What if the Soviets were defeated?

M

Marcelo Jenisch

Active member
Hello,

Many historians argue that the Soviet resistance was critical for the Anglo-American successes in the war.

Personally, I found this subjective relative, since there are many intangibles one must considerate for it, like all the Soviet Allied Lend-Lease shipments being diverted for Africa with all it's consequences.

Plans such as Operation Pike (British idea do bomb the Caucasus oil fields), together with the lack of faith from the Allies in the Soviet survival shows relevant evidence the Allies were not prepared to give up even if Stalin surrendered.

I also considerate pro Soviet points in this scenario, like an even greater scorched earth policy, and a withdrawal to the Far East, to continue resistance with Lend-Lease supplies.

Do you guys think the Western Allies could have at least survived (Britain) in such a scenario?
 
Last edited:
The possibility of the Allies winning WWII with only American material and financial assistance certainly existed, but it would surely have been much more difficult. The way that the war progressed would have been altered to such a degree that many different outcomes could have resulted.
 
Why should the Allies give up if Russia fell.....If Russia fell the Germans would still need to garrison the whole country and how many division would that take. Now Britain and its Commonwealth had stood against Hitler alone before and there was talk about any form of surrender once Churchill had picked up the reins of office. It may have a been a long hard road, but who knows were it would have led. Again it is question that every one one will have thoughts but as it never happen it is all guess work.
 
I just created this topic because I don't agree with the popular view that "Russia saved the world". This gives the impression that the Soviets were the last line of defense against Hitlerism, which certainly is discussable. A wrong view quiet similar to the one that if Moscow was captured the war would be over in the East.

Since Stalin conducted a very effective scorched earth policy historically, I don't see reason for him not do this again if the Germans tried to capture even more of the resources of Mother Russia. Just the oild field fires would take almost 1 year to be extinguished, plus time to put them back to work. The Soviet Far East was also an interesting place to withdrawl and hold a line with Lend-Lease support.

I also think that a German instantaneous victory in Africa would not be so obvious like some think, since the Axis logistics to troops there were already close to the limit historically. The Axis also would face the Lend-Lease arms deliveries to the Soviets: by the end of 1941, 466 British tanks and 699 British aircraft had been delivered, not to mention American stuff. Of course, how much of this stuff that would be diverted for Africa would depend on how quick the Soviets would be defeated, but certainly at medium and long term the Lend-Lease material would make it's presence felt.
 
The things didn't went well for Hitler since the start of the war. He planned to use the Soviet resources to confront the West in a cold war. When France and Britain declared war, Britain keep the resistance and above all he declared war to Roosevelt, all before his conquest and starting of exploration of the East resources, the things really started to take distance off the plans.
 
Last edited:
Withdrawal to the far east?
Once you get east of the Urals there is not a hell of a lot worth defending, what were the Russians going to eat snow with a healthy topping of salt?
How about fuel sure Siberia has oil but refineries are few and far between, then comes housing and infrastructure etc. etc.

The fact is that once the Germans reached the Ural mountains it was all over for the Russians.

Personally I can not see D-Day or Salerno going ahead with the Luftwaffe freed up from combat in the east and 2/3 of the German army available for defence in the west either.
 
MontyB said:
Withdrawal to the far east?
Once you get east of the Urals there is not a hell of a lot worth defending, what were the Russians going to eat snow with a healthy topping of salt?
How about fuel sure Siberia has oil but refineries are few and far between, then comes housing and infrastructure etc. etc.

The fact is that once the Germans reached the Ural mountains it was all over for the Russians.
Click to expand...

The Russians would need to buy time in such a scenario, time for the Western Allies to do something, and they probably would do. The Urals were still about 1500 km from Moscow, and the Russians would have time (and logistical favorability) to mount and adequate defensive line to delay the German advance as long as possible. In this scenario, I belive that Stalin would accept the Allied proposals to operate their air forces to defend the Urals region.

I suggested a withdraw to the Far East, because even in the worst case the Soviets would be still be able to be supplied from there, and all the military contingent certain could have been used elsewhere in the future.

With sufficient time obtained, I think the Americans and British would have a chance to defeat Hitler.

Personally I can not see D-Day or Salerno going ahead with the Luftwaffe freed up from combat in the east and 2/3 of the German army available for defence in the west either.
Click to expand...

The Luftwaffe was not so involved in the East, actually the Luftwaffe was defeated in the West quiet like the Heer in the East. About the D-Day, people make a big mistake examing scenarios such as this one, in that the notorius D-Day would fail because the circunstances. They only desconsiderate the fact that for each thing the Germans did in this scenario, there would be an Allied response. I don't know if the Allies would still be able to win, but this don't necessarily mean they would be stupid to try an invasion without consideration for the conditions.
 
Last edited:
I suspect Berlin would be a radioactive glassy wasteland but ultimately the result of the war would have been the same just much more terrible...
 
With out a long range heavy bomber, Hitler was not going to win the war. When Stalin moved all the factories back out of range of the German Airforce, the weapons rolled endlessly of the production lines, lets face it the produced more T34 than Sherman's and they kept upgrading them. Also it had galvanised the whole of the Russian Nation by then and who fought bravely for there country.
 
MontyB said:
Hmm half the world under Stalin or the whole world under Hitler and Hirohito nah I think it ended just fine.
Click to expand...

No fewer in the OKW warned Hitler the resources of Russia could only be put to effect quickly if captured intact, which was very unlikely, and this was probably considerated already thinking in the Americans. This is why I'm skeptical that a victory over Stalin would result in a victory or peace treaty with the Western Allies. Actually, a military victory against the Soviets to win against the other Allies, if not obtained in a lighting war 1941 like the Fuher expected, would be very unlikely to happen later. And realistically, the only possibility would be a peace treaty with the Soviets in '41, because the German logistics proved to be inadequate to defeat the Soviets in the battlefield '41 and 42. But unfornately, this is a paradox, because Hitler was obcessed with Lebensraum, and if Stalin asked him peace, he would be even more determinate to continue the campaign like historically, and would likely end defeated anyway.

In my view, Hitler's plan to wage war in the East without the West was the best option, but unfornately for him Britain and France put him off the tracks when they declared war in '39 and leave no back door in case the things went wrong in Russia. The WWII history lesson is to never underestimate your enemies, and not let the list of them grow when you don't know what they were capable of. Sounds logistical, but for Hitler and his ideas it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top