Great idea., Lets avoid the basically undefendable North European plain and attack through the Carparthian mountains.
How do you say “fucked” in Russian?
Real world, the U.S.S.R. didn’t invade Poland until a couple of weeks after Germany did. Granted that Stalin’s decision to agree to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the first place does seem extraordinarily stupid just on geopolitical terms, it’s still pretty hard to imagine Hitler talking Stalin into actually going first.
At the time, the Polish - Soviet war and the Battle of Warzaw was less than 20 years in the past. About as long ago as 9/11 is to us. Clearly it would take some diplomacy… but Stalin was disposed that way already.
I don’t think there is any scenario where Germany wins. But the closest might be if they had focused on long-range fighters in the buildup to 1940. Achieve air superiority over Britain, and once achieved, bomb industrial centers into the stone age. This would take much time (allied bombing didn’t effect a reduction in German production until late 1944, as a yardstick) Postpone Barbarossa until done, say by 5 years. Of course, Staling might wake up sometime in that stretch, and Germany is fucked again. They could’ve helped themselves by not using resources to torture and murder millions of people, but to the Nazis that was the whole point, so fat chance of that. They could go to a 3-shift war economy, but Hitler was reluctant to inconvenience the German people at large (for his special definition of German) . They could have qualified military personnel make military decisions, instead of a homicidal megalomaniac, but the very nature of Nazi-Germany made that impossible.
The defeat of Nazi-Germany is built in to what it was.
Even with longer range fighters - and bear in mind the British were not stupid and would have adjusted their own defenses accordingly - winning the Battle of Britain was never reasonably in the cards. Time over target was a disadvantage, but the primary problem was that Britain had a supply of fighter planes that was never going to run out; they literally had more at the end of the Battle of Britain than they started with, because they built fighters faster than Germany could shoot them down. Indeed, at no point in the Battle of Britain did the RAF even commit the entirety of its force to the battle; Hugh Dowding was very cautious about overcommitting his reserve or moving fighters and pilots into 11 Group; Fighter Command still had relatively lightly used resources in the other groups that could have been pulled into the critical areas of operation had things gotten really desperate. Building more complex fighters - something that was not easy, as evidenced by the fact Britain didn’t have any good long range fighters, either - would have put Germany further behind in numbers, and just exacerbated that problem.
On top of that, Germany couldn’t have bombed Britain’s industrial centers back into the Stone Age even if they did have fighters that could stay over Britain a little longer, because they simply did not have enough bombers, and their bombers did not carry enough bombs and couldn’t bomb accurately enough. The Allies struggled to stop German industry with a bomber force that was ludicrously more powerful - Germany’s primary bombers were amusingly small as compared to what the Allies were rolling out; the biggest, the He-111, carried less than half the bomb load of a British heavy bomber. They also carried defensive armaments that were simply not good enough to dissuade fighter attack. So you’d have to also posit a universe where Germany builds larger, better bombers. Which can’t have happened, because they did not really have the technology or the capacity; if they’d concentrate on that they have to give up something else somewhere. Bombers were REALLY expensive to design and manufacture, by the standards of the time. The USA spent more money developing the B-29 than they did developing the atomic bomb.
As scary as the experience was for Britain, the truth is that they kicked the shit out of Germany in the Battle of Britain; it was not all that close, there was never any chance it would be close, and the results were disastrous for the Luftwaffe. They lost almost two thousand aircraft, and many highly skilled pilots, all of which was badly missed in the war against the Soviets.
I’m finding this step somewhat incredulous. To paraphrase Churchill, “Some chicken, some vise.” The USSR was an awfully big country with an awful lot of resources. Germany could out industrialize it but lacked the resources. Japan had neither the industry nor the resources.
Not sure how that happens, either.
They’d have to also leave the Philippines alone (which they actually attacked within hours of Pearl Harbor), leaving a huge hole in their coverage of Asia and counter to their claims over the region. There’s no way the US doesn’t look at the map and think, “Jeez, I’m sure Japan will continue leaving this large set of islands alone after attacking literally everything around it”.
The hope of both Germany and Japan was to strike so quickly that the war did not drag on. That wasn’t ultimately realistic.
I’m generally not a fan of these history re-writes. Largely because we ask historical character to not act in character – Hitler’s not anti-Semitic and the southern aristocracy isn’t beholden to slavery etc. However, this scenario does intrigue me.
Having said that, I don’t think it would work out for Germany as many have stated.
But if you wanted to make a go of it . . .
First, Germany would have to virtually immediately invade Russia. Germany wasn’t prepared to do that two years before they ultimately did in June 1941. But they would need to do that and sell the allies that they really wanted to fight Russia, not France, and certainly not England or the United States.
Secondly, they would have to treat Poland as temporary, and not a conquered nation, with a pledge to leave Poland when the war ended. (That certainly didn’t work for Germany via-à-vis Belgium 25 years earlier of course).
Thirdly, they would have to take no offensive action against France or Great Britain. So no sinking of HMS Courageous for example.
Fourth, Germany would have to go on a major worldwide PR campaign stating that they were just attacking Communist hordes in Russia for all of mankind. Sell that to Great Britain, France, the United States, and repeat over the nine months of the Phoney War. And don’t invade France of course.
Would this work? I doubt it. But the future allies weren’t clamoring to fight another war, as if at least partially evidenced by the length of the Phoney War.
Sure, FDR will think that, and will build it up. But we wont start a war over it.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, but to the extent it may be true, it only highlights just how strategically bankrupt the Axis powers were. If it was untenable for Japan and Germany to take the USSR on together, then that only highlights just how foolhardy Germany was to think it could do it on its own, and while still fighting a war against the UK, with an active theater in northern Africa. All I’m saying is that, at the very least, Germany and Japan seem to have formed an Axis in only the loosest sense, and seemed to have worked strategically not only at cross-purposes, but in the case of Germany, to have followed the other down some pretty questionable holes.
Even if they hadn’t coordinated, and even if Japan had still gone ahead, on its own initiative, with Pearl Harbor and other attacks in the Pacific, Germany chose to follow them to war with the US. It’s treaty with Japan imposed no such obligation on it for a war of aggression initiated by Japan. While it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that FDR would have still been able to get a declaration of war against Germany with a whole lot of politicking, it’s unclear to me how many weeks/months/years that would have taken if Germany hadn’t done him (and Churchill) the favor of declaring war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor. Surely “Europe First” (to the extent it was even needed—the Japanese folded pretty much in step with Germany even with the focus on Europe) would have been a tougher sell, even if FDR had eventually been able to mobilize opinion in favor of a two hemisphere, truly global war.
ETA:
Just wanted to say, I generally agree with this. I hate alternate history genre fiction for this reason, but—and I’m not saying you’d agree or disagree—I think considering the feasibility of alternatives that are otherwise consistent with the world as it was at the time is in another realm. It’s not so much fantasy (as, say, positing that George Patton would still have been born exactly as he was even if the Confederacy had won the war), but a way of trying to better understand the world as it might have appeared to those living in it. The question of whether or not Germany could have ever, even with Japan, overpowered the USSR, says something about how delusional the Nazi hierarchy may have been in reality.
If Russia was on it’s own, it would have been defeated. Stalin himself admitted that. There is not doubt.
Now, with lend lease, etc- it was a close run thing, and if Japan had attacked Russia, drawing off support and troops, Moscow could have fallen. Many historians have speculated that the fall of Moscow could have caused the collapse of the USSR.
But when Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose, the Japanese gave up on the Northern plan.
Myself, I think that instead of the above, you move the time a bit further ahead. Germany has successfully defeated France. They have not, as yet, turned on Russia. They also have not yet pissed off the US that war is inevitable. Instead, Germany pushes for peace with the Brits and works their system such that Churchill doesn’t become PM. They offer very generous terms. They also offer a bone to the US (and clearly tell the Japanese that they will NOT support any sort of attack on the US, and if Japan does so it’s on it’s own). Then, they push, hard for their planning, especially the logistics, for their invasion of Russia. They, again, play on the anti-communist forces in the UK (though, as this was mainly Churchill, IIRC, I’m not sure how this works out). They get some sort of cease fire with the Brits, so no battle of Britain, no submarine interdiction (which means less tension with the US as well). Then they go all in on their attack on Russia, push everything they have to taking Moscow and forcing the Soviets to pull back, making it clear that Stalin is the root cause of all of Russia’s woes. That means they act less like wild animals when they invade, thus not only not pissing off the local peoples in Russia but also making them more likely to throw Stalin out. As it was, Stalin was on a knife edge, especially with the early idiotic blunders he made as well as just the fact he so miscalculated. Push those odds so that Stalin is taken out and shot, and the whole Soviet system does in fact collapse, at least partially.
If you could also get the Japanese to attack from Manchuria into Siberia (thus, limiting the Russians from being able to bring in all those Siberian divisions) with some sort of bone the Japanese would want, I think you could do it…you could knock Russia out, or split the country such that they would have to withdraw back behind the Urals and try and rebuild their industry. In the following year, you take the oil fields to the south and that’s pretty much it…Germany ‘wins’, for certain definitions of the term.
There are some glaring issues with this, of course. Japan doesn’t get what it wants. I don’t see a carrot big enough to get them to do this. You’d have to actually know, in advance, how history plays out to really pull the strings to get the conditions I talked about above. No one would have thought Churchill was key. German didn’t think the US really mattered. Hitler et al would have to understand all the things they would need to do to really knock the Russians out, to get them to give Stalin lead poisoning, to not piss off the local population, what forces and logistics they needed to make their decisive strike, that they really needed medium term planning for things like, oh, say a new tank design for the Panzer III’s and winter weather gear, etc etc. It’s a huge house of cards to get them to ‘win’, and they would need a ton of foreknowledge to do it. Even then, it’s not a sure thing, though I think it’s plausible they could take Russia out anyway.
In the end, these what-if scenarios are interesting but, basically, the actors would have to not be the people they were to make them work…or some key event would need to change. No Churchill and it’s plausible the Brits agree to a cease fire and peace terms, though how they would then react to the Russian invasion is a question.
[quote=“Velocity, post:1, topic:843051”]
[li]Germany does not over-extend itself by attacking everyone all at once. In this scenario, Germany doesn’t have to spend forces and resources on capturing Netherlands, Denmark, France, Belgium, attacking the UK, Norway or fighting any Americans, nor does it have to wage any Atlantic U-boat campaign;[/li][/quote]
First of all, Germany had ALREADY broken the “never West” strategy before any of this happened. They were involved in the Spanish civil war from 1936 on, remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, and annexed Czechoslovakia that same year over the objections of the Western powers. So they can’t really offer a ‘never West’ promise that will be believed, and their ‘East only’ strategy had already provoked strong reaction before the eastward move into Poland prompted the formal declaration of war.
Secondly, how is Germany going to fund its war with Russia? Germany was in serious economic trouble as the war started, and needed gold and other wealth seized from occupied countries to keep its foreign trade functioning. Are you expecting the Western Allies to not only not oppose attacks that they historically did, but to also give lend-lease style aid to Germany during this war? In particular, where is their oil coming from - the USSR was a major supplier of German oil in this time frame, and without the Molotov-Ribbentorp pact would not be keen on selling much, and certainly would stop once war was declared.
[quote]
[li]Russia was even weaker in 1939 than in 1941; [/li][li]The consolidation of Germany’s concentrated forces on its Eastern Front is even more effective than it was in Barbarossa;[/li][/quote]
While the red army was smaller and had issues, the German Army was also much smaller and much less advanced, with far fewer and far weaker tanks than it had for Barbarossa. They also had not had any easy campaigns to ‘field test’ and sort out issues in the army like they did historically. And Stalin had no reason to believe that Germany wouldn’t attack him, since there was no pact and Germany had just promised to attack him, so wouldn’t have a reason to give the military the disasterous ‘don’t provoke a fight’ orders that he did in 1941.
Even if the Western Allies go against what they did historically and let Germany invade Poland, I don’t see how a 1940 campaign against the USSR would work for Germany. They’d beat Poland like they did historically, then have to launch an offensive across recently occupied land (instead of land they’d had 2 years to subdue and build up) into the largest country in the world with very low stocks of tanks and aircraft, very low fuel supplies, and little experience. Even ignoring the crippling economic difficulties, I don’t see how they’d manage to come anywhere near crippling the USSR, much less forcing a surrender. And then when Stalin defeated the German armies and began moving West, there’s no way the Western countries would be able to fire up support for hindering them, since the USSR would be the victim of an unprovoked attack.
Ultimately over 34 million served in the Soviet armed forces during WWII, compared to less than 14 million for Germany. Considering that the USSR could essentially keep throwing bodies in front of the German forces for a very long time, how could Germany have overcome that to physically take and hold Soviet territory?
Because you are looking at things from a 1945 perspective, instead of how things actually were in 1941. At that time the Red Army was in chaos, with much of it’s best leadership having been purged, and in no shape to do much of anything. Hell, look at their losses in Finland during the Winter War. The German push during the summer of '41 actually came within a hairs breath of winning, despite some poor planning and ridiculous optimism from the German high command and that idiot Hitler. Stalin actually thought he WAS going to be shot, and had actually prepared himself for it. Initially, in many areas, the Russians weren’t all that unhappy with the German invaders, in some places they actually looked on them, initially at least, as liberators, until the Germans did what Germans do and acted no better than the Soviets.
Basically, you got the whole throwing bodies in front of the Germans and not caring so much about the losses (which is partially a myth anyway) by 1945, after history happened. Even into 1942 and early '43 you had Russia’s much less committed to the cause…which is why they still needed things like political officers and special formations to ensure proper zeal in the face of the Germans. Until the Russian people really came together (and Stalin really consolidated or perhaps re-consolidated his power base), they were pretty fragmented at the early stages. Considering the shit the Soviets did to many of them, it’s not hard to see why this was the case. It was, really, the fact that the Germans weren’t any better that probably did more to unify the Russians into the fight than anything else.
George Patton:* “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”*
The Russians had nearly ten times as many troops in the Great War, vs Hindenburg . Yet he whupped them .
I want to point out that *Stalin himself *said that without lend lease and a second front the USSR would have collapsed.
Was this said while he was campaigning for such aid (i.e. the Tehran Conference) or after the dust settled? Honestly, I’m not that familiar with Stalin’s post-war speeches.
I’ve never seen a direct quote from him to that effect. It’s more something Zhukov said (from here, though there are lots of sources):
It is pretty much true though that without US supplies the Russia’s couldn’t have done the things they did. And what Zhukov said was true…post war, the US contribution was definitely downplayed not just in Russia but in other places too who wanted to make it clear that Russia did most of the work. It’s not just the US that tries to play up it’s part and make it seem we were the only key to victory and everyone else was just kind of along for the ride.
Wikipedia has the German army total as 18 million. The Germans had 12 million men killed, missing, wounded, or captured on the Eastern Front. That would have left six million men left.
The USSR had about 30 million soldiers killed, missing, wounded, or captured. That would have left only 4 million left.
It is possible that Germany could have beaten the USSR alone if they just went East. The sitzkrieg lasted 8 months and France seemed content for it to last longer.
Yes, now it’s part of Russian propaganda to claim that Russia beat the nazis mostly by themselves and that their entry vs Japan made Japan surrender (I have seen both claims repeated here several times) . In other words, the Russians won WW2 without any help. :rolleyes:
It took British determination, American manufacturing and Russian Manpower to win the war. All three were critical.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jun11/us-ussr-sign-lend-lease-agreement/
*Soviet Premier Josef Stalin would later acknowledge the contributions made by the lend-lease agreement: “Without American production [the Allies] could never have won the war.” *