Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could WWII have been won without the USSR?

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

  • Could WWII have been won without the USSR?

    Ok let´s say:
    The Soviet union failed to move most of it´s industry which now is in Axis hands.
    The Germans has won the battle for Moscow, the city lies in ruins
    ,Stalin and most of the higher officials is dead after an failed escape attempt.
    The red army has capitulated and is turning in their weapons.
    Most of the eastern European railroads have been captured intact together with stations and bridges.
    Resistance activity is taking place all over the USSR.


    Can the Western allies win or will they be defeated or will it just be a sudden death and a race to develop the atomic bomb?
    “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

    Max Sterner

  • #2
    This is tough.

    I mean USSR played a special part in WWII

    Also it depends on when USSR falls is it before or after Italy is attacked

    I think th western allies would have had a huge struggles ahead of them but in the end they would get the job done.

    But i think England would have been invaded.

    ~JDB
    Last edited by Verinage; 15 Jul 08, 13:47.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good one Erik

      I'm far from an expert, as most of you know, but I would have to say it would have at least prolonged the war a hell of a lot longer, and the Victory not as certain. The biggest effect I think would have been in Africa and naturally D-Day, hhhmm, A later Operation Sealion as well maybe...... LOL

      Cheers, many ways to go about this one.

      Tom

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JDB5 View Post
        This is tough.

        I mean USSR played a special part in WWII

        Also it depends on when USSR falls is it before or after Italy is attacked

        I think th western allies would have had a huge struggles ahead of them but in the end they would get the job done.

        But i think England would have been invaded.
        I am really useless at dates but I think as the German won the Battle for Moscow it would be before the attack on Italy.
        “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

        Max Sterner

        Comment


        • #5
          I am not good with dates either, so if I am wrong please let me know.

          ~JDB

          Comment


          • #6
            The only reason Hitler lost, was that he fought a four front war.

            Without the massive red army assault along the eastern front, the west would not have been able to pull off D-Day. Don't forget that until Barbarosa, Hitler and Stalin were allies; if in addition to Italy and Japan the USSR had openly joined the Axis than the entire land mass of the eastern hemisphere would be under their control today. The only thing that would have saved England and America was control of the sea.
            "America has gone to hell since John Wayne died". - Al Bundy

            "One finger is all any real American needs"

            "A gesture is worth a thousand words - but you usually only need two"

            Comment


            • #7
              There's no way the Western allies could have won against Germany and Japan with the USSR. Germany now had the Luftwaffe and Heer totally committed against the UK/Commonwealth/US while those nations are also fighting Japan. Germany has the oil of the USSR, etc. etc.

              When the US joined the war, it oroiginally envisioned 300+ divisions, but scaled down because that would take too much manpower from production.
              So either there are more troops, lots more without the massive amounts of equipment, or there are fewer but well-equipped forces facing an extra 3million or so German troops, not to mention generals like Manstein, Heinrici, Balck etc. with more equipment.

              Comment


              • #8
                Without USSR, and even counting with eventual A bomb a West alone victory is very unlikely.

                Gorgnard,

                As far as I know US plan called for 90 divisions, and was not enterily implemented. Since Commonwealth was in since situation I believe that it explains use of industrial as both weapons and targets.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by grognard View Post

                  When the US joined the war, it oroiginally envisioned 300+ divisions, but scaled down because that would take too much manpower from production.
                  So either there are more troops, lots more without the massive amounts of equipment, or there are fewer but well-equipped forces facing an extra 3million or so German troops, not to mention generals like Manstein, Heinrici, Balck etc. with more equipment.
                  The 300 divsion plan, which was one of several plans, assumed British and Soviet production would be curtailed by German action and the US would have to take on equipping forigen manpower. Providing that much ground combat equipment would have taken a lot more time, required significant changes in production policy, and definitly required putting the Pacific war on ice unto Europe was resolved first. Exactly how much unused capacity there was in US production in 1944-45 is a open question. Tho projections by the various Federal agencys running production policy and execution showed quite a bit.

                  A earlier plan prepared by the War Plans Dept circa 1940-41 gave a target of 180 US army divsions (the larger 1940 T/Os) of which 60 would be armored for use in Europe. It assumed the USSR would not be a major player in the defeat of Gemany.

                  The US Army Air Forces were also significantly larger in these plans.

                  As it was the US maxed out at 89 Army divsions and six USMC. The US also directly stood up eight French, three Chinese, and two Brazilian divsions. By 1945 it was providing enough critical equipment like tanks, trucks, artillery, radios to sustain roughly twenty other divsion equivalents in the Allied armys in terms of draw on US prduction.

                  The actual number of divsions to be manned with US men, or equipped in forigen armys remained a open question into mid 1943. Marshall then decided the US Army need not be expanded beyond 90-100 divsions. Decsions for production policy in the same period capped the ability to sustain fielded divsions or equivalents at something a bit above 130 divsions including Allied manned units. Both of those decsions were influenced by Roosevelt allowing King and MacAurthur to accelerate the Pacific campaign intiating offensive operations towards Japan and the Phillipines by one to two years. This greatly increased USN manpower requirements for 1944-45 and increased a already expanded USN take from US production.

                  One important aspect in evaluating these Victory or V Plans contrived by the War Plans Divsion is that they all depended heavily on air power. They assumed the sucessfull offensive at all levels would require air superiority or domination. It was no accident that the US production of aircraft was more than twice that of Germany. it was intended from the start that the US would put complete air superiority as the first goal. Hence air wings had priority over ground divsions and were formed in a higher proportion to ground units than in other nations. The V Plans also assumed 'big divsions', so the raw comparison of numbers distorts the analysis.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I did have a small reading list on the Victory Plans drawn up by the WPD, and of course cant find it. Generals Stillwell, Weidermyer, and Eisenhower were three notable names who served at senior levels in the WPD in 1941. Marshall used their work on the V Plans as a basis for his recomendations on weapons/equipment production goals to Roosevelt and the war production boards. HQ US Army Ground Forces, US Army Air Forces, and the Ordinance Dept served as a counter check to the imaginings of the WPD.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Short answer: No.

                      Take away any one of the three major Allied partners at a corresponding critical time and Axis victory obviously becomes more likely. The degree of increased likelihood is debateable of course, varying from 'somewhat more likely' to 'very probable' depending on the scenario but the one outlined by Erkki makes Axis victory very probable, IMHO.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 16 Jul 08, 09:34.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Erikkis outline leaves the situation in the east in the best possible category. It appears he is elminating the option for the Red Army & Soviet government to continue on to the east, beyond the German logistics reach of 1941-42.

                        The popular historys make much of the removal of Soviet machine tools and parts of their support to Siberia. But I've often wondered how improtant to overall effort that really was. Does anyone have any relaible infpormation on just how much manufactoring capability was moved, and how much had already been built in the east as part of the previous decade of industrial development?

                        There were still well over one million men under arms across Siberia. Considering the inability of the Germans to enforce any sort of surrender that far east do those men and particualry their leaders have any incentive to "..turn in their arms..".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dont know how many were already build but more than 1360 factories were moved.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What is the German "success criteria"?

                            Is a win for Germany a Vichy France and "Living Space" owning all of Western Russia or would it include a conquered and occupied Britain? Would it require a German presence on the North American mainland?

                            I am pretty sure there is no D-Day, No Italy and probably no Africa. Japan still gets rolled in the Pacific and I think the English mainland is probably still safe since the scenario above means that Barbarossa did go off and the British have won the BoB already and regained a decent deal of their strength.

                            However I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki are spared and Berlin and some other German city like Cologne or Munich are are used as the examples instead. If the Americans keep this under wraps then Hitler probably dies in the Berlin blast. Regardless of Hitler's death I think we enter a stalemate where every time the US builds a new bomb they drop it on another city, at some point (early I am guessing) the Germans capitulate followed by Italy immediately and soon after Japan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Maybe the bomber gets through to Berlin, but with no Luftwaffe presence in Russia, the bombing campaign takes on a different aspect, and maybe the Germans force England to sue for peace, so the US needs a base to delivere the bombs from.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X