Germany-USSR, the ultimate what-if

[Angus]

I know this has been adressed before, but here I go again.
I am assisting in a project (Essay for a masters-degree) and the topic is WW2 related. There were many to chose from, but it ended up with the thesis "If Germany would have made peace with the UK (I think the offer was issued 19th of July 1940), then the USSR would have lost the fight with the Germans".
This is in some 2 main phases, - the 1941 campaign and then the aftermath at Stalingrad.
Each phase takes into account the direct losses that Germany sustained from the UK at a given date (accumulated), then other effects such as strategical disadvantage due to the war as well as indirect losses of force due to binding up troops instead of using them on the battlefield.
Then there is the final "if", which is trickier, possible difference in connections with nations that later joined in, - Japan and the USA...but that's something to slippery to use as a basis, just good for the fun factor...
I've been doing some digging, but all points and input is welcome.
I found John Keegan to be a good source, but I'm all ears for more!
Oh, and my opinion on the thesis is a yes. It was before, but now it's definate!

[Tac]

Winter?

[FrodeMk3]

Well, this oughta be alot of fun. First off;

"If Germany would have made peace with the UK (I think the offer was issued 19th of July 1940), then the USSR would have lost the fight with the Germans".

Now, it depends' on the kind of treaty that is. Is it a general Armistice? Is it merely a cease-fire? Does it entail resumption of trade between the U.K. and Germany? Does it make the U.K. give concessions'(overseas' bases, territorial holdings, right-of-passage through Suez?) That needs' to be clarified first. If said treaty did not mention giving support to the USSR, Lend-Lease is still a factor in a Germany-USSR conflict. With Britain not actively fighting the Germans', British Industry would be free to make more war material to sell to the USSR. Also, U-boats' would not be able to fire on British-flagged merchantmen, thereby ensuring those materials' getting to Russia.

Now, complete British inactivity opens' up quite a few possibilities' for Germany and Italy. It allows' Axis Naval forces' free access to the Mediterranean, and the Crimea/Black Sea area. With this, The Axis is able to supply any outflanking army, and improves' its' ground situation immensely.

Now, the second thing is, Does America step up it's support more, due to the withdrawal of Great Britain? If it does, It could mean a lend-lease base in Soviet Asia, which might be granted if the Russian's are really against the wall without a second front to relieve the pressure.

Thirdly, Does Great Britain jump back into the war, once it get's time to recover and re-arm from it's initial losses' and setbacks' in France, and the BoB?  I doubt that Churchill would be willing to sit still for long, especially since He knew that every day the Axis grew stronger, was one less day for G.B. And with British re-armement, can the Germans' afford to shift all of their forces' away from the Atlantic (Not that they really can, anyway. With partisan activity alone, they were stuck having to Garrison France.)

[Bruv119]

I would say if Britain were completely neutral the Germans wouldn't have rushed key decisions and life would have been alot easier.

With proper planning and equipment the whole of the German forces I believe would have taken Stalingrad and Moscow.  With the Russians forced into partisan action and their means of production overrun it would have got very ugly.   Hitler would have gone totally nuts and killed every living thing that didn't speak German all the way to China.

[Angus]

Just read up a lot of Hitler's mindset and his offer in 1940.
ok, he wanted Britain out of the fight, first and foremost. So there is a catch, - would there have been a deal? What Hitler would have wanted is probably the UK releasing the Navy blockade, and possibly entrance to the Med.
The USSR was giving Hitler some concern, so he belived a conflict to be inevitable. He knew the USSR wasn't ready to go yet, so he wanted the speedy-deal.
On a meeting between the German High-command and Molotov, these thoughts were manifested when Molotov gave out the USSR interest for Denmark (to get a good access to the Atlantic) as well as the med.
The Germans were planning other things as well regarding the med,  - catching Atlantic islands as well as Gibraltar, so the Mediterranian seems to have been on the maps.
That seems logical, for one reason, - access to the Black sea, which would have unleashed an enormous transport capacity for Ucraine for instance.
BTW, in 1940, Hitler wanted with all means to avoid a conflict with the USA, and the lend-lease pact (USA-UK), passed through the senate by a margin, and did not have much effect before Hitler was at war with the USSR.
Some high leaders, notably Raeder were very sceptic on a two front war, - something that German leaders usually tried to avoid.
Anyway, being just a seize-fire, or something more, - that's tricky
IMHO it's enormously interesting to try and set your mind into the pðlanning on both sides.
I guess I'll work from an armistice in July 1940 with negotiations on naval matters vs release of western territory. In Hitler's chair I'd have played that card and in the other chair as well.
More thoughts?

[Angus]

Originally posted by Bruv119
I would say if Britain were completely neutral the Germans wouldn't have rushed key decisions and life would have been alot easier.

With proper planning and equipment the whole of the German forces I believe would have taken Stalingrad and Moscow.  With the Russians forced into partisan action and their means of production overrun it would have got very ugly.   Hitler would have gone totally nuts and killed every living thing that didn't speak German all the way to China.

Pretty much it IMHO. I think he would have started at the same time though, with better planning and a lot more force. I'll bring some numbers later....

[Thruster]

I think what makes your challenge so nebulous is the fact that Hitler sort of made it up as he went along. Having no real grasp of military and geo-political strategy, he became a mad dog conquistador. Grabbing as much real estate as his military could subdue.

Add to that his personal shortcomings I think it's unlikely he would have ever prevailed over the Soviet Union. Assuming the Japanese/U.S. conflict was still ongoing, the U.S. would have soundly defeated Japan in fairly short order, China may have gathered it's wits and looked north and west to create another thorn.

His economic policies were laughable, I've always said that Germany would have been bankrupt irrespective of the resources attained through conquest. And I doubt he would have loosened the hold on western Europe enough to facilitate any meaningful occupation of the U.S.S.R.

Russia was Hitler's "Sleeping Tiger", Germany was about at it's limit by the time Sevastopol started, taking the pressure off North Africa, The Med and The North Sea might have bought some time but considering the gross incompetence Hitler demonstrated with regard to economic policy, and the Russian people's capacity to endure, the only thing that would be different is the post war political landscape.

Then we could ponder how the last 60 years would have worked had there been no Yalta and Stalin wound up with all of continental Europe.

[Angus]

Well, Hitler had his days, and he got very close to bending the USSR (probably it was his own fault that he didn't).
There was fighting in the outskirts of Leningrad, Stalingrad just held on a belt of 1 km, and German generals were 10 miles away from the red square...
But he screwed up by dividing his forces to north and south, taking to long in the process. So to try and see through the nebula, my theory goes that if he'd had another 70 divisions or so, as well as a route through the black Sea, he'd have toasted the USSR.
Second theory, is different, the losses related one.

[WilldCrd]

Well, not to sound to disagreeable. Hitler had his strong points. He was a excellent orator. He too Germany, a poor broken and beaten country and in a few short years built it up to stand on the brink of world domination.
That being said He was a idiot militarily and with world affairs.
Hitler totally screwed the pooch by attacking Russia. That being said and in answer to your query.

If germany and the U.k. had made peace I think the germans would have easily taken Stalingrad and then Moscow. However due to Hitlers complete lack of military strategy, he would have severely hampered his forces with unrealistic demands and as he showed in history, ignored his generals.
Now how would things had progressed if he had been assassinated?  Or at the least let his generals run the war like they wanted to?
I think things would have turned out very different.

i think Russia, as they really did do would have moved their industrial forces east out of reach (atleast for awhile) of German forces and A/C. They would have had less time however Russia has huge natural resources as well has its large population to call on for reinforcments.

After the U.S. defeated Japan we would have probably assisted Russia to halt the Nazi aggression by  creating the 2nd front either from the west like we did or up from the south and sending supplies thru china. One of Hitlers bigest blunders imho was opening up a 2 front war and that would still hold true if Briton had stayed outta the fight.

Then there would have been the Atomic bomb issue. in 45' do we still get it? If we used it on Japan, would the U.S. have used it on a major German city to aid mother Russia?
I think any world conflict back then as now hinges on what the U.S. would have done and in what capacity.

[Thruster]

He may have been able to do considerably more damage had there been no western front but I don't think he would have made much progress beyond the Caucasus or the Volga.

Hitler's military success was about fast hard strikes on feeble opponents. The supply chain issue, the vast areas of countryside and the wide dispersion of population centers in the Asian part of the Soviet Union would have presented he German military with challenges they were just incapable of overcoming.

Being an army of conquest, not occupation, the sheer size of the U.S.S.R. would have been too much to chew. 70 divisions may have either helped secure the Western cities but the insurrection from the countryside would have kept him in Europe.

Now, had they captured they Stalin?
Different story. I don't think it likely though.

Besides, Hitler spent money like a drunken sailor, his social/economic template was simply unworkable, he would have burned out by '46 max even if he left France alone IMO.

[Suave]

Germany attacked the USSR when the germany military was at it's strongest and the USSR was at it's weakest, and they still lost. The red army was in shambles in early '41. Peace with the UK wouldn't have made a difference.

There's two main different opinions about the german invasion of soviet union.

1. Stalin, like everybody else, expected wwII in the west to be much the same as wwI. Stalin thought that germany would be mired and expend themselves in the west, and then he would invade and conquer. Considering the nature of stalin and the USSR, and then the fact that the USSR had deployed the largest mechanized force in history on the western frontier of the USSR. This theory has some weight to it. If this were the case, then Hitler had no choice but to attack premptively, when the time was best. And it would never be better than early '41.

2. Stalin truely did want peace with Germany, so much so that he decieved himself into believing that there was a diplomatic solution. History does show that he did make earnest attempts at diplomacy and negotiation. Allegedly when the nazis did attack, Stalin was so shocked and in disbelief that he reclused to his dacha for a week or so incommunicado.

The more I learn about it, the more I believe that the number 2 scenario is closest to the truth, although not as tastey as scenario 1.

Still I speculate that Hitler allways truly believed that it was just a matter of time before the communists would attack, and why wouldn't he believe that?

[Thruster]

Still I speculate that Hitler always truly believed that it was just a matter of time before the communists would attack, and wouldn't he believe that?

Correct me please if I'm wrong. But prior to Afghanistan, did the Soviet Union ever preemptively invade a foreign Country?
 
Not by proxy mind you, but an actual overt act of war?

[Suave]

About Moscow. Hitler could preach a dynamite sermon, that's really the only thing he was good at. He was a very good preacher. He was fortunate that he had a highly professional millitary with brilliant generals. Germany could have taken Moscow which would have been devastating to the USSR. The army commanders could plainly see this. But Hitler regarded Moscow as irrellevant and dismissed their advise. The military protested adamantly, if I recall correctly at least one marshall resigned over his decision not to move on Moscow.

When things began to go badly for the nazis in russia Hitler denied permision to withdraw, he ordered his army groups to hold their ground and fight to the last. With these orders he doomed the germany army, thus began the defeat of germany.

[lasersailor184]

The real cause for The Soviets winning was the Lend Lease program and all the supplies that america fed them.  Or at least, the reason they didn't lose was because of these programs.

Now here's where it gets tricky.  The reason that Japan attacked American interests in the pacific, and NOT the Soviet Union was because of the level of infiltration of Soviet Agents in the Japanese government.

Had the spies not convinced Japan to attack America, I would put the odds at 50/50 whether or not the soviets would ultimately lose, even with the Lend Lease programs.

[BlauK]

Thruster,
what do you actually mean by "pre-emptively"? ...  with other countries' concent? .. or something else?

Soviets invaded or tried to invade e.g.:
1939 Poland
1939 Finland
1940 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
1940 Romania (Bessarabia)

The 1940 events above did not come into fighting though... I think, but 1939 events did.