Maybe, but it wouldn’t have been a Soviet insurgency since the backbone of the Soviet Union would have been broken. It would have been hundreds of local/nationalist partisan insurgencies. And the Nazis would have dealt with such insurgencies by massacring the civilian populations that the insurgents were hiding among. It was a major problem in Iraq when you get attacked, the fighters can just hide their rifles and walk down the street and blend in with the local population. Kill everyone in the village, men women and children, and you solve the problem.
You know what’s an easier option than letting Hitler and Stalin fight it out, and then mopping up the winner? Letting Hitler and Stalin fight it out, and then mopping up the loser.
There were a few proponents of the “let devil fight devil” plan- iirc Harry Truman was one. But they were in the minority because of the political perceptions of the time. It’s only in 20/20 hindsight that Stalinism was finally seen for what it was. In the US and UK there was an almost imbecilically pro-Soviet faction in the Left that slavishly followed the Moscow party line and denounced as anti-Soviet propaganda reports of purges, mass murder and the reign of terror, and which would had have enough influence to scuttle any move against the USSR. Look at the wartime propaganda movie “The North Star”- it’s makers must have been deeply embarrassed five years later during the depth of the McCarthy era.
Not withstanding western unhappiness with the USSR pre- 06/1941 over the division of Poland, the annexation of the Baltics and the Winter War against Finland, Hitler was attempting to conquer Western Europe and Stalin was not. From Churchill’s point of view the situation was simple: The Third Reich had dared to attack the British Empire, and therefore was condemned to death. Churchill had few illusions about Stalin and the Soviet Union, but destroying Hitler and the Nazis took priority.
I disagree that the Soviets could have done any such thing, but I guess that’s for a different discussion. I don’t believe there would be any realistic way to balance just enough help to the Soviets to keep the war going until they both hurt each other enough so we could crush them both at a later date. If we helped the Soviets at all then I think eventually they win, regardless…and we are in no position to do anything about that down the road. If we don’t help the Soviets at all then I think Germany has a good chance to win…and if they do, we are in the exact same position, i.e. in no position at all to do anything about it.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Even if the Germans had conquered Moscow, Stalingrad, etc., wouldn’t there have been a formidable anti-German insurgency by the Soviets for years?
[/QUOTE]
Undoubtedly, but as Lemur866 says it wouldn’t be a Soviet insurgency, but a Russian one. Basically, if the Soviet Communist Party had lost Moscow then it would probably be all over for them as the premier political power. Russia would certainly have fragmented and the communists would have been in a very bad position at that point, having been shown to have lost their grip on the throat of Russia. But, yeah…RUSSIANS, being the tenacious bastards they are, would certainly have fought on for years against the Germans. I don’t think that would have stopped the Germans from consolidating the parts of Russia they were after, however…and, of course, the Germans had similar plans for the Slavs that they were already doing with the Jews, though they might have settled for mere slavery and working them to death instead of outright death camps.
At one point Churchill wanted to create a new eastern front by going south from Norway and north from Greece; however this was logistically impossible. Letting the USSR push out (and replace) the Germans from eastern Europe was the only realistic option.
I think you’re overestimating how critical lend-lease was to the Soviets, and underestimating just how strong the Soviet army was by the end of the war.
In fact, a cynical man could make a strong argument that the Allied invasion of Europe was more about stopping Stalin than about stopping Hitler.
ETA: I think your proposal would have led to a complete Soviet domination of mainland Europe all the way to Spain.
If the U.S. rescinds its embargoes on Japan, and by various other means completely pivots the US-Japan relationship, and encourages a Japanese invasion of Siberia or at least a credible threat thereof - then the Soviets never get that message from Richard Sorge, and they can’t move those eastern troops west to the German front, and the inevitable Russian victory looks a lot less certain.
Of course, while then the U.S. maybe has reached the goal of the O.P., now there is a powerful Empire of Japan it will inevitably get in conflict with. And largely without allies, at that.
My late uncle was a veteran of the 8th Army (N. Africa and Italy). In the final months of the war, his unit was informed that they were going to someplace cold (they were equipped with winter gear). he always thought that they were going to Russia-can anyone confirm this? maybe fighting Russia was actually being considered?
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
I thought the realpolitik was exactly what happened; let the Soviets bear 90% of the casualties and wind up with 50% of Europe (numbers approx.)
[/QUOTE]
More like reality. The Soviet Union was already in a fight to the death on it’s territory and thus directly engaged. The Brits were fighting when and where they could on the ground, and the Americans were even further detached and had even further to go to bring an army into the fight. It took quite a long time for the US to stage enough equipment and bring over enough manpower to do anything on the ground.
No idea what you are talking about and based on the ‘land grabs’ part I suspect you don’t either. Operation Market Garden wasn’t a ‘land grab’ but instead a failed attempt to divert the Germans and force them to fight on multiple fronts or to divert troops to rear areas and away from the main fighting. Unless you are positing that, if successful that the Netherlands would have become UK territory after the war.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
I think you’re overestimating how critical lend-lease was to the Soviets, and underestimating just how strong the Soviet army was by the end of the war.
[/QUOTE]
And I think you are doing exactly the opposite. Without Lend-Lease the Soviets would not have been what they became in 44-45’ because they wouldn’t have survived that long.
Funny that even Stalin would disagree with your ‘cynical man’ then. Stalin absolutely insisted on an allied invasion in France to open up a second front. Interesting that he would do that if he thought he was in total control and could crush the Germans like bugs any time he wanted, don’t you think?
I doubt it. I think it would have lead to an even more horrific number of dead Europeans and an even more decimated European economy, but I think you are over estimating how powerful the Soviets really were based on how powerful you seem to think they were in our historical time line. Even with all we were doing, opening up a second front and diverting large numbers of troops and tanks away from the Eastern Front, with our bombing raids directly into Germany disrupting logistics and destroying war production, with all the aid, equipment, food, clothing, trucks, tanks, planes (designs from the Brits), money, etc we were giving them they STILL took horrific losses taking Germany. After taking Germany the Red Army was in no shape to just keep on trucking into Spain…and that we in OUR historical time line with all of the above and more optimizing the Russians war fighting capabilities and degrading the Germans heavily.
Depends on what your uncle thought of as the ‘final months of the war’. The war with Germany ended in May, but several months before that it was plenty cold in Western Europe where the allies were fighting. Or, perhaps they were making contingencies for a Norway campaign. As far as I know, no one was building the kinds of stocks you’d need to invade either east OR west. The Russians had build up forces and logistics to take Germany…not that which would have been needed to push on further. Same with the other allies going the other way. If the US had intended to push on into Russia you’d have seen a different sort of build up and different forward deployment stances for air and ground forces. Same with the Brits. So, I’d go with a ‘no’…it probably WAS considered, but not seriously and certainly not operationally.
The Russians beat the Germans in front of Moscow before the end of 1941, well before a single US truck or tank arrived. There was no serious possibility of German victory after that.
Indeed, as they did.
Also true.
Have you looked at a map of northern Italy and Austria recently? There are some substantial and fairly cold mountains up there … The Alps I think they’re called.
[QUOTE=Askance]
The Russians beat the Germans in front of Moscow before the end of 1941, well before a single US truck or tank arrived. There was no serious possibility of German victory after that.
[/QUOTE]
No…the Russians stopped the Germans in their first offensive. Barely. At a huge cost in men and material lost, destroyed or captured. By stripping their troops and tanks and equipment from Siberia (leaving them vulnerable on that front if the Japanese had decided to break their treaty). Unless you want to posit the magic tank and truck fairy giving them whole armies worth of stuff after that there is no way they could have done the rest of the war by themselves with no outside help. This is the revisionism that seems to be prevalent these days, that really the Soviets didn’t need anything to win and it was all a forgone conclusion. It’s a load of horseshit. Each of the 3 major allies needed the other to win the war. Without the other 2, any one of them, standing alone would have lost. Without any 1 of them the other 2 probably wouldn’t win either.
Market Garden wasn’t even that; it was an attempt to capture several key bridges in the Netherlands, including the bridge over the lower Rhine in Arnhem, and thereby enable a armored thrust by Montgomery’s 21st Army Group in the N. German plain north of the Ruhr valley, with the intent of getting loose in open country and driving toward Berlin.
It was an overly ambitious plan to end the war earlier; in fact, the Allies did exactly what Market Garden aimed to do, but in March-very early April 1945 during Operation Plunder. In fact, at that point, the Germans had more or less collapsed, and the post-war division of Germany had been decided, so Eisenhower put more emphasis behind the southern advance of 1st, 3rd and 7th armies to capture Bavaria, and de-emphasized a 21st Army group drive on Berlin.
I remain baffled by the “it was all inevitable” position. Such certainty would surely lead itself to excellent forecasting abilities. Where were these certain historians when it came time to predict the outcome of the Iraq War?
Of course Soviet victory was not inevitable in 1941, even after the drive on Moscow was stopped. There is no inevitability that Germany makes the blunder it did at Stalingrad or at Kursk, battles that significantly altered the course of the war. There is no guarantee the Western front goes as it did, culminating in a successful Allied invasion in 1944, which drew off many divisions that were badly needed in the East. There is no inevitability Hitler doesn’t die of a heart attack in 1942 or that Leningrad collapses or any number of things might have happened.
Exactly. It seems to be the new thing, though people have been pushing the meme that the Soviets didn’t need anyone else and could have single handedly won the war all by themselves without any help from the US or the Brits. It’s funny that Stalin DURING the war didn’t feel the same, since it’s all obvious and stuff. Of course, to come to this conclusion you have to fast forward to what the Red Army became in '45 and skip past how they got there. You have to ignore the fact that the US and the Brits were providing massive amounts of food, clothing, equipment, trucks, planes, tanks, ammo and material to build stuff with. You have to ignore the impact, especially early on, of taking that all away and the Soviets having to build all of that on top of all the other stuff they had to build to effectively fight the Germans…and you have to ignore the fact that the Soviets took massive losses especially in the early years…loses that wouldn’t have been as easy to replace if they had to build everything they needed, and without the large logistical assistance they were given that they would have had to build themselves instead.
And you are right…change a small thing in history and you won’t necessarily get the same outcome. Some of the key battles the Soviets won, sometimes at huge cost to them but victories from an attrition standpoint would almost certainly have been different. The war as it happened was anything but inevitable early on…take away factors like the US and British support of the Soviets and it was anything but. Yet this meme lives on.
I think that Germany had a chance to win in 1942-but only if Moscow could be captured. But, as Hitler took personal control over the army, defeat was assured.
It is perhaps worth noting that as bad a move as this was, Hitler was not always well advised by his generals. Kursk was considered a terrific idea by many generals who should have known better and perhaps heeded the old military advice that you shouldn’t do what your enemy wants you to do.
Absolutely no one, including Stalin or anyone working for him, knew how to war would go or thought for an instant the USSR could win the war by itself. Stalin’s constant insistence on more Allied help is completely inconsistent with such a claim, and he was not the lone voice in the Kremlin on the subject.
