Germany vs Soviet Union - One on one

[Yodasgrandad]

Would Germany (plus her vassals and Italy) have a better chance at defeating Russia militarily if it was purely a one on one fight?

Lets say for whatever reason Britain doesn't get involved in anyway so no strategic bombing and blockades and of course no Battle Of Britain so how different would it play out? France etc are occupied in this timeline still.

I assume the Germans more fuel and planes that were not lost in the Battle Of Britain so I guess that could be advantage, maybe use these resources into producing trucks, snow ploughs etc instead to help the logistic side of it?

Now I know this would never play out in history but I am purely wondering from a military point of view on how it would look.

Personally I still think Russia will win due to more manpower, industrial etc but perhaps war drags into 1946 at the latest?

[pintere]

As always, there are many variables to consider.

First off, what year would this hypothetical war begin? 1940? 41? Later?? Makes a difference.

Second, what are the political circumstances in this hypothetical scenario? Is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed and Poland carved up?

Third, who is attacking? Germans or Russians?

If there is a bit more background information like this then it would be possible to provide a more comprehensive response. But a few things can be said. The first is that the stunning German successes of '41 were in large part thanks to the element of surprise. Stalin was certain Hitler wouldn't attack while he was still at war with Britain, and if Britain and France are out of the picture then it is unlikely the German successes in the opening phases would be repeated.

The second is that even if Germany is not at war with Britain and France at the beginning of this hypothetical engagement, it is unlikely the two powers would stand idly by and let Germany become the dominant land power in Europe. And even if they didn't actually declare war, impose embargos, or supply aid to Russia Germany would still need to keep soldiers in Western Germany just in case.

As for the actual military question... If Hitler left the war to the experts from the start then long-term success might be obtainable. But of course if Stalin did the same thing then the Russian military machine, too, would be a much more difficult adversary to defeat. Both dictator's personal whims and refusal to withhold territory cost both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army some crushing defeats at different stages of the war. But let's assume both of them interfere at more or less similar amounts to get to the actual question.

If Germany's armies were the attackers, had competent leadership, and had the motivation to fight a long war in Russia, I think they could have fought a war in which they could initially inflict some great victories in Russia, but I think that achieving the envisaged AA line would be unlikely. To achieve that they would need to mobilize their country completely for war from the start, be willing to accept the sacrifices, be prepared to fight a war of at least two years, and inflict defeats on Russia on such a scale that the casualty exchange rate is at least 4-1 in their favour. A larger army does not necessarily guarantee victory, and perhaps the Germans could've trumped ( ) the Russians with consistent tactical victories directed towards actual strategic gains. If not I would predict an eventual stalemate, followed by an armistice once both sides have had enough of attacking.

If Russia is the attacker, then Germany faces a problem. In order to effectively defend their territories the Germans really need a buffer zone in which to wear down the Russian armies through a combination of attrition and maneuver warfare. Germany's only real hope in this situation would be to inflict such catastrophic casualties on the Russians that not even a totalitarian Russia would consider acceptable. They would be helped by the fact that they'd have an excuse to completely mobilize the nation, and the soldiers would have no qualms about fighting the Russians if they attacked first. Whether the Germans win or lose depends on their ability to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible before they run out of space in which to maneuver. They would be helped as well by the fact that Britain and France may come to their aid against what would be seen as a dangerous threat to democracy, but this time from Communism. Since Britain sided with Russia almost right away after Hitler attacked them I think they would also be willing to overlook some of the less attractive features of the Third Reich in order to ensure Europe is not dominated by a single land power. But since the OP was for a one on one fight perhaps this question may be beyond the bounds of this thread.

[Yodasgrandad]

Hi! Thank you for the reply

Sorry but I don't know how to start it really, WW2 still happens the way it did upto 1941but how could you force Britain out the war before then? Mainly I was just wondering what it would look like if it were a one on one fight.

Would Stalins purges affect the Red Army still in this timeline or not?

[maltesefalcon]

Would Germany (plus her vassals and Italy) have a better chance at defeating Russia militarily if it was purely a one on one fight?

So that means Germany, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Italy vs Russia? Although you have conveniently eliminated the rest of the member nations of the USSR, how does this Axis collection still qualify as a one on one fight?

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Yodasgrandad :

Actually, it has been gamed a number of times, once by the U.S. Army in the 1950s. ( A War College Study, if memory serves ). In this case, Germany got to the outskirts of Moscow in late 1941, and then, in early summer of 1942, took Moscow and Leningrad, and the Soviet Union effectively could no longer make war, and the game was ended. ( With no Britain in the war, the U.S. could not interfere after the Japanese attack in the Pacific, thus giving you two seperate wars, a Germany vs. USSR and a United States vs. Japan.)

Could it have happened ? Well, let us recall that, along with the fall of France came the Fall of Chamberlain. Despite Chamberlain's stated desire to go on fighting, it is quite possible that, had he managed to cling to power, preventing Churchill from assuming the Prime Ministership, Chamberlain might have been pursuaded by German diplomatic overtures following the fall of France to agree to an Armistice and a negotiated settlement of the war, with Germany keeping Poland, Norway, the Alsace and Lorraine, and perhaps the Low Countries, and France being allowed to resume her government, with no German occupation, but in a disarmed state. With the French Army disarmed, and perhaps a Rightist government taking over in Paris, along with the devastated condition of Britain's Army, neither would be in a position to threaten Germany for at least two years, if not more.....

This would leave Germany free to attack Russia in 1941. And, we must remember, after the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, the USSR was effectively a part of the Axis, and was, in effect, at war with Britain, especially considering that the Soviets had invaded Poland, Bessarabia, the Baltics, and Finland. The response by the average Englisman in the street might well have been, " We got involved, and look what happened to us ! Best leave well enough alone.... "

The reaction by the United States to an invasion of Russia by the Germans might have been one of silent acquiescence. As one well known writer said in 1941, after Barbarossa began, " Well, the Nazis are killing the Commies. What, Me Worry ? "


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward


As for Stalin's Purges, they came close to leaving the USSR unable to fight back in 1941. With no help from Britain or the U.S. in 1941-1942, they might very well have been the straw that broke the Bear's back...

[BDV]

Without the vassals/auxiliaries ain't going to be pretty. Germans get bogged in the North and Center in the marshes around Novgorod and in the South without the Romanian Bridgehead and Romanian and Hungarian cannon fodder they won't make it to Odessa from Lublin, much less across Dniepr. Without Finland they have to get all the way to Petrozavodsk to cut off Leningrad, so that's out of question, too.

Looks nasty for the hitlerites.

[Michael Kenny]

. Despite Chamberlain's stated desire to go on fighting, it is quite possible that, had he managed to cling to power, preventing Churchill from assuming the Prime Ministership, Chamberlain might have been pursuaded by German diplomatic overtures following the fall of France to agree to an Armistice and a negotiated settlement of the war, with Germany keeping Poland, Norway, the Alsace and Lorraine, and perhaps the Low Countries, and France being allowed to resume her government, with no German occupation, but in a disarmed state. With the French Army disarmed, and perhaps a Rightist government taking over in Paris, along with the devastated condition of Britain's Army, neither would be in a position to threaten Germany for at least two years, if not more.....

This would leave Germany free to attack Russia in 1941. ..

Chamberlains 'reputation' for weakness is based on events at Munich. It might be better to view Munich as Chamberlains last ever negotiation with Hitler and the confirmation that any politician believing Hitler would adhere to any treaty was an idiot. Chamberlain was the one who gave Poland its guarantee after Munich and thus he proved he had no intention of being tricked again. The Soviets were the natural partner for the British as a bulwark against Hitler in 1940 as well so it is very unlikely that he would ever make a pact with Hitler. Besides which he was ill with terminal cancer in May 1940 and died in Nov 1940.

[BDV]

Chamberlains 'reputation' for weakness is based on events at Munich. It might be better to view Munich as Chamberlains last ever negotiation with Hitler and the confirmation that any politician believing Hitler would adhere to any treaty was an idiot. Chamberlain was the one who gave Poland its guarantee after Munich and thus he proved he had no intention of being tricked again. The Soviets were the natural partner for the British as a bulwark against Hitler in 1940 as well so it is very unlikely that he would ever make a pact with Hitler. Besides which he was ill with terminal cancer in May 1940 and died in Nov 1940.

Even after his departure from the government, Chamberlain remained active in the highest circles of the government (as Lord President of the Council) preparing Great Britain for total war with Germany. The "appeasing", or "spineless", or "weak" Chamberlain is a creation of Laborite libel and post-war fairytale making.

[Michael Kenny]

Even after his departure from the government, Chamberlain remained active in the highest circles of the government (as Lord President of the Council) preparing Great Britain for total war with Germany. The "appeasing", or "spineless", or "weak" Chamberlain is a creation of Laborite libel and post-war fairytale making.

The 'right-v left' name-calling does not have much traction in the UK. Besides which we have a Liberal Party which makes blanket-use of the epiteth 'liberal' inappropriate.
It was the Tories (our 'right') who were the most rabid denouncers of Chamberlain.

[BDV]

"BDV"The "appeasing", or "spineless", or "weak" Chamberlain is a creation of Laborite libel and post-war fairytale making.

The 'right-v left' name-calling does not have much traction in the UK. Besides which we have a Liberal Party which makes blanket-use of the epiteth 'liberal' inappropriate.

I was thinking of "Guilty Men". Did not use the word/epithet "liberal"; and the left vs. right is also non-contributory to this POV

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Michael Kenney :

Chamberlains 'reputation' for weakness is based on events at Munich. It might be better to view Munich as Chamberlains last ever negotiation with Hitler and the confirmation that any politician believing Hitler would adhere to any treaty was an idiot. Chamberlain was the one who gave Poland its guarantee after Munich and thus he proved he had no intention of being tricked again. The Soviets were the natural partner for the British as a bulwark against Hitler in 1940 as well so it is very unlikely that he would ever make a pact with Hitler. Besides which he was ill with terminal cancer in May 1940 and died in Nov 1940.

You state that, after Munich, any politician who believed Hitler would adhere to any treaty was an idiot. I agree, with the caveat, that, based on his prior behavior, any politician who negotiated with Hitler AT Munich was equally idiotic.

The Soviets may have been a natural partner for Britain in 1940, but, unfortunately, in 1940, Britain was effectively AT WAR with the Soviet Union, over Poland and Finland. Thus, in a very real sense, once France was knocked out of the war in June, 1940, the British stood alone. Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland were quietly collaborating with Germany, and everyone else was either occupied or, like Finland, had been neutralized by the Germans.

Next, there is Chamberlain's performance as a wartime leader prior to May, 1940. He vetoed the bombing of German cities because it would destroy private property, and kill innocent civilians! He only agreed to an occupation of Norway after it became obvious that the Germans were already on their way to Oslo themselves. And his performance in the Phony War shows that he was intellectually and emotionally incapable of the ruthless bloodthirstiness that is required of a wartime leader.

I stick to the view I have always held that Hitler missed the bus in September 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible, perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur.

In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.

Finally, Chamberlain was dying of cancer. Imagine, if you will, the effect on the Battle of Britain if the Prime Minister is a dying man, and he only wishes to die in peace. He might accept an accomodation with Germany, in return for a quiet ending to his life.

A long, agonizing illness changes your outlook on life. Take my word for it.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.

Adolf Hitler

[Michael Kenny]

Hello All ;


The Soviets may have been a natural partner for Britain in 1940, but, unfortunately, in 1940, Britain was effectively AT WAR with the Soviet Union, over Poland and Finland. Thus, in a very real sense, once France was knocked out of the war in June, 1940, the British stood alone. Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland were quietly collaborating with Germany, and everyone else was either occupied or, like Finland, had been neutralized by the Germans.

But the UK never declared war or said she was at war with the Soviets. Its agreement with Poland was specific to a German invasion. The German-Soviet pact over Poland should be seen (as it was in the UK) as a temporary halt on the road that was leading to a German attack. The UK had a long history of denying European dominance to any one power and Churchill knew he just had to wait. Chamberlain was no fool and his only fault was his willingness to compromise in the hope of avoiding another catastrophic war that would bankrupt the UK. It is not his fault the madman who had him over believed he could keep doing it without meeting any resistance. September 3 1939 showed him the error of his ways and though for a short time it looked like his gamble could succeed by 1942 the inevitable German defeat was in sight. In short it worked out the way Chamberlain expected-bankruptcy included!

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Kenney said:

....Chamberlain was no fool....

Evidence, please ?

......Chamberlain views everything through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe....
David Lloyd George

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[ljadw]

Would Germany (plus her vassals and Italy) have a better chance at defeating Russia militarily if it was purely a one on one fight?

Lets say for whatever reason Britain doesn't get involved in anyway so no strategic bombing and blockades and of course no Battle Of Britain so how different would it play out? France etc are occupied in this timeline still.

I assume the Germans more fuel and planes that were not lost in the Battle Of Britain so I guess that could be advantage, maybe use these resources into producing trucks, snow ploughs etc instead to help the logistic side of it?

Now I know this would never play out in history but I am purely wondering from a military point of view on how it would look.

Personally I still think Russia will win due to more manpower, industrial etc but perhaps war drags into 1946 at the latest?

Paradoxical, no war with Britain and France would result in a weaker Ostheer :no German fuel and planes lost in the BoB would mean :no British fuel and planes lost in the Bob and no 100 French divisions lost in the Battle of France .

In the HTL (France out and Britain no danger) Germany used 150 divisions for Barbarossa and 50 divisions for the occupation and protection of its conquest .

In the ATL (France and Britain a potentially danger ) Germany would need more divisions to occupy and protect its conquest and would have available less divisions for Barbarossa .

[ljadw]

Hello All :

Mr. Kenney said:

....Chamberlain was no fool....

Evidence, please ?

......Chamberlain views everything through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe....
David Lloyd George

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

A fool would not remain chancellor of the exchequer for 6 years and PM for almost 3 years .