Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
19-09-2003, 12:04   #1
magick
Registered User
 
magick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,368
Could the Allies have taken on the Axis,without Russia

Lets say Germany, not wanting to fight off a 2 front war, decides to hold off the invasion of the USSR,until its finished off with fight with Britian and the USA, do you think without Russias help they could pull it off ? If so what strategy do you think they would employ?
magick is offline  
Advertisement
19-09-2003, 22:16   #2
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
Hitler wanted Russia- full stop.

He hated Communism with a passion and hated Stalin even more so. He hated the Russian people- he wanted to exterminate them. He saw Russia as good land to settle with his Arayan stock-hence he preferred to just roll on through there torching every single piece of biomass in his armies' path.
Hitler had no beef with with America, and was a firm admirer of Britain. He admired the meme of the "English Gentleman", the urbane city-dwellers and the sophisticated sporting hunters. He admired their Colonial achievements, which he saw as a triumph of Arayan supremacy over lesser peoples.
He wished to share the spoils of his military conquests with those of Anglo-Saxon descent. Certainly he had admirers in both Britain and the United States. Indeed Nevil Chamberlain gave him free reign- being that he was such a good sport Until it dawned on everyone that he really wasn't.

It came as quite a shock to Hitler to find himself at war with Britain. Moreover the signing of the Anti-Commonterm pact meant that now the US were at war with him too. It was all going wrong.

Barbarossa failed due to Hitler's pig-headedness. He refused to listen to his advisors and decided to press forward.
I think Russia, regardless of the allies would have triumphed none the less. There were just waaaay too many Russians. And their last minute attack against the Japaneese showed they were far from exhasusted, at least from a military standpoint.

Certainly in the final days Germany seemed to be fighting a war on all fronts and loosing ground at each stage. Russian retalliation was fierce. Stalin's resolve was stronger than Hitlers. Indeed it took a monster to fight a monster. It was America, and let's not forget Australia who helped defeat the Japaneese- were it not for Japan, the US may well have trampled Germany. And then there's the Italian dimension- bailing Mussolini out of North Africa- another drain on German resources.

As for Russia and the other Allies, they were only Allies by default, Russia was left to fight its war, Britain and the US theirs.
Indeed the way I see it USSR/West relations were no healthier during WWII as they were after it. Churchill was delighted at the prospect of Barbarossa, as it was a nice way for Nazi soldiers and Soviet soldiers to kill each other off. Arguably, had history one a different way- Hitler would have done the Allies a favour. But as it stands, cooperation between US and UK was comparitivly supurb. Whereas Stalin was never fully trusted- hell look at the pictures of the Yalta Conference - read the body language...

In all fairness Hitler would have been a more appropriate ally.
And one, it must be said, with a far-lower deathcount to his credit.

Anyways I think the US has more to do with the Allied victory than the Soviets. Without them we would now be making fun of Kaiser Charles' ears. The US certainly had the numbers and the industrial capacity to defeat the Axis in Europe. And bomb Berlin back into the stone age- to use the parlance of our times.

Without the failure of Barbarossa, however, Hitler may well have taken Britain, and the USAF wouldn't have had any foothold. I think it would have been a stalemate- Hitler would have taken a large chunk of Europe but it would be difficult for him to consolidate it- he tended to push too hard and spread his ranks too thin. Had he not invaded Russia- or held out, he would have invaded someplace else. That was his way, he thought himself invincible.

Although- another thought springs to mind, were it not for the Russian front Germany may well have completed the bomb 1st. Adding that with their advancements in rocketry and jet fighter technology. (Much of which falling into the hands of the Soviets) Who knows...

My thoughts- or did I actually answer the question?

Last edited by The Beer Baron; 19-09-2003 at 22:23.
The Beer Baron is offline  
20-09-2003, 14:02   #3
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 468
yeah im with you on that. i doubt that the allies could have taken on hitler alone.
look at who the allies were in europe: britain, no one else.
hitler could have put all resources into destroying britain and the americans could not have done much to prevent it.

think about it, if germany could hold off all the allies for about five years, britain would have been no challenge . the only reason hitler didnt take britain was cos he wanted russia.
he postponed the battle of britain cos he hated the russians more, that was it.
spooiirt!! is offline  
20-09-2003, 14:26   #4
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,228
I kinda think the same

USA really helped Russia throughout the war. They supplied them food and material and lots of military equipment. Personally I reckon without Russia the Allies would still have won simply because of the USA resources. In fact Russia probably wouldn't have survived only for the USA. But yeah it would have taken a lot longer without Russia. The war in the east basically wore down the German military strength and sucked it dry of most of its resources equipment and men.

The other point to consider is that if the war had dragged on German could have had atomic weapons and they had a lot of better technology that could have been brought to bear.

Then theres the fact that Allies were also fighting a 2nd front in the Pacfic and across asia. So if they weren't doing that and those resources were poured into europe germany wouldn't have stood a chance. Imagine raids of B29's using Naplam over Germany.

Hitler was a one track record. He only had one battle plan which was to attack all out. When that failed he didn't have a clue what to do. He actually was a very poor leader from a miltary point of view. He was directly responsible for a lot of the major defeats of the war.

So in summary I reckon yeah the allies could have done it witout Russia.
RicardoSmith is offline  
20-09-2003, 15:25   #5
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
Russia would have defeated the Axis without US aid. And that despite the fact that 3/4 of the resources went to the Eastern Front
Just to recap:
The best German equipment was better than the best of the Russian stuff, but the best Russian gear wasn't that far behind and there was lots of it, many Germans used captured Russian material.

You can argue if the Tiger was the best tank - but the T34 was better than anything before 1942 and even after then it was bettered by larger and much more expensive ones. The YAK 3 was one of the fighters best in the war, and like the ground attack aircraft it was available in realistic numbers - unlike most of the high tech German weapons.

So the Germans were a tough nut to break even if you had the world biggest and comparitvely well equiped army..
===========================================

Had Germany maintained trading realtions with Russia and not gone into the Balkans, they would have had oil, food and raw materials especially those needed for high temperature alloys and others necessary for the war effort..
Unlikely due to the relationship with Stalin - but if Britan had been defeated (remember they helped Finland in the war with Russia) Hitler would have been too busy in the UK to launch against Russia. Then when Japan entered against the US , Joe could have looked at Persia or India. A war with the Japanese would have been avoided.

If russia was not on the side of the allies then she'd be at best a distraction or more likely oppertunistic
So not only would the Allies have to face a much larger, better equiped german army, they would have less troups to do it with.

Note: German Jet engines had a life of 10 hours because of lack of raw materials for high temperature alloys, hence the deployment was left late - the same sort of thing was true of other weapons..

And of course the USA would be involved in Japan first..

No the Germans would not have developed the bomb, they just did not have the economy to do it ..
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
Advertisement
20-09-2003, 16:00   #6
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
think Britain didn't so much underestimate him so much as put their energies into the wrong areas (as a naval power they had never put much stock in aerial warfare). Had Britain made more thought into their air and naval strategies instead of sticking to the modes of warfare more suited to the First World War they may have been able to bring the fight to Nazi Germany a lot more effectivly.

For example- in the air they wasted more aircraft trying to bomb high-risk areas with minimal if any degree of accuracy- they may as well be pouring their pilots out the trenches and into the waiting arms of German machine gunners.

Two things I think had more an impact on the German military machine than anything else.

1. The work in Bletchley Park (as portrayed brilliantly in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon) and the subsequent cracking of the Enigma codes gave the Allies the edge on land, in the air, and most importantly for Britain- in the sea.

2. The reknewed allied bombing strategy tag-teaming night and day raids between the USAF and the RAF. Although in retrospect many of these raids were conducted more for the sake of weakening the enemies resolve than for any strategic reason.
(And when we think of the atrocities of the Axis and Japan lets also not forget those of people like Bomber Harris) I mean, had the German cities (and towns and villages for that matter) not been pummeled into rubble by allied raids think both the Russian advance from the east, and the post-D-Day advance into the German heartland would have gone on for a lot, lot longer.

Russia was a distraction, a long and painful one for those who fought in it- none the less- Hitler took Poland and other countries which he saw as a buffer between himself and Russia. He might well have been able to hold off a Russian advance were it not for the damage inflicted on his doorstep by allied bombing.

I'm trying to figure out myself if these are opinions of my own or not- I'm not trolling- just thrashing out scenarios left right and centre to see what people say.

My net opinion is that if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia (highly unlikely) or at the very least held out, he would have invaded someplace else- possibly Britain- but even then I think the allies would have prevailed over Hitler's ever-audacious empire-building. This, however, at the expense of a lot more lives, many more years due to America's commitment to the war in the Pacific.
The Beer Baron is offline  
20-09-2003, 16:22   #7
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,228
The russian had vast numbers of stuff for sure, but they were in the main very poorly trained. That counts for an awful lot. I'm not convinced that the supplies from USA didn't stop it from crumbling. Even the mighty T-34 was destroyed in huge numbers by much fewer german tanks. The mark IV was quite a good tank in and in fact was the most common german tank. It wasn't best suited for Russia though. The T-34 was made very crudely. When shells bounced off it often the interior of the armour was so brittle it showered the crew with shrapnel. Even though the armour wasn't actually pierced. The US and German tanks didn't suffer from this.
RicardoSmith is offline  
20-09-2003, 16:40   #8
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
Quote:
The YAK 3 was one of the fighters best in the war, and like the ground attack aircraft it was available in realistic numbers - unlike most of the high tech German weapons.
The YAK 3 was quite a nasty piece of work. But don't forget the Il-4 or, of course, the Tu-2.
The Russians really got their act together. They coordinated their attacks to hault supplies from reaching the German troops. Unfortunatly for them it took them a long time, and the loss of half the Eurasian continent, for them to do so.

Quote:
The T-34 was made very crudely. When shells bounced off it often the interior of the armour was so brittle it showered the crew with shrapnel. Even though the armour wasn't actually pierced. The US and German tanks didn't suffer from this
Then again I doubt Stalin cared.
Being "The Man of Steel" he would no doubt have seen it as somehow symbolic.

The Allied strategy (the British more so), the only option they had basically, was to throw a group of tanks at one Tiger and hope that just one might make it out alive. Stalin's was to throw a hundred. They certainly didn't have the range, or the armour, but it was numbers, sheer numbers, that prevailed.

In all fairness it's gonna be impossible to fight a war of attrition against Russia. Yes, you can argue that German tanks were superior. But given the sheer number of Russians, and the sheer number of Russian tanks, compared with weary, starving Germans with little fuel for their tanks, or frozen fuel tanks, or jamming mechanics, or having to be mechanically adapted to the muddy and/or snowy terrain - then along come an armada of T-34's well...

Schieze!
The Beer Baron is offline  
23-09-2003, 16:39   #9
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 468
what excactly does " SCHIEZE!" mean?
spooiirt!! is offline  
Advertisement
23-09-2003, 17:28   #10
klaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,994
In answer to the original question, if Germany hadn't attacked Russia i think the allies would have been beaten.

Remember the US didn't enter the European war until Hitler first declared war. If he hadn't have done so, the US would have been forced to vote to enter the war, and that could have taken a few years to achieve.

France was occupied. Only Britain was left. AS an island nation, they had problems receiving the resources of their empire. They were bankrupting themselves with lend lease and the fast changeover of the British industry to a war footing. Had Germany concentrated on Britain, theres no doubt in my mind, that Germany would have won. British troops were either green or veterns from WW1, lacking any real knowledge of modern warfare. Only the forces that excaped Dunkirk had seen, a modern army in action, and they knew they were outclassed. The majority of British military equipment was outdated. The only aspect of the British military that was modern, was their navy, most of which was serving far from Britain.

Once Germany had air superiority, they could have acted the same way as the allies did after normandy. Any troop concentrations in the south coast could be bombed, and strafed at leisure. The German military were the only nation at that period, that was capable of using combined air and ground forces to achieve an objective. Stuka's provided extra firepower to the Panzer divisions at the front. This would have happened in outhern England, once the actual invasion has begun. The South of England had a fair number of private airfields that the Germans could have expanded for military use, once a firm beachhead was achieved.

I seriously doubt the British would have the ability to resist an invasion once a beachhead was formed.

Once Britain was conquered, Hitler could have sued for peaace with the world, and then consolidated his Nazi Empire for a decade or so. I doubt any nation would have the power to oppose Germany once Britain had fallen, and Hitler had the chance to charm the occupied nations to his cause.

Russia would in all likelyhood have moved against Asia & the middle east, in any case, if Hitler hadn't invaded. Thats where Russian eyes have historically wished to expand, especially with their eyes on obtaining a mediterranian Naval Base. The conflict between Russia and Germany would probably have occured, in the late 1940's, when both nations have had a chance to expand, and consolidate their empires.
klaz is offline  
23-09-2003, 20:04   #11
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
Quote:
what excactly does " SCHIEZE!" mean?
It's the German expletive for fecal matter spelt incorrectly.


Quote:
Remember the US didn't enter the European war until Hitler first declared war. If he hadn't have done so, the US would have been forced to vote to enter the war, and that could have taken a few years to achieve.
It did take a few years to achieve.
Since the outbreak of WWII the US were, themselves, on a war footing. They were, theoretically at war. They just hadn't declared it. They sent supplies to Britain, they even engaged U-boats.
There was no official declaration, but make no bones about it Germany and the US were very much @ war.

Rather prudently they decided to stay out of it as much as possible. Had they not THEN the allies would have surely lost.
The US rapidly set their industrial resources into armament overdrive; automobile companies made jeeps, aerospace made bombers, textile companies made uniforms and tents and such, etc, etc. They knew war was coming, but they weren't quite ready for it yet. Granted Barbarossa offered them a welcome respite, and up until Pearl Harbor the US could militarise without attack or intervention- but I think if there ever was a D-Day-esque landing on Britain itself, the US would be quick to counterattack.
The Beer Baron is offline  
23-09-2003, 20:05   #12
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,228
I took "allies" to include the US. I don't think britain had a chance on their own.
RicardoSmith is offline  
23-09-2003, 20:32   #13
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
yeah it's doubtful
The Beer Baron is offline  
24-09-2003, 09:06   #14
klaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,994
Quote:
Since the outbreak of WWII the US were, themselves, on a war footing. They were, theoretically at war. They just hadn't declared it. They sent supplies to Britain, they even engaged U-boats.
Yes, they hadn't declared it. Basically there was too much opposition by the people & politicians to joining the war fully. Hitlers delaration gave them the easy way out. In all likelyhood, if Hitler hadn't declared war, the US would have ignored the european war, and concentrated on the Pacific War.

As for the supplies, it was business. Britain paid alot for any supplies they received from the US government. It wasn't done out of the goodness of their heart.

In regards to the firing on U-Boats, they defended their shipping lines. They didn't however actively hunt U-Boats till the war came to the US.

Quote:
There was no official declaration, but make no bones about it Germany and the US were very much @ war
i disagree. The US & Japan were at war. Germany and the US weren't. The US might have had alot of sympathies for Europe, but until there was a formal declaration, no US government would have commited troops to Europe.

Quote:
I think if there ever was a D-Day-esque landing on Britain itself, the US would be quick to counterattack.
I doubt that very much. Considering the time it would have taken the US to mobilise, and ship a force to help Britain, the Island would have fallen. I think the US wouldn't have bothered helping Britain. Why spend troops on a lost cause, when you have better objectives...?


Something you might find amusing... i certainly did, when i found it after posting here...
http://images.somethingawful.com/ins...bin_hitler.jpg

Last edited by klaz; 24-09-2003 at 14:22.
klaz is offline  
24-09-2003, 14:33   #15
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
Quote:
Yes, they hadn't declared it. Basically there was too much opposition by the people & politicians to joining the war fully.
Of course not everyone in the US thought facism was particularly bad.

Quote:
Hitlers delaration gave them the easy way out. In all likelyhood, if Hitler hadn't declared war, the US would have ignored the european war, and concentrated on the Pacific War.
Did they though? Once in the war the US were equally committed to both Germany AND Japan.
The Beer Baron is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search