Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WHAT IF THE ALLIES HAD NEVER INVADED?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WHAT IF THE ALLIES HAD NEVER INVADED?

    Today is D-Day (2015) & I have a related QUESTION (sorry if it's been debated elsewhere): What if the Allies had not invaded Nazi territories? Would the Soviets STILL have been able to beat them head-to-head?

    I happen to think so. The Soviets were rolling over the Nazi machine from Nov. 1942 thru the end of WWII. However, a huge amount of their success was due to Allied invasions of North Africa, Italy & France, as well as massive supplies sent to Stalin's U.S.S.R.

    Example: The Battle of Kursk, the biggest tank battle in the history of warfare. It was stopped after less than 2 weeks, in large measure because Hitler had to direct his strategies and massive amounts of men & firepower to ward off the Allied invasion of Sicily.
    Last edited by EastFront; 06 Jun 15, 13:46.

  • #2
    Yeah We would've nuked Germany...
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
      Yeah We would've nuked Germany...
      After all there was a Germany first policy
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

      Comment


      • #4
        The Allies made 4 major invasions of Europe, not just D-Day.

        Salerno in Italy
        Anzio in Italy
        Southern France
        Normandy France

        They also made a later one invading islands of the Scheldt off Antwerp.

        And there was the Dieppe raid as well.

        So, are we saying they don't make any of these?

        Comment


        • #5
          Perhaps a better question would be what if the Western Allies (or just the USA) were not in the war? Because just by the virtue of their being involved, some kind of invasion was inevitable. Can't really have one without the other.

          Comment


          • #6
            A few major changes:

            -stronger allied bombing/naval campaign, more german focus in this area.

            -German manpower and material would not be accumulating in the west/italian/NA fronts in 1943 but used to rebuild that in the east.

            -The dynamic of 1943 in the SU would be radically different and probably in-between that of 1942 and 1943 historically. Meaning, the germans would be weaker vs the soviets than they were in 42' but stronger than they were in 43'.

            -This means that the summer offensive would be considerably stronger and may not even be OP Citadel.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
              Yeah We would've nuked Germany...
              Probably Essen or some other industrial town in the Ruhr. Silesia and Berlin would have been occupied by the Red Army in August 1945 in this ATL.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
                Silesia and Berlin would have been occupied by the Red Army in August 1945 in this ATL.
                While I agree that the Soviets eventually succeed in this situation too, I'm not so sure they keep this close to the real timetable. I wouldn't be surprised if they take much longer.

                Cult Icon, yes, most of the first-rate manpower and materiel would be in the East. Only some garrison troops would still be needed in France and elsewhere in occupied Europe. Not in Italy (and therefore not much in the Balkans either), though, because without a landing, Fascism is still tottering along. I doubt they also send many new Italian assets in the real East after the winter of 1942-43, but they can help with those garrison duties. So all in all the best troops are in the East.
                Michele

                Comment


                • #9
                  The forces stationed in the west/italian front were mostly green or cheaply set up second rate infantry formations and armored formations plus veteran units from the east that were rebuilding/stationed there.

                  Without such fronts, instead of building more and more second rate formations and diluting the quality of the forces, they could afford to rebuild the veteran ones. So this stream of manpower and material would go into rebuilding east front units in a manner similar to the recovery of early-mid 1942. It would not be a stretch to believe that an entire army group would be refitted and back online for offensive operations in 1943.

                  There would be much higher flow of replacements once operations shift to defense in 1943 which would make the defensive dynamic very different from the "infantry poor" situation historically.

                  However, I still think that they would lose ground- the RKKA war machine was stronger than they were in 1942.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No, not a chance. Stalin wanted the western allies to open up a second front in Europe by 1943, in order to take the pressure of the advancing Red Army.

                    Personally, I think if D-Day had occurred in 1943, it would've failed due to lack of preparation, amongst other things.
                    Hitler played Golf. His bunker shot was a hole in one.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The OP is wrong constructed .

                      It should not be : what if the allies had never invaded,but:what if the Germans had no forces outside the east ? And the answer would be : unopposed landing by the allies and collaps of Germany .

                      The allies would not invade only if there were much more Germans in France than there were in the OTL .
                      And if this happened, the result would be the Soviets in Berlin in 1944.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EastFront View Post
                        ... What if the Allies had not invaded Nazi territories? Would the Soviets STILL have been able to beat them head-to-head?

                        I happen to think so. The Soviets were rolling over the Nazi machine from Nov. 1942 thru the end of WWII. However, a huge amount of their success was due to Allied invasions of North Africa, Italy & France, as well as massive supplies sent to Stalin's U.S.S.R....
                        If you're saying that not only are the western Allies not attacking Nazi occupied territory / Axis allies, but neither are they sending supplies to the Soviets then I think Soviet victory becomes much more problematic. Barbarossa would probably still fail, much as it did historically and for much the same reasons. You would start to see a change in the course of the war in the east into 1942, as the Germans would have more armour, air and fuel to send east. Plus the Italians would be free to send larger and better equipped units east. Into early '43 the Germans made a large effort to reinforce and supply forces in Tunisia. You put those air transport assets in the east and German fortunes improve some more. Then into '43 and '44 the Soviets are lacking considerable supplies delivered to them historically.

                        While the Germans would likely still fail to conquer the Soviet Union as they had planned, I can see things bogging down into more or less a stalemate as Soviet losses combined with stronger German forces lead to Soviet offensives costing the Soviets more and gaining less.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                          as the Germans would have more armour, air and fuel to send east.
                          Plus the Italians would be free to send larger and better equipped units east.


                          You put those air transport assets in the east



                          Soviet losses combined with stronger German forces lead to Soviet offensives costing the Soviets more and gaining less.
                          1)they would not

                          2) They would not

                          3) They would remain in the wesr

                          4) unproved assumption

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            1)they would not

                            2) They would not

                            3) They would remain in the wesr

                            4) unproved assumption
                            1) You're wrong

                            2) You're wrong

                            3) Why you assume that the air transport assets historically used to transport forces to and supply them in Tunisia would "remain in the wesr" is beyond me. Sure, it's necessarily speculative, but your claim that they would "remain in the wesr" makes little sense and would have very little if any probability of actually having occurred.

                            4) Since it's all necessarily speculative, of course nothing is "proven". However, it makes sense that if the Germans had been stronger, by virtue of not having to send supplies and reinforcements to the North Africa, Italy and France and the Soviets were weaker due to lack of supplies historically send by the western allies that the alt scenario would favour the Germans to some extent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              1)You are wrong : if there was no allied invasion in 1943,this would not mean that more German forces would be available for the East :there was no allied invasion in 1942 and there were not more axis forces available for the east .

                              2)You are wrong : the strength of the Italian forces in the east did not depend on the danger of an allied invasion


                              3)your assumption that the air transport assets used in Tunesia would go to the east if Torch did not happen has no value : these assets belonged principally to the training schools and would remain there


                              4) The level of the Soviet losses did not depend on the German strength nor did the German losses depend on the Soviet strength

                              5) When there was a big allied invasion (Overlord) the Germans were unable to reinforce the Western front,but that does not mean that the reason was the existence of the eastern front :there always would be an eastern front,even without war with the SU .

                              And there always would be a Western front,even without Overlord,even without war with the West and this would prevent the Germans from reinforcing the East .

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Adults Rashid Dostur
                                by casanova
                                The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                Today, 00:48
                              • casanova
                                Alouette III
                                by casanova
                                The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                Today, 00:22
                              • casanova
                                Israel Army
                                by casanova
                                The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                Yesterday, 23:15
                              Working...
                              X