Germany-USSR, the ultimate what-if

[Suave]

Originally posted by Boroda
Just like US troops invaded LA in 1993

Actually that would be more like the Estonians invading Tallinn in 2007.

[Curval]

Stalingrad isn't *that* far east, at least in terms of land mass.

There is a great deal of speculation that Hitler should have by-passed Stalingrad and kept on going towards the oil rich areas to the east.

I'm really not so sure that would have mattered.  The millions of Soviet troops that eventually surrounded the Stalingrad kessel didn't appear out of no-where.  Hitler wanted to take out Stalingrad because his troops needed somewhere to bunker down for the winter, aside from the fact that he wanted to take the city named after the Soviet leader.  Those millions of Soviet troops would have been "in the way" of the German army and the oilfields regardless....and the German supply lines would have been streched even further.

[FiLtH]

Its my opinion that regardless of the UK's status, the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany, all by itself. Between the massive area, manpower, and resources, even with technology, short of the A-bomb, it was just to big a bite to swallow.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by FiLtH
Its my opinion that regardless of the UK's status, the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany, all by itself. Between the massive area, manpower, and resources, even with technology, short of the A-bomb, it was just to big a bite to swallow.

Don't forget that the USSR was a mere 100-200 yards away from losing the war.  I can pretty confidently say that had Germany beaten the russians all the way to the river (Volve or something), Soviets would have never recovered.  When you consider how close they were to losing, small or moderate things like Lend Lease or UK's involvement suddenly becomes huge.

[BlauK]

Yup Pavel,
maybe more in 1981-82... practicing the "normal politics" in a foreign country and at its borders

Well, there goes my flimsy 12-year-conspiracy-theory

[Angus]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't forget that the USSR was a mere 100-200 yards away from losing the war.  I can pretty confidently say that had Germany beaten the russians all the way to the river (Volve or something), Soviets would have never recovered.  When you consider how close they were to losing, small or moderate things like Lend Lease or UK's involvement suddenly becomes huge.

EXACTLY! And that goes only for the binding of German troops in Europe for instance, which were necessary as long as the UK was an enemy of the third Reich. Each and every division count if you have to cover just something less than 20 miles!

And had the UK unplugged the med and the Black Sea for Axis traffic you'd have had a new route for transport, deadly close to the Oil of the USSR. Express to Sevastopol, escorted with big guns....no USSR naval traffic vs quite a navy, for the Italians had quite some merchant navy.

[BlauK]

I don't think those 100 or 200 yards would have made any difference at all unless Germans had taken Stalingrad right away with their first attacks in late summer/early autumn. Later on it would have made no difference, since the Soviets would have encircled the 6th army anyways.

IMO the two biggest problems the German war engine faced (not counting the actual fighting) were lack of oil and lack of winter suitable equipment. In summer time they prevailed and in winter time Soviets kicked their butt big time.

I believe the 6th army could not have retreated with their motorized vehicles even if they weren't encircled. They would have had to abandon tanks and trucks and all.

It is said that the Winter War (1939-1940) had some effect on these later events. Germans imagined Soviets much weaker because of their 1939 "performance" and on the other hand the Soviets had learned their lessons about fighting in winter time.

[Thruster]

It's kinda funny, I didn't recall any Soviet Invasions but of course forgot about the Finns. Otherwise none of the other examples qualify. Point is, Russia, up to the point of the war was a target for foreign hostilities, albeit a paranoid one. The country was still trying to get on the tracks, Hitler knew it. Besides being a formidable orator he was also extremely canny. He worked the leadership of the free world much as he worked his constituency.

My point is that Hitler's Germany had no chance of any long term solvency. it was a flash in the pan. A really big flash but those are the ones that burn out the quickest.

I said earlier that the regime would have died by '46 even if France was left alone. He certainly would have been out of power earlier had he not gone to war.

[Suave]

Really? That's surprising you think that since finland was only one of the parts of europe that russia and germany chose to take. Russia would get the east half of poland and germany would get the west. Russia invaded only 16 days after germany invaded.

WWII started when the USSR and Germany executed their plan to divide up eastern europe for themselves. Better known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

[Angus]

Wonderful inputs!!!
Was just digging up some facts & data. Ok, - here goes. Some may have been mentioned before, since I've been working with notes.
-USSR outnumbered the Finnish (troops) by incredible numbers. (will find more about this if I need, - I have a hunch that a Fin may beat me to this)
- Germans were easy about the exchange rate of 1 to 3 (3 being USSR) in manpower or tanks (especially).
- USSR had way more aircraft than the Luftwaffe.
- Sir John Keegan (Historian) regards it as relatively safe that had Zhukov not arrived to defend Moscow with the Siberian troops (10 Divisions, 1000 aircraft, 1000 (?) tanks), Moscow would surely have fallen.
- Strength of the Germans on the eve of Barbarossa was 198 divisions.
- Loads of those kept tied up in W-Europe.
- The Luftwaffe had by the eve of Barbarossa, lost roughly the amount of airplanes and crew to the guns of the RAF as they mustered for Barbarossa. (7/1940 to 7-1941)
- Hitler met with Franco (Spain) in order to be able to push through the occupation of Gibraltar, - the door to the med. Franco said "NO"
- THe supply problem for Barbarossa was a manyfold challenge, it was the train track width, it was the seasons, it was the size of the front, it was the routes to the front (i.e. through the Balkans), it was the depth of the assault, and the widening perimeter, and more...Not just the winter.
- Had the German initial plan (of speed) worked, most of the USSR's industries would have fallen into German hands. (The USSR were moving entire factories to the Urals at amazing speed right under the German noses)

So, I keep to my theory. The Germans lost by a margin, and even that margin lasted a year or so. In a cauldron like that, just a few divisions along with an ally will count a lot....


-

[FrodeMk3]

Hey Angus, it might make it a lot easier for you (especially in this alternate-history scenario) If you take off from the first devation from actual history, and game out the immediate consequences' from that, and each one in turn.

I wouldn't worry yet about whether or not Stalingrad would fall, until you have determined' all of the results' from a seperate peace treaty signed by Britain.

If you have some time, take a look at this:http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/5097.php

This might help too:http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=7021

However, as I stated in my first post, you probably are going to wind up with more questions' than answers.

Does a seperate German peace with Britain, also entail the same thing for the other Axis' Powers? (e.g, Italy and Japan.) You might want to read up on the pact' that formed the Axis nations, there.

What happens' in the U.S.? Does the America First party gain a foothold in American politics, because of this? With a seperate peace with Germany, does Lend-Lease continue? Without Great Britain on the line, would the United States' even bother to help the Russians? For that, you need to give an in-depth examination of American politics' and diplomacy from around 1935-1940.

Btw...Good Luck with this thesis, Angus.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Suave
Really? That's surprising you think that since finland was only one of the parts of europe that russia and germany chose to take. Russia would get the east half of poland and germany would get the west. Russia invaded only 16 days after germany invaded.

WWII started when the USSR and Germany executed their plan to divide up eastern europe for themselves. Better known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

So someone can at last read the map and see that the whole "secret protocol" to Non-Aggression Treaty is a fake and a lie.

Some corrections: including Finland into Soviet sphere of influence is quite silly.

It could be even more educating if you could provide a post-war map of the same region, like 1946, post-Potsdam.

Kinda funny when you go hiking in Ukrainian Carpathians, and see a border-line between Poland and Czechoslovakia marked in 1919-21, and then understand that during a War this area belonged to Hungary.

Your maps don't give you a correct idea of what Poland and Hungary cut from Czechoslovakia that was raped by Western powers in Munich in 1938. USSR was the only country that offered assistance to CzS.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Thruster
It's kinda funny, I didn't recall any Soviet Invasions but of course forgot about the Finns. Otherwise none of the other examples qualify. Point is, Russia, up to the point of the war was a target for foreign hostilities, albeit a paranoid one. The country was still trying to get on the tracks, Hitler knew it.

Exactly!

Even if we look only at what happened after Nov 11 1918 - we have been torn apart by foreign invaders: Poles, Finns, Czechs, Americans, Brits, French, Japanese, etc, ant it continued until 1922. And only 7 years later another stage of conflicts began with Japanese attacks at the Chinese-Eastern Railway. Pacifying and restoring order in Central Asia (at the scale of some major European wars) was just a small nuisance.

Can you imagine if USSR left Baltic "republics", Western Ukraine and Belorussia to  Germans? Only about 40km to go to Leningrad from Estonia, 32 km from Finland. Or do you thing that Hitler could graciously leave this so-called "countries" (I don't mean Finland, it had it's own plans of Greater Finland eastwards to Ural mountains) alone?!

Angus's "what if" starts too late. If Western powers didn;t let Hitler rape CzS - then it could all turn into an earlier version of cold war, much more interesting setup IMHO.

[Airscrew]

I think any scenario with Germany defeating the USSR needs to also consider the Balkans campaign, Greece, and North Africa.  Because Mussolini bungled his end Hitler had to pull his bacon out of the fire.  Troops, equipment, and supplies that could have been used in Russia were tied up elsewhere.  

I always thought that a "what if" would be;  What if Hitler had waited until the Spring of 42 to launch Operation Barbarossa.  It possible that the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and Greece may have been secured and maybe even North Africa

[Angus]

Ahh, the Balkans. Well, it was a successful campaign for the Gerries, and they did not waste a lot of troops. Holding the balkans also helps with access to the Eastern front.
But of course, everything counts,- after all, Moscow almost fell.