Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56

Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#1

Post by Politician01 » 23 Dec 2014, 23:36

Quite many people entertain the belief that the USSR could have beaten Germany on her own - and that even without Western help the Soviets would have reached Berlin - but then what?

In this scenario GB ends the war with Germany in the summer of 1940 and the US is never drawn into the conflict.

Despite the lack of LL, strategic bombing ect the Soviets manage to reach Berlin by May 1945 - however what next?

Without strategic bombing and D Day - the remaining 75% of the Reich - including the industrial centers of the Ruhr are untouched - with all of Western Europe under its command.

Since it is highly unlikely that Hitler would surrender after loosing Berlin - how does the war continue?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#2

Post by stg 44 » 24 Dec 2014, 01:51

In that scenario the Germans are much more likely to end up in Moscow than the Soviets in Berlin. No LL, Western military action, or a blockade on Europe? That's not going to end in Soviet victory at all. Perhaps at best the Soviets get a stalemate deep in their territory with tens of millions of dead.


Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#3

Post by Politician01 » 24 Dec 2014, 11:36

stg 44 wrote:In that scenario the Germans are much more likely to end up in Moscow than the Soviets in Berlin. No LL, Western military action, or a blockade on Europe? That's not going to end in Soviet victory at all. Perhaps at best the Soviets get a stalemate deep in their territory with tens of millions of dead.
That would be the logical conclusion.

However some users claim that without a German-GB war - the Red Army would have been better prepared in the summer of 1941 - and would have stopped the Germans at the Dnepr in the winter of 1941.

Without the loss of the Industrial region around the Don area - the Soviets would then have produced more then OTL - which would have enabled them to reach Berlin in May 45 - without any western help.

I know that this scenario is ASB and an absurd Soviet wank - however I want to discuss how these people think that the war would go on once Berlin is taken.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#4

Post by stg 44 » 24 Dec 2014, 18:33

Politician01 wrote:
stg 44 wrote:In that scenario the Germans are much more likely to end up in Moscow than the Soviets in Berlin. No LL, Western military action, or a blockade on Europe? That's not going to end in Soviet victory at all. Perhaps at best the Soviets get a stalemate deep in their territory with tens of millions of dead.
That would be the logical conclusion.

However some users claim that without a German-GB war - the Red Army would have been better prepared in the summer of 1941 - and would have stopped the Germans at the Dnepr in the winter of 1941.
I've seen this argument in several places, but I highly doubt it would work out that well. Having read David Glantz's works on the Soviet Military (plus several others) even with more preparations, which is not a given considering the epic levels of denial Stalin had historically and the plans he had for defense, the Germans would also be much stronger without the Mediterranean theater and the losses there, plus the extra Italian forces (they fought very well until 1943). Plus if Germany did suffer the losses of the Battle of Britain or Blitz they would have double the number of aircraft for Barbarossa. Plus no strategic bombing or blockade means production would be much higher too. The Germans probably wouldn't get as far as they historically did, but that also means they aren't as off balance when Winter comes and supply lines are stronger, so the Soviets are then also further from their supply lines and dealing with a more prepared enemy with more men and equipment than historically.
Politician01 wrote: Without the loss of the Industrial region around the Don area - the Soviets would then have produced more then OTL - which would have enabled them to reach Berlin in May 45 - without any western help.

I know that this scenario is ASB and an absurd Soviet wank - however I want to discuss how these people think that the war would go on once Berlin is taken.
Even in this scenario there is no way in hell that even with extra production they would reach Berlin on their own by May 1945. They would run out of men long before then. There were some 3-4 million Germans that from 1941-45 that fought against the Western Allies that would have been in the East, plus several thousands of AFVs. In 1942 the Luftwaffe had to send thousands of aircraft to the Mediterranean after the Torch landings and in 6 months the Germans lost some 2500 aircraft there. Without that and strategic bombing the Germans are going to have tens of thousands of aircraft in the East, plus lots more AAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ruhr
In his study of the German war economy, Adam Tooze stated that during the Battle of the Ruhr, Bomber Command severely disrupted German production. Steel production fell by 200,000 tons. The armaments industry was facing a steel shortfall of 400,000 tons. After doubling production in 1942, production of steel increased only by 20 percent in 1943. Hitler and Speer were forced to cut planned increases in production. This disruption resulted in the Zulieferungskrise (sub-components crisis). The increase of aircraft production for the Luftwaffe also came to an abrupt halt. Monthly production failed to increase between July 1943 and March 1944. "Bomber Command had stopped Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks".[23]

At Essen after more than 3,000 sorties and the loss of 138 aircraft, the "Krupps works...and the town...itself contained large areas of devastation"[4] Krupps never restarted locomotive production after the second March raid.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
Casualties and losses
Est. 18,000 aircraft through bombing[3]
97 submarines[4]
at least 23,000 motor vehicles[5]
At least 700-800 tanks[6]
500,000 civilians[2]
at least 450 locomotives (1943 only)[7]
at least 4,500 passenger wagons (1943 only)[7]
at least 6,500 goods wagons (1943 only)[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
Raids had an enormous effect on the German distribution of weaponry. In the summer of 1943, 2,132 Flak guns were protecting German industrial targets. In 1940, the number had been 791 guns. These guns could have been better used at the front. Moreover, it took an average of 16,000 shells for any particular 88 mm gun to shoot down an American bomber.[73] The production of fighters should have been considered a priority, but Hitler and Göring forbade a switch to the production of defensive fighters. Yet, attrition was having an impact on production. Production in July 1943 amounted to 1,263; by December, it had fallen to 687. The reduction was due to American efforts against aircraft factories.
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... front.html
Some comments

1). The production difference in AFV’s for 1941-44 is 2-1 in favor of the Soviets (slightly higher if we add Lend Lease) but the exchange ratio is 3.5-1 in favor of the Germans. This means that if the Germans could concentrate all their production in the East the Soviets would run out of tanks.

2). Soviet forces benefit from Lend Lease supplies of tanks and other vehicles while the Germans had no such source of free vehicles but instead had to supply tanks and SPG’s to their allies and trade partners. Also in 1943-44 German production is affected by the Combined Bomber offensive, while the SU can utilize Lend Lease supplies of machinery and raw materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Production
The initial production target was 250 tanks per month at the MAN plant Nuremberg. This was increased to 600 per month in January 1943. Despite determined efforts, this figure was never reached due to disruption by Allied bombing, and manufacturing and resource bottlenecks. Production in 1943 averaged 148 per month. In 1944, it averaged 315 a month (3,777 having been built that year), peaking with 380 in July and ending around the end of March 1945, with at least 6,000 built in total. Front-line combat strength peaked on 1 September 1944 at 2,304 tanks, but that same month a record number of 692 tanks were reported lost.[1]
Allied bombing was first directed at the common chokepoint for both Panther and Tiger production: the Maybach engine plant. This was bombed the night of 27/28 April 1944 and production was halted for five months. A second factory had already been planned, the Auto Union Siegmar plant (former Wanderer car factory), and this came online in May 1944.[18] Targeting of Panther factories began with a bombing raid on the DB plant on 6 August 1944, and again on the night of 23/24 August. MAN was struck on 10 September, 3 October and 19 October 1944, and then again on 3 January and 20/21 February 1945. MNH was not attacked until 14 and 28 March 1945.[19]
In addition to interfering with tank production goals, the bombing forced a steep drop in the production of spare parts. Spare parts as a percentage of tank production dropped from 25–30 percent in 1943, to 8 percent in the autumn of 1944. This compounded the problems with reliability and the numbers of operational Panthers, as tanks in the field had to be cannibalized for parts.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... #Aftermath
No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of similar weight would force Germany out of the war. The industrial losses were severe, Hamburg never recovered to full production, only doing so in essential armaments industries (in which maximum effort was made).[12] Figures given by German sources indicate that 183 large factories were destroyed out of 524 in the city and 4,118 smaller factories out of 9,068 were destroyed. Other losses included damage to or destruction of 580 industrial concerns and armaments works, 299 of which were important enough to be listed by name. Local transport systems were completely disrupted and did not return to normal for some time. Dwellings destroyed amounted to 214,350 out of 414,500.[13] Hamburg was hit by air raids another 69 times before the end of World War II.

Even with the losses of 1941-42 the production numbers of 1943-45 in this scenario would be so much higher, IIRC something like 200k more German trucks and 10,000 AFVs. Without the war against Britain there wouldn't be a need for the ~1200 Uboats built, which means a lot more men and materials for AFVs. The Soviets would run out of men and weapons well before getting anywhere near Berlin and certainly not be very far by 1945.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#5

Post by Politician01 » 24 Dec 2014, 21:58

I completely agree with you.

I had the idea for this "what if" scenario while scrolling through the Alternatehistoryforum - in on thread concerning a similar scenario the user Obsessedwith Nukes wrote:

The Soviets

(1) Do not suffer the Smolensk, Kiev, and Vyazma-Bryansk disasters (this alone leaves them up 3 million men!).
(2) Retains all access to the agricultural, mineral, industrial, and manpower centers east of the Denieper-Pskov line.
(3) Have much more experienced troops and officers, along with their equipment, to help overhaul the Red Army.
(4) The Soviets can devote a lot more of their attention fixing the Red Army's problems instead of throwing everything into ensuring it just survives.

In sum: the Germans are even more fucked IOTL. They may be able to mount a better defense against the inevitable winter offensive, but are likely still pushed back (if not as much) with large casualties (if not as much). They'll likely try and mount another offensive in '42, either against Leningrad, Moscow, or the Donbass but these likely do not make anything like the progress of IOTL '42. From late-42 on, the Soviets will steamroll the Germans. Berlin falls by mid/late-44.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/Discuss ... p?t=336299 - Post 8

I assumed that the people in the AH forum were somewhat objective - but with your resistance to this assertion - I assume they are a little biased

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#6

Post by stg 44 » 24 Dec 2014, 23:04

Full disclosure, I am Wiking over on that forum. I've had a lot of disagreements with 'Nuker on that subject; he seems to think too highly of the Soviet capabilities, just as I'm sure he would say the same about me with the Axis. He makes some good points and is well read, but does not credit the Western Allies enough for their contributions and of course the German mistakes that resulted from them penetrating so deeply into the USSR that enabled the Soviets to recover. Pretty much the only thing that he said I agree with is that the Vyazma-Bryansk pockets are not likely to occur, but the manpower saved would be wasted in horrible offensives with inexperienced troops against German lines further west, therefore better supplied and prepared for the winter and not off balance. Plus the Stalingrad disaster is not likely without the Caucasus thrust, which, if the Germans are stopped further west then they cannot get overextended enough to be pocketed and worn down like that.

Historically the Soviet recovery was only possible in the context of a major part of the German economy being stunted by the blockade, strategic bombing, diversion of manpower and resources into naval construction, having to keep an increasing share of manpower on other fronts, the diversion of the majority of the LW starting in late 1942 to fight the West, while also overextending themselves. Without that the Soviets are not going rally like they did. Soviet production being higher doesn't necessarily mean anything if German production is much higher and supplied via international purchasing, as the kill ratios in the east were badly skewed in Germany's favor even with major diversions of resources and the blockade. I just don't see how 'Nuker can say all of what he does without assuming that he has just read Soviet accounts of the war. Even if he is just reading Glantz, Glantz is not noted for being familiar with German sources and is a major Russo-phile; when someone spends their career only looking at one side of the equation they become biased, just as historians that only focused on the German side were for decades until the Soviet archives opened up. Glantz is an important corrective to the Teutono-philia that plagued histories of the war for so long, but is is also biased in the opposite direction, so one needs to read both sides and synthesize a new balanced understanding. The Soviets needed the West as much as the West needed the Soviets to beat the Axis in WW2, so taking one part of the Allied victory out of the equation is not going to result in the war ending sooner or better for the remainder.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#7

Post by Politician01 » 24 Dec 2014, 23:39

stg 44 wrote:Full disclosure, I am Wiking over on that forum.
Well that name rings a bell - I allways like to read your posts. :thumbsup:
Over on that forum im Realist01 - due to a kick which I attribute to the oversensitivity of Ian - I was unable to post this idea over there so I posted it here.
stg 44 wrote:
as the kill ratios in the east were badly skewed in Germany's favor even with major diversions of resources and the blockade.
What is your opinion on Soviet losses in 1941?

Accodring to Krivosheev - 800 000 soviet soldiers died in that year and "only" 2.4 million were captured - for a total of 3.2 Million Irrecoverable losses in 1941.

However in the Wehrmachtsberichte - the Germans claim to have taken 3 632 000 POW´s by November 10th 1941 - even if one assumes that their numbers are inflated by half a million - that still leaves some 3.2 million POWs - not even counted the dead Soviet soldiers

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#8

Post by stg 44 » 24 Dec 2014, 23:59

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... Krivosheev
Krivosheev bases too much on IMHO flawed WW2 documentation; his analysis isn't terrible all things considered given the constraints he put on himself, but I don't consider them definitive. There are other perspectives, but I don't read Russian, nor have I worked with the Soviet archives so anything I have to say is based on secondary literature that feels right given German reports (beware overclaiming!) and the brutal/chaotic situation in 1941-45. Its pretty telling that Krivosheev only claims ~1.2 million PoW deaths when there were over 3 million known, which would seriously impact his official 8.6 million dead total.

So IMHO the actual Soviet military dead (including partisans) is over 10 million, though I don't think the 14 million number quoted by some Russian historians is right. I'm basing that on work done by other historians, so I could well be wrong, but based on what I've read that's what I think happened. Even if the Soviets hadn't suffered the same level of dead or prisoners in 1941 they aren't going to turn them into a successful fighting force by 1942 and will probably end up using them up in their Winter Offensives, which will heavier with more men to use, but isn't going to get them much.

In the end its probably going to be a stalemate, as Germany cannot really win the way Hitler wanted, but it won't end up in Soviet victory either, more likely a moderate Axis victory that is really horrible for the people that end up in German hands.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Soviets reach Berlin - no Western Allies

#9

Post by maltesefalcon » 25 Dec 2014, 15:00

A number of points need to be clarified to answer the original question properly.

Under what terms and circumstances did the UK surrender? I see posts assuming the Battle of Britain and the Med campaign never took place. The OP simply says Britain surrenders in the summer of 1940. There is no reason to extrapolate that they did so by say, July 1940 rather than September 21. In fact, it's more likely the British would have to fight and suffer sufficient losses in both campaigns, to induce a capitulation. In that case, it is logical to assume the Axis would suffer losses as well.

That being said. If there is no B of Britain and no North Africa campaign, does Italy now occupy Egypt? What happens in Greece and Yugoslavia? If Hitler can avoid both those distractions, he could have more resources and get a month head start on Barbarossa.

The real campaign came within an ace of Moscow in 1941. In this situation, I would expect German troops on the verge of capturing Moscow by September. With no allies to turn to for at least hope and moral support, Stalin may be forced to the bargaining table before winter.

The Russians were somewhat self sufficient after 1943 and did huge damage to the Wehrmacht. But they needed to survive to the spring of 1943. Without the aid of the west, especially in trucks and foodstuffs, they would not have been able to do so.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”