The Soviets could have beaten the Germans without help

Just a couple of observations.....

First, Russia was too big to defeat. That's just a simple fact of geography and demographics. There is an idea that if Germany had driven all out for Moscow on a narrow front, seized and held it then that would have represented a political defeat for the USSR (which it probably would) and the end of Stalin (again, it probably would) but it would not have represented the defeat of the USSR, and no doubt they would have regarded any accommodation they might have reached as simply buying time to strike back.

To quote Quintus form 'Galdiator' "People should know when they are conquered" - and the occupation of Moscow would not have represented victory over the USSR - nor would it have meant the end of the war.

The country was simply unconquerable.

On the other hand, without the broad assistance of the Western Allies, the final and complete defeat of the Third Reich could not have been achieved by the USSR acting on its own for many reasons.

Yes, you can cite all the production figures you want and denigrate Lend Lease and the other programmes the USSR benefited from, but the fact remains that building or assembling equipment carries with it a huge opportunity cost - if you are using your steel for tanks, what are you having to sacrifice- locomotives, rail tracks, ships etc. Every decision is a trade off and the USSR (unlike for example the US) didn't have the luxury of being able to produce practically unlimited equipment, food, fuel and other materiel.

Without the Western Allies, the USSR would have to have built (and crewed) both a strategic air force and an ocean going navy OR accepted that German industry could concentrate instead of being compelled to disperse and that it could continue to obtain its fuel from its traditional pre-WW2 sources (Venezuela and the US), instead of Ploesti. It would also have to have accepted that there would be no dislocation between the German economy and the military effort.

Also just as the further the Germans moved East the more it played into the Soviets hands, so the opposite is true. A denser road-net consisting of paved roads, and a denser railway network benefits the Germans (as does better airfields) - especially as there was a difference in gauge between German and Soviet tracks. Meaning the Soviets would either need to move stuff from train to train at trans-shipping depots (which they would have to set up) or do as the Germans did and rip track up and re-lay it (something which severely disrupted their logistics effort during Barbarossa).

Moreover, the Germans had 7 or 8 major east-west rail lines which they would have been falling back on closer to their depots and factories while all the while the Red Army would be pulling away from them - it's over 3,000 km from Chelyabinsk to the Vistula - that's a long way to transport a tank. The alternative being to set-up factories further east, but again that uses materials that could otherwise be used for weapons or other types of production.

It's only 500km from Berlin to the Vistula and 1000km from Nuremberg. All of which would have left the Red Army / Air Force vulnerable to one of the most effective uses of air power - supply interdiction (although the Germans didn't really do that too well, it's possible they may have figured it out, much as the Allies did)

In short, in moving West the Soviets would have faced broadly the same disadvantages the Germans faced as they attacked East.

Finally, the terrain and weather all change the further West you move. West of the Carpathians the terrain and weather (lower cloud, more frequent rain etc) presents different challenges than that presented by the Steppe - and most of it favours the defenders. Soviet 'deep battle' concepts that served them so well on the Steppe are less effective in rolling or mountainous territory where topography dictates direction.

Which leads me back to my point from another post that the whole affair would likely have ended in a very bloody stalemate in poor old Poland - with that country no doubt occupied and with regular skirmishing and occasional hostilities erupting.

In short, no one of the Allies could have beaten Germany on their own - it needed the combined efforts of them all.

Wurzelbert wrote: »

barbarossa was a close-run thing for a while and could have gone both ways.
in a 1on1 engagement, had germany had no other military commitments of any kind, therefore no import restrictions on oil, rubber, nickel and other critical resources, had the reich been able to focus its full military might and human and economic resources on the ussr and to plan and time barbarossa better, had germany had no useless allies and had russia not received any us/uk aid, the ussr would likely have been overrun and smashed in 41/42.

the soviet military machine was numerically absolutely massive even early in the war, yet it was a shambles in the early phase, badly led and organised, many higher-ranking officers had been purged by stalin pre-war, equipment was (mostly) obsolete and often scarce, and morale was super low. whole soviet armies surrendered and went into captivity in 41 and even in 42.

and had russian and ukrainian civilians and pows been treated better by the german invaders, stalin would have had an even harder time getting his people to defend the ussr to the last bullet, and the whole soviet system might have collapsed like a house of cards...as it did just a few decades later...

From the frontier of the Reich to Moscow is about 1,700 km - so even if they made it that far and even if they secured their gains and went into a winter bivouac there, come the spring they would have emerged to find that despite having seized the capital (assuming they attacked on a narrow rather than a broad front) - they were still only just over half-way to the Urals - the Germans may have had the opportunity to contribute to the overthrow of Stalin, but even in that scenario they'd still be facing a country that, no doubt, would have seen what had happened as a defeat - but I doubt very much they would have regarded themselves as defeated.

Tony EH wrote: »

.........

Ah boo!!! You were doing so well.

In terms of win or loss, the lack of a total Russian defeat is still a "loss" for Germany. I still think that in a Germany and Russia only situation, Russia has the upper hand in a victory and the best Germany can hope for is a grinding halt to a stalemate. But the more likely event is slow errosion of Germany held territory either back to her original borders, or all the way to Berlin, but over a greater period of time.

Once Russia's edifice fails to crumble, the war is Russia's favour as it is largely a ground war.

In all probability, Russia still wins at Moscow, they still win at Stalingrad and they still win at Kursk. After that there is only one way for the Germans. All of these major battles are victories for Russia before the Allies get going in earnest. It is possible that the defeat of Army Group Centre isn't as devastating is it was historically, but it's still a defeat in my book and the inevitable long retreat is still on the cards.

The possibility that Germany halts Russian advances certainly exists. But not without massive losses in territory and personnel.

Either way, it's all purely academic. It's impossible to really know how things would have changed and how each nation would have adapted to the situations they faced. as it stands, both nations made incredible changes to their military bodies during the war and adapted to their needs. In the scenario under discussion, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't do so as well.

Ah in fairness now, that's what I said - the USSR could, in all probability, on their own have pushed the Germans out of their territory and back to a line on the Vistula, perhaps it would have taken as much as two years longer, and there's plenty of discussion to be had on where the front would have settled, but that doesn't change the fact that the USSR was simply unconquerable.

What I very much doubt the USSR could have done - on it's own with out the assistance of the Western Allies - is secured the unconditional surrender of Germany. Equally, for all the productive capacity of the Western Allies, without the Soviet Union there was no way they could have achieved the unconditional surrender of the Germans either. I very much doubt either the US or UK / Commonwealth could have politically (never mind militarily) sustained the casualties.

Hence my conclusion that "....no one of the Allies could have beaten Germany on their own - it needed the combined efforts of them all."

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, yeah I'm agreeing with that bit.



Not necessarily with this.

I think the issue may be around 'beat'

Yes, I think the USSR on their own could have forced the Germans back to a line on the Vistula and compelled them to come to terms - although perhaps that would not have been politically acceptable to the Germans, they'd probably agree a cessation of hostilities in order to re-equip etc for a renewal of the conflict. Given they'd have pushed the Germans back practically to their start lines, denied them their objectives and still retained their political identity that would be a strategic victory for the USSR.

What I don't think they could have done was smashed their way through to Berlin and forced the unconditional surrender of the country the way the all Allies actually did.

realweirdo wrote: »

Tony, you are missing a few things, particularly related to lend lease. Much of the sheet metal which was used in the manufacture of the famous T-34, arguably the most influential tank of the war, came from America as part of US assistance. Take away that sheet metal and what are the Soviets left with? Certainly nowhere near the number of tanks. I believe the T-34 was also designed by a westerner but I'm not 100% sure on that one. As others have stated, the Soviets didn't bother to produce one heavy bomber during the war and it was left to the Brits and Americans to undermine German war production. They didn't stop it, but they certainly made things difficult for the Germans. Also, had the full Luftwaffe, V1s and V2s being used on Russia, it could have played a role.

The scary thing is the Germans weren't even involved in total war in the early years of the Soviet invasion. Imagine if they had been.

The Germans were fighting two different types of wars in 1944 and 45 on the eastern and western front.

On the western front it was a modern conflict and their enemy was the bombers, figher aircraft, and generally modern mechanised warfare of the allies. On the eastern front it was simply sheer weight of numbers. When you face as the Germans did 5-1, 10-1 or even 20-1 odds from their enemy, its impossible to hold out or kill more of them than you. It was possibly weight of numbers more than skill that helped the soviets. That said the Soviets took one hell of a beating from the Germans. 20 million soldiers dead or something like that. There is no doubt the Germans had the better army but were overwhelmed by the numbers.

I dont think the soviets could have done it without lend lease, boots, radios, tinned food, trucks which are as important as other more obvious things.
The T-34 evolved from previous designs fast tanks (T-26BT I think and possibly others) which were influenced by the Christie tank design which Im sure the inventor sold to the USSR. So it wasn't designed by an American, but influenced by a US design, which I believe the USSR bought with the intent of buying more, I think they bought a few examples and promptly copied it, Either the US govt or maybe more likely the Army wasn't interested in Christie's tank design at the time anyway.

I think the Soviets did have at least one heavy bomber (cant name it off the top of my head, just checked, Il-4) but they did have plenty of attack aircraft Pe-2 and Il-2?.

I dont really think the V weapons were effective uses of resources, it'd have been better spent elsewhere or differently.