Do you feel the Soviet Union could have prevailed against Nazi Germany WITHOUT any help from UK/USA? (Hitler, USSR)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a pure USSR vs Germany war it becomes a race to the atomic bomb for Germany. Jan 1 1944 the front was still in the USSR and the west front while fairly inactive, held down a lot of troops.
In a pure USSR vs Germany war it becomes a race to the atomic bomb for Germany. Jan 1 1944 the front was still in the USSR and the west front while fairly inactive, held down a lot of troops.
The Germans weren’t even remotely close to developing a bomb. The Manhattan project devoted absolutely massive amounts of resources…resources Germany didn’t have…or if they did devote to it, they would have crumbled in other areas.
Upon hearing about the bombs in Hiroshima, Werner heizenburg had said “I don’t believe a word of the whole thing”, which should tell you how far away they actually were.
In a pure USSR vs Germany war it becomes a race to the atomic bomb for Germany. Jan 1 1944 the front was still in the USSR and the west front while fairly inactive, held down a lot of troops.
I would predict a very different outcome to the war. That would have been a stalemate where Germany continued to occupy some of the western regions of the USSR, but did not succeed in beating the Soviet Union.
American aid to the Soviet Union was quite substantial and was acknowledged as such by Nikita Khruschev in his memoirs, Khruschev Remembers. Khruschev questioned American motivation for aiding the Soviet Union and felt some of the aid came later than it should have, but than went on to discuss its importance. Many people in the war made fun of an American canned meat which was frequently given as part of the aid package. This meat is known as "spam". In one of the most complimentary portions of the book, Khruschev said there were plenty of days during the war when he would and thousands of Soviet soldiers would have gone hungry if it were not for all the spam that they had been given by the USA.
America supplied the Soviet Union with huge quantities of trucks and motorized transport. What that motorized transport allowed the Soviet Union to do was fight a highly mechanized war against Germany. It allowed the Red Army to throw the Germans out of Russia.
America would go on to have a long and difficult relationship with the Soviet Union after the war ended. However, I think that despite these tensions that Khruschev always had a sort of warm spot in his heart for America simply based on the help we gave them during World War II. The good deed we did for the Soviet people during World War II was perhaps repaid in a sense in that despite tensions during the Cold War, we never ended up in a shooting war with the Soviet Union.
Yes. The Soviet red army had the upper hand, especially where logistics is concerned. The battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point, as the invading German forces were pushed back.
Yes. The Soviet red army had the upper hand, especially where logistics is concerned. The battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point, as the invading German forces were pushed back.
How much of that logistic advantage was built on American and British bombing weakening Germany’s industrial base and tying resources down in northern Africa and the Battle of Britain? Was the invasion of Italy effecting German forces? In other words, Italy withdrew the 8th army forces from Russia to Rome in 1943. Not to mention German forces committed to northern Italy.
And I already mentioned the forces received from
The East from Siberia and tying down Japan.
You still think the Germans lose Stalingrad if they’re freed up in Italy and Western Europe, have access to Northern Africa, no longer have 1000 bomber runs leveling their cities, AND the Japanese are tying up Russian forces in a potential second front or just the threat of a potential front?
Last edited by Thatsright19; 07-15-2021 at 10:05 AM..
The Russians were beaten pretty badly in the first 9 months after the initial invasion.
The thing about Hitler's plans is that he wanted a repeat of Poland 1939 or France 1940. All of his plans were for quick knockouts. If that didn't happen, things started to unravel, and his back up plans were all about how to deal a short term blow severe enough to force a negotiated peace.
Basically I don't see any scenario where Germany wins after the 2nd offensive failed in 1942.
The Germans weren’t even remotely close to developing a bomb. The Manhattan project devoted absolutely massive amounts of resources…resources Germany didn’t have…or if they did devote to it, they would have crumbled in other areas.
Upon hearing about the bombs in Hiroshima, Werner heizenburg had said “I don’t believe a word of the whole thing”, which should tell you how far away they actually were.
That's all true, but, at the beginning of 1944, the belief among the US leaders was the Germany was closer to developing a bomb than they actually were.
That's all true, but, at the beginning of 1944, the belief among the US leaders was the Germany was closer to developing a bomb than they actually were.
But the point the person was making was if America wasn’t involved, it would be a race between Germany and Russia to create a bomb. Who cares what American leadership thinks then?
Last edited by Thatsright19; 07-15-2021 at 10:04 AM..
The Russians were beaten pretty badly in the first 9 months after the initial invasion.
The thing about Hitler's plans is that he wanted a repeat of Poland 1939 or France 1940. All of his plans were for quick knockouts. If that didn't happen, things started to unravel, and his back up plans were all about how to deal a short term blow severe enough to force a negotiated peace.
Basically I don't see any scenario where Germany wins after the 2nd offensive failed in 1942.
You’re absolutely right about that. The Russians were merely buying time by going deeper and deeper. Essentially bringing the Germans further and further out to “sea”. Wearing them to the point of exhaustion. Stretching supply lines, wearing them down, and then increasing defenders advantage in the opposite direction.
I also think it’s entirely possible from the things I pointed out in my previous post could have tipped the balance at Stalingrad to the point where the invasion didn’t stall. Even if it did stall, can the Russians actually push all the way back to Berlin without the Americans and British? I doubt it.
It was a game of time as you point out. We knew this. Which is why we slowly took resources away in Northern Africa and then unleashed savage bombings, all at the same time as the Russians dragged their land forces out elsewhere.
Take America and the UK out and that war of attrition becomes significantly more insurmountable with a sole Soviet Union fighting, or as my opinion is, entirely so.
The premise of the thread was/is absurd IMO. The Soviet Union could not have won without us and it’s unlikely the western allies achieve unconditional surrender without them. Without the Soviet Union, they most likely consolidate their gains in Europe. Without the u.s/u.k, it’s outright defeat for the soviets (most likely IMO) or at best a stalemate.
Last edited by Thatsright19; 07-15-2021 at 12:52 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.