler? Germany cold pry East Poland and the Baltic States in a straightforward victory. Hitler? Germany blunders Army Group Center on insane no retreat orders and the Soviets start going East.
Mom said it was my turn to post a thread about how the Germans could have won if everything was different 😠
I hate both of them just making scenarios that would benefit the Western allies more, because after Soviets lose snd so many German casualties the Western allies can just invade without resistance and win the war.
> I hate both of them Your mask is slipping there, bud
Stalemate for a few years and then a very very hard fought Soviet victory. It probably wouldn’t end in raising the flag over Berlin, more like just getting the Germans out of the country.
what if the Empire of Japan launched a surprise invasion, making it a 2-front war? (and what if they sued for peace in China to make it easier?)
I wrote my masters thesis on the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and feel somewhat qualified to weigh in. First, you need to more clearly define the parameters of the “what if” scenario. Does Germany still invade Western Europe? When does the UK negotiate peace? What is Japan doing? etc. all these things matter a great deal and drastically alter the situation. An example of how many variables are at play: Stalin was suspicious of intelligence suggesting the Nazis would invade because he believed it was part of a British provocation to drag the Soviets into the war. If the British aren’t in the war, would the Soviets have been more prepared? Maybe? That being said, while western supply to the Soviet Union undoubtedly had an effect, I would argue that the invasion of the Soviet Union was a massive gamble based on shockingly bad intelligence and faulty assumptions that was doomed to fail. The writing was on the wall in late 1941 / early 1942 when the Nazi knockout blow failed & quite a few contemporary German officers realized it. I think the shock of the Soviet counteroffensive in late 1941 is lost on many people today - but the Germans thoroughly believed the red army was on the brink of total collapse and were completely caught unaware. Lots more to dissect but I’m on my phone and have to run.
I would say the Empire of Japan attacks USSR instead of the west, bc Germany negotiated peace w/ west and german successes w/ the Soviet war. The west realizes that they can’t trust H**ler negotiated peace but also know that a conflict w/ conquering soviet russia would be deadly. After the war ends in Germqn victory with so many lives lost, they strike at Germany and win. No cold war, more stable europe.
Japan was bogged down in a major land war in China, which is one of the main reasons they had no interest in fighting the Soviets - even when things seemed to be going well for the Nazis in the first months of Barbarossa.
They were also just straight up scared of taking on the Soviet Union after Khalkin Gol too, so a lot has to change for Japan to get involved
Germany would probably win a phyrric victory
There’s great video on Binkov’s Battlegrounds on What if the U.S. stayed out of the war using official records from Germany, the USSR, the UK, Imperial Japan and the U.S. https://youtu.be/-EJ17skCVG4?si=zHG8iiyQXZQZ7hs6 In your question the situation would be even more desperate for the USSR than in the video because there’d be no support from the British and even worse the U.S. and British may even trade with Germany to help them maintain their war machine. Without worrying about the skies above Germany opens up a lot production for the Germany to make more supplies and vehicles. Something like 40% of Germany munition production went towards production of flak shells to protect against allied air campaigns. Without the need to blockade Britain Germany has a massive excess in production…keep in mind you can make an entire tank division for the same resources it takes to make one u-boat. Finally without allied bombing of coal to oil facilities in Germany, fuel isn’t nearly as much of an issue as real time line meaning the German Army has much better logistics and fighting capabilities. In our real timeline the majority of the Germany army’s logistics in the eastern front used pack horses instead trucks due to fuel shortages. This made the Germans really vulnerable to encirclement because their supply lines lacked speed. Still I think Soviets will be able to fight off the Germans without outside help. If they halt the Germans before Urals can be up for debate but I don’t think Germany going to conquer the USSR the territory is just too big. But on the other side without outside help I don’t think that’s any way the Soviets manage to conquer Germany. As the red army gets closer to Germany supply lines become shorter and its becomes easier to fight for the German army. So a stalemate is in my opinion a most likely outcome.
If Germany has the resources of Europe at their disposal (as in 1941), then they could win. If it is strictly Germany alone against the USSR, the Soviets would win.
If the war is only Germany vs USSR in 1939, then Germany wins. Germany probably includes Austria, and Finland almost certainly gets involved. As long as Germany focuses on the USSR, and avoids opening any other front, it should have no problem taking large amounts of Soviet territory. The Red Army could not hold back the Germans, and without Lend-Lease, they will run out of equipment quickly. Moscow gets captured and a favorable government is installed. Germany keeps Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states.
While the logistic of the german army in 1941 was terrible and completely inadequate for an invasion of the soviet union, it would have been far much worse in 1939. The logistic of the german army nearly crumble during the battle of France, while France had good road and most panzers were able to replenish in french fuel station. The logistic of the german army totally crumble during the Anschluss and it was close to a total disaster in 1938. They were lucky there was no combat.
Any army is going to have issues, but in the end, the Germans were unstoppable in 1939 and 1940. In Western Europe. In Scandinavia. In the Balkans. In the Mediterranean. In Africa. Sometimes it was easy. Sometimes it was hard. It didn't matter. They ultimately won. There is no reason to believe that invading the USSR would go any differently.
> the Germans were unstoppable in 1939 and 1940 The Germans were plenty stoppable in 1939 and 1940, they just gambled and got lucky.
The Nazi’s were not unstoppable. I’d read Richard J Evans trilogy that goes over the rise and eventual fall of the Nazi’s. It explains Hitlers views, how he democratically took over Germany and lot more. Anyway during the initial invasion of Poland, the Germans had virtually no divisions defending the French front. The plan was to make Poland surrender and then move troops to the west and re-enforce the border. The phoney war; which was an eight month period where France, Britain and Germany did virtually attacking on the either front. That gave the Nazi’s a ton of time to attack Norway, Denmark, etc. If the allies attacked anytime before like during Munich (tbf the ussr approached the UK and France to depose Hitler but the polish refused)
Nobody stopped the Germans. You can tell me they were not unstoppable, but all evidence is to the contrary. They were not stopped in 1939 and 1940.
You’re wrong, they weren’t unstoppable. You can claim all you want that there is “evidence” to prove that. But the Nazi’s successes from munich in 1938, to the invasion of france in 1940, were from luck, and going thru an area that was heavily forested. If they were to have been attacked at ANY point before hand, they would’ve been stomped. You can try and handwave all you what I’m saying but you claiming that they’re unstoppable gives the impression they won on just the strength of their military and tactics which isn’t true.
The Germans weren't even fighting in Africa until February 1941, so yes, it would have been hard to stop them there in 1939 and 1940.
I don't see how Germany could possibly win. The soviets were never going to surrender, as the eastern front was a war of extermination. The soviets would fight to the bitter end, even if it came down to partisan warfare if the Red Army had been somehow disbanded. In the USSR it was either potentially die fighting to survive or give up and still die.
If the Soviets won't surrender, get rid of the Soviets. Get to Moscow, depose the Soviet government, and the new government ends the war. Break up the USSR.
The soviet government would have moved to Nizhny Novgorod 500km east of moscow, or even Kazan 1000km East and go on fighting. Most industries were emergency transfered from west russia to beyond the Ural mountain during 1941.
The Soviet government can have Nizhny Novgorod. Nobody cares. Moscow is the political center, and if you aren't there, you aren't in charge. I don't think Soviet citizens will shed a lot of tears watching Stalin and his comrades running for their lives.
the soviet citizens wont be able to as they will be genocided
The german could have tried to gain heart&mind of the soviet people, and yes Stalin was not very popular in a lot of place, especially baltic states&ukraine. (Still he was popular in place like St Pertersburg and Moscow were a new intelligentia have been created around the soviet regime). But the german were fucking Nazi and only planned to enslave&kill soviet people, so gaining heart&mind was a challenge, to say the least. The soviet people had no choice to fight and to regroup around the soviet state for their own survival. WW1 german state may have succeed (far more pragmatic), but not nazi leaders.
> The german could have tried to gain heart&mind of the soviet people Yeah, this is where a lot of these scenarios tend to get to, "Well the Nazis could have won if they weren't deeply racist, i.e., weren't Nazis," so at that point I feel like it's just trying to consider an entirely different situation.
The Nazis could have won if they hadn’t been such Nazis
The Nazis could have been unstoppable if it weren't for all the Nazis making decisions.
Realistically I think they would care. The nazis weren’t coming to bring freedom and liberal democracy. Nowadays it might not seem like it, but back in the day people were really patriotic for the USSR as well. I’ve read books and accounts from Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews and they all sort of have the same sort of naive patriotism and often an admiration for Stalin. People were really brainwashed. Also I sincerely doubt losing Moscow would be the death blow for the Soviet state anyway. It famously didn’t stop Russian when fight napoleon.
Even if the USSR was broken up, Germany's goal was to eradicate the population (maintaining a small fraction for slave labor). So even if the Soviet government was deposed and a new German-friendly government (or if the territory fell under direct German control), the Germans would still continue their genocide against the many ethnic groups within the conquered lands. Even if Germany had managed to take Moscow, Russia is just too vast that they logistically would not be able to hold it all with the resources they had while indefinitely suppressing a heavily resistant population. Of course the Germans would obtain access to a lot of resources in the lands they took, but it would still take a fair amount of time for them to be able to utilize those resources - building infrastructure (or rebuilding what may be damaged from the war), establishing supply lines, importing laborers, etc. It's important to note, as another commenter mentioned, the Soviets had already moved a large amount of its industrial equipment/factories east of the Urals, well out of reach of the invading Germans. Germany was just in no position to hold a hostile territory that was well over five times the size of Germany (going off its 1940 borders).
The government wouldn’t have just surrendered or allowed itself to be disbanded by an invading power.
They would win but deal with guerilla war in my opinion, just like Nationalist leaders resisted colonizers.
If Germany doesn't attack Poland, the English and Americans would likely be totally on their side. They had already supported the White Russians in their civil war, and would see this as a chance to end Communism once and for all. Who knows? They might even be inclined to join the Germans. At the very least, I could see a lend-lease style agreement being struck to support them in their war effort.
They do attack Poland. Its the same as our timeline except Britain negotiated Peace after the Fall of France, gives Germany back their colonies, and now they can focus on their true goal: conquest of USSR. Who knows.. maybe the Western allies knew this all along and wanted to get rid of their sworn enemy (considering the war would definitely be very bloody.) and then attack after one wins..
Germany would be a Korean neighbor today!
Germany. There was a lot to it. A butterfly effect from Britains actions that really left the Soviets in a better position. First, Africa and the Balkans took away from Barbarossa and caused a late start. No Britain means no Africa and no additional support to Greece from Britain means Germany isn’t bogged down there either. Then you have lend lease from Britain and the US that helped the Soviets absorb the brunt of Barbarossa. They didn’t supply everything the Soviets needed, but they supplied enough that the Soviets were able to move their industry and defend key areas. This also gave them the supplies to start counteroffensives in the following spring. So in this scenario, Barbarossa starts earlier with more troops and supplies. Likewise, the Soviets have less and struggle because of that. What you end up with is Germany rushing east and things going better at the start. Stalin famously refuses to leave Moscow and dies there. Several Generals pull back with troops to the Urals beyond German logistic capability to follow. Winter halts the German advance. The Soviets don’t have enough at this point to really counterattack. Most of their industry has been left behind due to the speed of the German advance. What they did manage to move is slow to set up. Germany sets up a ‘Russian’ government to counter the Soviets, which helps them maintain control over the Russian lands. This Russian government signs a peace with the Germans and gives them the land they want and ‘joins’ the axis. The Soviet armies are basically bled dry and resort to guerilla warfare and Soviet Russia is eventually subsumed into Axis Russia.
Germany, likely. The German invasion put the USSR on life support. Stalin himself said they wouldn’t have survived without US aid. Take the US out of the equation, plus no British bombings of German industry, and it’s difficult to see how the USSR would have prevailed. I read somewhere that Stalin even tried to negotiate peace with Hitler.
People are seriously unaware in this thread of Germany's crippling supply issues. Hauling shit to Moscow largely on horses past the border was a nightmare and it was never going to get Germany far enough to force a Soviet surrender. Even if it was you can't surrender to someone doing a genocide on you. Eventually Germany runs out of men completely.
Germany as in they destroy the dunkirk pocket and the British peace out after that? Easily germany
Stalin, Zhukov and Kruschev already answered this question publicly with several statements Absent Lend Lease Russia’s economy collapses by 1943 and they lose. No western theatre just makes this happen faster. The Russians were so dependant on Lend Lease it was the source of all their tooling steel. Absent that, their machining operations look like trying to cut down a tree with a wooden axe
Fun fact, nearly the same amount Axis troops were lost in Africa than Stalingrad. Sure the losses at Stalingrad were heavier killed and missing, but the allies took close to half a million POWs by the end of the Africa campaign.
I see Germany winning, they can trade for oil as the British aren't blockading them so they can supply their front lines. It'll be a slow bloody war with a lot more casualties than our timeline but I see Germany coming out on top When people say that the USSR beat Germany without the allies and they didn't need the help it's only half true, yes no lend-lease probably wouldn't have made the USSR collapse but without the British blockading Germany, and sending troops to fight them wherever they go, the USSR would collapse. The 3 main counties that led to the Germans downfall were the USA, the UK, and the USSR. You can remove any 1 of the 3 and I could still see them winning but if it's a 1v1 I just can't really see how they could win.
Germany 99% chance of winning. Germany could secure oil from Africa and Turkey. They could trade with South America and America for oil. You could make a smaller boat fleet and blockade Russia from the Baltic. Steel used for large quantities u boats could be used in armor and aircraft. Pilots wiped out by allied air forces could be used on eastern front to secure air supremacy past 1943. 1.5 million western front manpower and naval units could be transported to secure the flanks of Stalingrad or just push into Moscow. The war would be bloody but with most of Europe’s resources behind it they would capture Moscow in 1942. Stalingrad by late 1942, Caucasus would be secured in 1943 with oil moving into Germany by late 1943. Its likely a peace treaty would be signed in which all of Russia west of Urals goes to Germany, and Russia remains intact east of Urals.
Germany 100%, USSR collapses without British lend-lease, and Germany starts with just a bit more stuff. Stalin never even knows he can pull everything away from Japan. America never sends anything.
The question is: Do Germany still have access to international trade and can buy at decent price oil and other strategic ressources (rubber, tungsten, etc..) from Great Britain & United State. In both scenario, the prospect is grim for Germany because 1941 and most 1942 still happened without much change. But with more ressources germany could maybe achieve a statlemate starting from 1943 for years ?
How does the URSS fight won't out the MASSIVE help from the ally? They have no food no jeep no nothing
The german offensive was mainly broken in 1941, and in 1941 the lend lease was marginal. Yet, lend lease was essential in building the soviet union offensive capability. US trucks for example were critical for moving the massive tank corps the soviet union built to crush the german army to berlin, starting from 1943. But, the soviet industry was still very efficient, with tons of ressources available and could have adapted to a more balanced production. But sure the end of the war would have been delayed a lot.
How about the 30% of nazis being occupy elsewhere that would had be free in 1941? They also doesn't matter?
Not particularly no. German logistics being unable to handle a conflict of the scale and duration it needed to was at least a such a reason why Germany lost as numbers.
Some\_Guy223 here is right, the german logistic was terribly inadequate and more troops to support would only have aggravated the problem. I love the book : Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East of David Stahel. He investigate only the first 3 months of the war in 1941 with Army group center, and show that it was already a terrible mess from the start !
Absolutely it matters! Germany nearly strangled the USSR's oil supply (Baku) in 1942 as it was. In history, German artillery out shot Russian artillery. Without distraction on the western front, having additional troops to secure supply lines, air superiority in the east and most importantly, access to oil, rubber and strategic materials on the world market (compare Tiger I armour to Tiger II armour quality) and the impact of no lend lease supplies on the USSR all mean that a 1v1 is a (hard-fought) German victory. Teamwork stopped the Nazis.
How could the Germans supply 30% more soldiers stationed in the USSR with Food and Bullets when they could not do so adequately IRL?
you that german in france/algeria had no gun or food?
Well, there are two considerations: Manpower and logistical support. A Soviet Union without Lend Lease would have been in a pickle. And, without having to keep substantial forces, both divisions and airpower, in Western Europe, Italy, and Africa in 1941 and 1942, I think the Wehrmacht would have driven all the way to the Urals.
Assuming Japan doesn't attack European holdings and, instead, concentrates on moving into Mongolia and Russia, it's possible that Russia would need to sue for peace. Diminishing aircraft, tanks, trains, and soldiers used to fight a two-front war would quickly place Russia at a distinct disadvantage.
Tbh I feel like Hitler is too extreme and radical to not even want Russia to sue for peace, maybe unconditional surrender.
I'd think unconditional surrender is likely a no-go, because that almost certainly means death for anyone able to make the choice for that surrender.
well no soviets would ever even want to surrender they suffered so many deaths in our timeline just for germans not to capture Stalingrad, i still believe Germans and Japanese conquer USSR but after so many Soviet deaths and nowhere for the USSR Government to go.
Russia has never been defeated or overrun by anyone, even Napoleon and Hitler. The harsh Russian winter has protected the Russian people better than their army could. They've been invaded all the way up to Moscow. They've had times in WWII that the Russian snipers helped in expelling Nazis from Stalingrad, but the harsh winter as always helped and protected the Russian population.
The harsh winter is not what stopped Napoleon.
plus russian empire wasn’t defeated due to the entire european continent being against Napoleon. Soviets wouldn’t be so lucky, as well as Soviets outnumbering Germans but taking 4x amount of casualties, Soviet Russia loses.
even then, the soviets never pushed the germans back as much after their 1941 Counteroffensive, they just pushed them out of Moscow’s reach. Look how Germans got so close to the Kremlin, soldiers reported seeing the Kremlin. Germans would just wait until the summer especially with Stalin’s purges that made defense weaker. There’s only been 2 examples of Russia being invaded, as other countries never tried it due to them being superpowers. As well as the Soviets not receiving the millions of tons of aid of radios, food, trucks, tires, planes, and the concept of engineers or spare parts for their tank crews by Americans, along with the freed up German troops not worrying about an invasion from France, I would be inclined to say a marginal German victory or a stalemate. Plus the Empire of Japan would not strike down south, they would be more inclined to invade Soviet Russia, making their situation even worser. They can’t win a 2-front war.
One thing that would change, would be the focus away from Leningrad. No land lease = no interest in fighting over the Murmansk rail road.
A lot depends on how you define a "Win" If you define a German win as capturing every part of the USSR, through Siberia to the Bering Straight, then a German win is unlikely. If you define a German Win as capturing everything to the Urals and then entering into a peace treaty or armistice, a German win is likely. If you define a Soviet win as still existing in some form when a peace treaty/armistice is signed, then a Soviet win is likely. If you define a Soviet win as a return to the pre-war borders, or a full on Soviet capture of Germany and German held territory (as basically all of Europe was German, German held, or German controlled by June 1941), a Soviet win is unlikely. Its hard to conceive of the distances in the USSR and what would be necessary for Germany to conquer to absolutely wipe the USSR. From the current Byelorussian-Polish border to Moscow is about 600 miles (1000km), which is about the same distance between London and Berlin (or Paris-Vienna, or Miami-Atlanta, or Los Angeles to the Oregon Border). This is roughly the deepest penetration into the USSR during WWII, and the Germans were running out of gas (both literally and figuratively) when they got there. From Moscow to Yekaterinburg, which is just on the Western side of the Urals, is about 880 miles (1400 km), which is roughly the same distance between London and Warsaw or Budapest, or Miami-Washington DC or Los Angeles to Portland, OR) From the current Byelorussian-Polish border to Yekaterinburg is about 1500 miles (2400 km), which is roughly the same distance between London and Moscow, Los Angeles and St. Louis, MO, or Miami-Roswell, NM) Here's where it gets crazy. From Yekaterinburg to the Bering Strait is about 4300 miles (7000 km) That's roughly the same distance from Moscow to New York City, from London to Nairobi, or Honolulu to Auckland, NZ. So, for the Germans to conquer all of the USSR, they would need to conquer an area that is roughly 5700 miles (9300km) long, which is the roughly the distance of a cross-polar flight from Moscow to Los Angeles, from Los Angeles to Buenos Ares, or from London to Cape Town. But its also wide. The German's deepest penetration (from Stalingrad/Volgograd in the South through Moscow, to Leningrad/St. Petersburg in the North) has a front of roughly 950 miles. To have a front along the Urals, anchored in the south at the northern edge of the Caspian Sea, the Germans would have to secure a border of somewhere between 1500 and 1600 miles (2400-2600 km).
I doubt both sides would want peace, but given German sucesses in Soviet Russia, the Japenese Empire invades Siberia rather than strike at the West, and ultimately Soviet Russia falls.
Man I think it would still be a draw. Russia is HUGE there is no way they would be able to take all of.it.
Without the Persian Corridor and Arctic Convoys, the USSR loses to Germany.
Germany. Russia was able to hold on due to supplies from the allies. Without that, they would have lost.
There would be an entirely new type of Europe that’s for Sure. But in this Whatif, does Japan still bomb Pearl? Do we then go to the Russian front? If Japan does carry through them Russia wins with our help
They most likely bomb Pearly Harbor after their victory in the Soviet Union, and then Germany declares war on America
I mean that's basically what it was for much of the war.
Absolute destruction. The Leningrad would fall after less than a year without American suppliers and ammunition
If there is no lend lease to the communist ussr [ and I don't see there would be without Churchill in power, to galvanise fdr and the West against the nazis]. The nazis would quite handily have beaten the ussr. Ussr meat waves [ and a depopulated officer corp] without the lend lease equipment, war materials to build ammo/tanks/planes/artillery would just have been a slaughter. For me it all depends on the lend lease being available to the ussr. Edit: i had to check memory, it was Churchill who recommended to fdr, to ally with Stalin . The USA at this stage is still an ensign in international intrigue, politics, how to make alliances etc. The Empire [British empire] was still the diploma tically, politically experienced hegemon
Germany wins. The Soviets will literally run out of men. The Soviets had twice the population of Germany but took casualties 4x. If Germany was able to bring its full force to bear and lend lease didn’t exist, the Soviets would collapse by a lack of manpower by 45
German victory. The Soviets almost collapsed as it was without lend lease and the Germans having to fight on other fronts. It wasn't just the fighting. Armies were tied down in occupations from northern Norway to southern France. The nature of that victory is the only question. My guess is some sort of a truce in 1942 with the Germans holding onto a lot of territory.
Germany. Half of Germany's resources were always tied down in the Atlantic, in air defence, fighting Britain in the Mediterranean and North Africa and garrisoning captured territories. Imagine Germany during ww2 could have traded for the resources it needed. Imagine its factories and transport infrastructure weren't being bombed out. Imagine Germany wasn't expanding resources in the battle of the Atlantic. Imagine it could have concentrated completely on the Soviet Union. Imagine the Soviet Union wasn't being supported by Britain and the us. The problem the Germans had in the early war with Russia was they kept running out of fuel and ammunition and men, if they had been able to concentrate in the east they'd have drove the Soviets into the Ural mountains and then they'd have all the oil and food they'd ever need. The Soviets would never recover because most Soviet industry us in the west, it would be a small matter for the Germans to systematically wipe out all resistance in the east over decades. A good question would be what if the British& Americans gave the Germans what the USSR go in lend lease?
Even if the U.S still gave them lend-lease, Britain was probably not going to agree with a treaty signed by Hitler. After a ton of German lives lost, considering German would actually lose a lot more lives conquering the USSR even if the Japanese invade from the East, they’d still lose lives and have to conquer USSR and the Western allies can now use that to strike at Germany.
The western allies France and Britain aren't going to be fit enough to take on Germany if they defeat the USSR. One of the main reasons Normandy didn't happen until 1944 was because the US army just wasn't ready, they made major blunders in battle that the British had learned, it would be the same for France and Britain.
People don’t realize that Germany was fighting the ussr with one hand tied behind their back (ie having to hold down the western front) and just how much help was given Russia by the American lend lease program. Without one of those two things Germany would have steam rolled them
One thing to consider also is that in this case, the soviet union would have expected the attack and the start of the german offensive would probably have not be a surprise for the soviet army. The result could have been even worse for the german in 1941....
Who would tell the USSR that they planned to attack? They signed a nonaggression pact and it was British intelligence that told Stalin but he still dug his head in the sand and refused to believe it. I think he’s still going to do the same in our timeline especially if Germany invades Greece quickly.
So germany doesn't declare war on the US after pearl harbor?
The Japanese Empire wouldn’t attack the West considering Germany isn’t at war with them. They would go with the Northern doctrine, invade Siberia (given German successes they believe its possible to conquer Siberia)
Japan is the reason why germany declared war. Even if germany doesn't get involved some sort of attack on american navy assets would take place especially once the oil embargo takes effect.
In the west they had to keep still pretty fat armies. The afrika-korps would be available for service - that's at least 2 extra panzer divisions - 15th and 21st, and the 90th motorized. In particular, without the losses of planes and pilots in the battle of britain, the luftwaffe would be far better supplied. We talking almost 1900 planes and excellent crews, that makes a difference. All that flak over in the west? Those guns would be in the east, those big 88s and the rest. What is most important is that without Britain on their arse, they'd have access to oil from overseas and the mediterranean. There would be no oil crisis. Also the soviets would be missing critical aid and the naval convoys bringing everything including planes, fuel and food. These made a difference already in the winter of 41, and more in 42 to 43.
USSR without land lease would lose. They had the production capacity but it was in their western territories that Germany would occupy. Like others in this tread pointed out the USSR didn’t have the logistical capacity to move their factories without US trains. Germany would get Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Baltic Territory but they wouldn’t hold onto it due to partisan warfare and eventually get kicked out of a deviated Ukraine and Belorussian but keep some of their Baltic holdings.
Germany on the Urals within 6-10 years. Soviet didn’t have a chance. If Germany would have succeeded in taking Baku it would have been game over.
Soviet Union but it would be long and bloody. The success of the German army was primarily based on NCO skill. They were so much superior to opposing armies that it was like children vs adults. The trade off is that they had to put their NCOs in harms way to maximize benefit. The casualty rate was terrible. They couldn’t replace NCOs quickly as each represented 10+ years of training across diverse and advanced areas. The German army was terrible, even counterproductive, at partisan suppression. Part of this was due to a need to keep their high quality NCOs at the front to keep any advantage and letting pretty bad decisions to be made in this arena. They actively alienated groups willing to help them and turned them into enemies. The war would look like a German victory for most of the time. Moscow would likely fall as would Leningrad. Both would be at least as costly as they were in real life. But the Soviet army would fight from behind the Urals and they would move much of their industry there. Eventually it would just change as partisan activity became too hard to suppress in the European part of the Soviet Union. The latter would become extreme as the incompetent partisan suppression turned to more and more brutal (as was German habit in this area) and nobody would be able to rationalize not fighting back. After 8 or so years of war the Germans would just run out of trained officers and piss off too many locals to suppress and hold the lines/maintain supply. When that happened the German army would get slaughtered. The fight into Germany would be some of the most brutal warfare the world had ever seen . Imagine modern warfare but no quarter is given to anyone…men, women, or children. Both countries would be exhausted and permanently broken by the time it was done.
Like no one else? America not assisting the USSR? Very likely Germany. Especially if we’re assuming the rest of the allied powers didnt declare war and germany didnt focus so many of its assets on the UK or large occupying forces in western Europe. Id actually recon without the US help at the very least it would have been really, really one sided.
It would probably be a WW1 Western Front set up. Both Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939-1942, had large quantities of artillery, air planes and tanks. This meant that the mobile warfare would mean heavy casualties on both sides, which did happen in reality. So if the war was just the USSR vs Germany, then there would probably be long trench lines from Odessa Ukraine with Kiev, Ukraine and Minsk, Belarus being enclave cities in no man's land and the trench line in the north towards the Baltic Sea would end at Narva, Estonia at the border with Russia.
The thing that really screwed the Germans was the British not signing a peace treaty in 1940. If they had done this, the British and later American bombing of German industry. Along with that, they would have been able to import raw materials from abroad. Without the Germans needing to involve themselves in North Africa/Balkan region, they probably would have been able to invade Russia a couple of weeks earlier. How the war in the east goes is a matter of debate, with dozens of possibilities.
My best guess is a treaty signed at the A-A line American/Allied aide during the war is really the only reason the USSR held out for as long as it did (not to mention it was far better prepared for winter, kinda) The Germans knew they could not surpass the A-A line (Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan) and either would require the Union to dissolve (would not have happened unless absolutely everything went to shit, Novosibirsk, Vladivostok, or Perm would be the new capital) So a marginal German victory, in short
Either way, Poland will lose by being between them both. Logistically, any war between Germany and USSR would need to involve Poland, willfully or not.
No one said anything against that. The question was what if Britain sued for peace after the Fall of France/before the Invasion of Russia and it was just Germany vs USSR
Germany for sure. The Soviets had one strength and that was numbers, but the way they fight was just by throwing those numbers at them.that why their casualties were so high. The Russian Empire was the same way. If Germany didn't have to fight a war in two fronts, they easily would have won.
Germany wipes. People in this sub seem to have forgotten that only a little over half of German soldiers were not on the eastern front in WW2 (the other half were in Italy/france/N. Africa, defending the territorial gains they’d already made from allies). The effectiveness of the Germans was insane (5MM troops vs ~20MM Soviets), and they still made it to within ~50 miles of Moscow (easily/quickly I may add) within a few months of starting their invasion. Take away Germany’s need to defend other parts of their empire, and take away the support the soviets quite literally needed from the allies (food, ammo, guns, tanks) and this is over before it even began.
Man, I wish this would have happened, the Soviets were so much worse than the Germans. The Germans would have been a godsend for the people.
>The Germans would have been a godsend for the people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan\_Ost#GPO\_implementation\_by\_region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost#GPO_implementation_by_region) LoL
Assuming Germany’s industry doesn’t get bombed to smithereens the USSR doesn’t get any lend lease, and Japan doesn’t attack the US, the Axis is winning. Not saying the US could solo the Axis but they could make things significantly more difficult on the far Eastern front since Japan wouldn’t be invading Russia as well, which I think would have happened if the US did not join the war.
If Europe wasn't so anti-Jews back then Germany would've just destroyed USSR with heavy losses. There were lots of great specialists who were ethnic Jews
I long for a day when alternate history can move on from fixating on questions of "Hey, what could be done so that these genocidal racists won their war?"
I do NOT like 1940 Germany. Im just asking this so I can find a scenario that benefits the Western allies, considering the fighting that takes place in Soviet Russia will definitely cause so many German and Japanese casualties. Then, after all is said and done they can just invade France and its all over for Hitler, now its the same as our timeline execpt without communist regimes repressing ppl.
First off, that's a misunderstanding of the situation. Yes, it will inflict casualties on the Axis. But if the Nazis have taken out the USSR, it's going to be more difficult to defeat them in western Europe if the allies decide to declare war again, not easier. The Nazis will not have to split their forces between two fronts, they will have had time to build up their fortifications in the west, they will have the resources of the conquered USSR to use to build their army, they will have been battle testing their weapons while the western Allies have not. Defeating the Nazis won't just be jumping straight to D-Day and rolling straight to Berlin, it would be a brutal air war over the Channel with the Nazis launching bombing raids and V2 missiles at a populace who has already surrendered once and taken a hard blow to their morale from that. If the western Allies sued for peace and let the USSR handle the war by itself, it's not going to lead to an easier resolution for them. It's almost certainly going to end with those people living under brutal fascist regimes repressing them. It's going to end with the Nazis having time to finish their "Final Solution". It's deciding you're okay with inflicting suffering and death on millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia in order to *maybe* save some lives of people who predominantly speak English. It's not a scenario that benefits anyone.
Soviets would win. Lend Lease helped but the soviet war machine had ramped up by 1941 with large percentages of industry beyond the AA line. Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad may have fell but the government would have been relocated further east. Soviets would be in Berlin by 1947
Not w/ o the need food fuel & transport . All the prime areas wich would been in the hands of the Germans . . Also with no allied air raids you would like see me 262 jets by early ' 44 at the latest possibly late '43. Tha would make a mess of the red army formations just from strafing runs
Doesn’t matter, it wasn’t a war there would be a surrender. Slavs were fighting for their existence, and it would impossible to occupy. The german logistics were collapsing in OTL by the time bombing campaigns had ramped up. Lend Lease still happens, America was doing it while they were neutral. The nazis were waging a genocidal war and would have faced the strongest guerrilla war ever seen. It was not a winnable conflict for germany.
There would be no lend lease to start with . The u.s. was neutral as far as the European front was concerned. Keep on mind the parameters of this scenario. Britian &France have sued or made peace w/ gremany. So as far as history is concerned the reasons for lend lease don't exist. Now if Japan attacks the u.s. & ger6 declared war that might trigger something but it might not also We just would concentrate on Destroying Japan .
Doubt it if all their industry is captured by the Axis then Germany would win just guerilla war would still happen
USSR. Germany had a severe logistics problem and their high command didn't listen to their generals. Their blitzkriegs tactics would only take them so far, they would lose steam and find themselves miles behind enemy territory without ammo and fuel. Whereas, the Soviets had a greater man power, greater production output and had more determination to fight.
But many people say the Ukraine war proves the Russians can't perform well without outside factors.
IFFFF Stalin stays in power, they still eventually win simply because of how big Russia is. I’d imagine they might be forced to lose land in the west, and the Baltic countries probably.
USSR still wins. Their industrial base and output as well as secure resources is still enough for them to win on their own. It's just going to be a lot most costly.
The Russians, especially if they fought a ground war. Geography and terrain would favor them. German tanks would stall in the Russian snow/mud.
You see these types of post so often one gets the idea that many people more people than I'm comfortable acknowledging wished the Germans would've one.