Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#1

Post by CJK1990 » 23 Feb 2011, 23:03

I'm sure this has been debated before, but could the Soviet Union have defeated Germany without any help? Assume that Britain makes peace after the fall of France, Britain and the U.S. maintain strict neutrality, and Hitler invades the USSR in June 1941.

Panzer division
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 12 Sep 2009, 16:57

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#2

Post by Panzer division » 24 Feb 2011, 01:21

No. Their logistic system was a mess. It remained that way until the USSR collapsed and currently Russia has the same issues as well.


Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#3

Post by Delta Tank » 24 Feb 2011, 02:15

CJK1990 wrote:I'm sure this has been debated before, but could the Soviet Union have defeated Germany without any help? Assume that Britain makes peace after the fall of France, Britain and the U.S. maintain strict neutrality, and Hitler invades the USSR in June 1941.
Good question, don't know the answer. Are the Japanese a threat in this scenario? How many German and Italian Divisions would this free up for employment on the Eastern Front. How many more planes would be free for employment on the Eastern Front now that an enemy bomber offensive is gone ? Gee, what would the U-Boats do? :P

Mike

antfreire
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 25 Apr 2010, 23:29

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#4

Post by antfreire » 24 Feb 2011, 03:05

With all the german military might concentrated in the Eatern Front and without the American Lend Lease it would have been a little more than a military parade for Germany. Germany needed thouzands of men and materiel in the occupied territories. They had to keep a good deal of airpower to confront the constant attacks of the British air force and to feed the North African campaign. So add two hundred thouzand more men, more than one thouzand planes and five hundred more tanks to Barbarossa and tell me that they could not take Moscow by October. Even if they could not, they would have had the strenth to raze the Soviets in the summer of 1992 all the way to Baku.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#5

Post by Andy H » 24 Feb 2011, 03:05

The thread author needs to define what he means by 'Won' for any real understanding or conclusion reached

Regards

Andy H

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#6

Post by CJK1990 » 24 Feb 2011, 04:38

Andy H wrote:The thread author needs to define what he means by 'Won' for any real understanding or conclusion reached

Regards

Andy H
"Won" as in ending up occupying Germany.

I ask this question because I keep hearing people saying that the USSR was the one that beat the German army, not the Western Allies.

I do think the Soviet Union could have prevented the German Army from conquering it without any help. Virtually all of Germany's resources were concentrated against it in 1941-2 and the Western Allies had not gotten heavily involved, yet they badly outproduced Germany and blunted their offensive potential. My question is more whether or not there would have been a stalement or a German defeat from 1943 onwards without the Western Allies, particularly in view of the German armaments boom.

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#7

Post by Vaeltaja » 24 Feb 2011, 10:32

German's deployed resources to the West and to the North to protect against landings. Had most of these resources been diverted to Eastern Front it might have helped Germans especially during the initial rush. Then there are the aircraft and aircrew losses suffered during BoB - even if their equipment might have been outdated by Barbarossa having such an amount of experienced crews would have been useful for the Germans. In addition if resources would have been moved from rather massive U-Boot program to say tanks and aircraft it might have further increased German strength on land. Also without Italian/British meddling there would probably had no reason for the 1941 campaign in the Balkan's which could have allowed Barbarossa to start slightly sooner.

That with the above could have allowed Germans to start their attack earlier and therefore - with increased strength and with more time before roads get bogged - rush further. However in my opinion the worst problem for the German's were the whims (and indecision) of Hitler. As I have understood it without his interference even the op. Barbarossa as it started in reality could have succeeded.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#8

Post by Tim Smith » 24 Feb 2011, 13:13

The USSR alone vs all the Axis powers put together (including Japan) would probably have lost the war. All the Axis Powers put together can field more divisions and produce more weapons than the USSR can by itself (without Lend-Lease.) This assumes that Japan will be fighting the USSR, but not Britain and the US, so Japanese production efforts can be diverted from large warships to more tanks, guns and aircraft.

Take Japan out of the picture (engaged in China and in a 'Cold Pacific War' with the USA) and the USSR is evenly matched with the European Axis Powers. So the result is more likely to be a stalemate, where the two sides fight each other to exhaustion and neither can achieve total victory. The Axis still would still fail to take Moscow and Stalingrad IMO, due to poor logistics and poor strategy from Hitler.

Panzer division
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 12 Sep 2009, 16:57

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#9

Post by Panzer division » 24 Feb 2011, 23:55

Tim Smith wrote:The USSR alone vs all the Axis powers put together (including Japan) would probably have lost the war. All the Axis Powers put together can field more divisions and produce more weapons than the USSR can by itself (without Lend-Lease.) This assumes that Japan will be fighting the USSR, but not Britain and the US, so Japanese production efforts can be diverted from large warships to more tanks, guns and aircraft.

Take Japan out of the picture (engaged in China and in a 'Cold Pacific War' with the USA) and the USSR is evenly matched with the European Axis Powers. So the result is more likely to be a stalemate, where the two sides fight each other to exhaustion and neither can achieve total victory. The Axis still would still fail to take Moscow and Stalingrad IMO, due to poor logistics and poor strategy from Hitler.

Looks like the Nazis came very close as it was according to the legendary Soviet commander.

http://junebarbarossa.devhub.com/blog/4 ... -by-nazis/

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#10

Post by CJK1990 » 25 Feb 2011, 01:25

I'm curious as to whether or not the population balance was that unfavorable to the Axis. The Soviet population was approximately 200 million in 1941. The German, Finnish, Hungarian, and Romanian populations combined were about 110 million. That would suggest a 1.8:1 advantage to the Soviets. But the Axis occupied land containing about 40% of the Soviet population up until late 1943. That means that the territory under Soviet control contained only about 120 million people, which would reduce the ratio to only 1.1:1. Yet we know the Germans at Kursk were outnumbered 2.5:1. Does that mean that other fronts precluded Germany from achieving a more favorable ratio, or I am overlooking something here?

Panzer division
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 12 Sep 2009, 16:57

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#11

Post by Panzer division » 25 Feb 2011, 01:44

The Germans had soldiers in France, Finland, and Italy just to name a few places. There was heavy fighting throughout the war in France and Italy. Germany had some difficult odds to overcome considering their allies were for the most part...weak.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#12

Post by Tim Smith » 25 Feb 2011, 10:49

CJK1990 wrote:I'm curious as to whether or not the population balance was that unfavorable to the Axis. The Soviet population was approximately 200 million in 1941. The German, Finnish, Hungarian, and Romanian populations combined were about 110 million. That would suggest a 1.8:1 advantage to the Soviets. But the Axis occupied land containing about 40% of the Soviet population up until late 1943. That means that the territory under Soviet control contained only about 120 million people, which would reduce the ratio to only 1.1:1. Yet we know the Germans at Kursk were outnumbered 2.5:1. Does that mean that other fronts precluded Germany from achieving a more favorable ratio, or I am overlooking something here?
You forgot to factor in Italy and Slovakia, who also fought on the Eastern Front. Italy in particular could have contributed a lot more if she hadn't been fighting Britain.

Mika68*
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 20 Jan 2011, 17:41

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#13

Post by Mika68* » 25 Feb 2011, 11:02

As Hitler said late era of the war that Soviet Union is too large to occupy. Germany as small country as Finland tried occupy huge continent named Soviet Union.
But it was good luck that Hitler failed autumn 1941.
I suppose if Germans advanced to Ural's-Volga line 1941-42 SU had collapsed as a state, but of course guerilla war had began supporting by the Western Allies.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#14

Post by LWD » 25 Feb 2011, 15:06

My personal opinion is the Soviets would not have won but I don't think Nazi Germany would have either. As it was the Soviets stopped the German advance before much in the way of aid reached them. Furthermore the log system limited the force the Germans could bring against the Soviets especially in that time frame. I suspect that a rather bloody stalemate would evolve somewhere in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure either government would survive it.

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Re: Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

#15

Post by CJK1990 » 25 Feb 2011, 16:00

According to the Axis history factbook, some 79% of German/Hungarian/Romanian/Finnish available (not forming) divisions were deployed on the Eastern Front in July 1943. That would mean that the Soviet:Axis ratio should have been 1.4:1 when it was actually 2.5:1 at Kursk. Can someone help me here?

Post Reply

Return to “What if”