Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Loknar
Colonel
Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
|
Quote Reply
Topic: If USSR had lost to Nazi Germany? Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:32 |
Also it should be pointed out that Stalin pushed for the landings. The allies orgionally wanted to land in greece (I dont know why, its serious crazy to fight your way through the mountains).
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 21:04 |
Originally posted by Loknar
Also it should be pointed out that Stalin pushed for the landings. The allies orgionally wanted to land in greece (I dont know why, its serious crazy to fight your way through the mountains). |
Just because he didn't push for the landings doesn't mean that by mid 1944 he couldn't have still won without them. If he saves another 2 million or so Soviet troops (a resource Stalin could definitely replace) by asking his allies to do their job, then of course he should have.
|
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar
Court Jester
Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 16:02 |
...germany had won the wc 66 in england. cause then there wasn't a
linesman from the ussr ,that told the damned ref from suiss
that the goal from hurst was regular.
|
|
|
Idanthyrus
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Feb-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 14:54 |
As long as Hitler was in overall military command of the Reich I think its unlikely that the Soviets would've lost on the eastern front.
|
|
Manuver
Janissary
Joined: 24-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 02:22 |
the question is weather or not the remaining allies could win without the USSR. I have been reading a lot of the different forums and i continue to see the same thing: the people that post on here have a general disdain for American capabilities and overly praise the soviets. Ok so lets say we sat out the war. we let you all beat the snot out of each other. I see so many posts on so many different forums that say the reds could have won it all on there own. Ok maby they could. for the sake of argument, lets say they did.
You all, French, belgean, west german, dutch, and all you other folks would live under the boot of the reds (which you are all socialist now and but a heartbeat away from marxist-lenninist communisem as it is) and probably still to this day. so the Japanese never attacked us at perl harbor and we stayed neutral.
I see so many postings saying not to beleive the propaganda of the American media. You are all socialist now and but a breath away from marxist-lenninist communisem as it is. If D-day was not any help in the war, then we should not have wasted lives and material on you all.
the world has recently seen why you all disagree with us so much. The french, Germans, and Russians all voted agenst getting saddam (sidebar: does anyone else see the facial simmalarities between sadam and Stalin?) because you each of those nations whent behind the back of the UN ( you all place so much faith in that corrupt organization and sold them material that you KNEW you should not be selling to him and yet you did it anyway. The next time the Germans want france, i say we let them have it. Napa wine is way better anyway.
As for the counter that we would have to face the reds alone, you are right we would have. And we would survive.
The similarites between the war in iraq and the years preceeding US involvement in the second world war are errie: Chamberlin and the french policy of appeasement is very like wanting more time for the "inspections and sanctions" thats your way to bargin away with your own land and people. Not ours.
We should have let the reds have you.....
|
Ice cream has no bones
|
|
Manuver
Janissary
Joined: 24-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 02:25 |
BTW England, the avarage american does not see you as part of erurope. Continental Eruope and the UK are two distinctly different places. Why? Cuz the US and the UK are like siblings; we may fight and talk smak amoungst ourselves, but woe to the outsider who tries to get between us.
|
Ice cream has no bones
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 03:24 |
The US kept western europe capitalist. If the Soviets had won the war
on their own, the major implication woud have been in the cold war. The
USA will still have been strong after its fight with Japan, but would
have had significantly less influence.
|
|
jayeshks
Earl
Joined: 04-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 281
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 12:34 |
The USSR wasn't going to lose to the Nazis. A lot of heavy
industry was moved beyond the Urals after the revolution and during the
5 year plans and the Russians had limitless amounts of manpower to
throw into the war effort even if the Nazis got as far as occupying
Moscow. There is a quote about this from a journal of one of the
Nazi generals on the eastern front about how the Soviets just kept
putting up dozens and dozens of new divisions even though they were
regularly incurring losses of up to 6-1 in battles with Germans.
And blitzkrieg tactics didn't work nearly as well in the Russian winter
as they had in the west. The long drawn out sieges were only
wearing down the Germans further and giving the Soviets more time to
make use of their larger industrial capacity to decisively turn the
tide. The Nazis would run out of German soldiers before the whole
of the USSR was occupied. Even states that might've wanted to
collaborate with the Germans against their former Russian hegemons like
Ukraine and Belarus etc. started revolting when they found that the
Nazis were no better and often much worse than the Soviets. The
Germans had better training, better equipment and more advanced
strategies, but in the long run the odds were stacked against them as
even just the UK+USSR were outproducing them in troops, ships and
planes. As for expecting help from their Asian allies, the
Japanese were overextended as it is and very short on resources.
I don't know whether the Pacific coast of the USSR was rich in oil etc.
that they needed, so that they could have attacked there instead of
trying to take the East Indies and Phillippines which inevitably
brought the US into the war. They must've had a very good reason
to do that instead of making a break for Russia because it must've been
obvious to even them that the US would crush them in a full scale
war.
Basically the USSR and especially the US were huge industrial giants
who had much larger capacities for sustaining a war than the Nazis,
even if you add the resources they gained from occupied lands.
Hitler invaded Russia at a time when almost all their good officers had
been purged, the nation was ill-prepared for war with Stalin expecting
Hitler to finish off the Brits before heading East and there was lots
of peasant unrest from bad harvests and famines thanks to the
collectivisation schemes. If they couldn't win then, they weren't
ever going to win. This is without even the US coming in.
Once the most powerful country in the world got involved, even that
miniscule chance of victory was completely wiped out.
|
|
Bosniathebestcountry
Janissary
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 09:13 |
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Subotai
The Allies will probably pushed back simply because if you everview the battles on the West you will probably see that the Alles have prety much trouble even with the pittiful forces that the Germans had deploed.Now imagine only if the half of the easten front army visit the west,not only that but it won be so easy now for the Allies to control the skies cuz Luvtwafe (not sure about the spelling) will return from the east.Plus in case USSR defeated probably there must be some kind of reparations for the Axis,these reparations will refresh Germany war machine.With Russia out of the war Germany easaly can push back the allies both from normandy and Italy
|
I do agree with you. Furthermore, if Russia would have been done by the Germans, they would have had all the necessary resources to build up a navy and possibly defeat Britain.
Not that the Nazis were particularly interested in invading Britain, they were interested in taking Russia and the reason were its enormous resources of raw materials and manpower. The plan of the Nazis was to make of Russia "the India of Germany", so they could compete in "equal terms" with other powers such as the UK or the USA.
But for the dates suggested, I would say it was already too late ofr the Nazis. If Mussolini wouldn't have attacked Greece, maybe the Germans could have attacked Russia in time and taken it in a blitz... maybe only.
|
Not Greece, Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is the country that stalled the germans and hitler was delayed, hitler thought he was gonna just walk right through us in a day but the great Josip Broz outsmarted him. and hitler had to fight Russia in winter. Nobody ever mentions this, but yugoslavia played a very big role in WWII. We helped russia more than anybody. And nobody could say no to Stalin after the war when he was takin one country after another in eastern europe except us. He wanted to put us under his boot but we resisted. the only slavic country that said no to Stalin and stayed independent. We were also the most prosperous eastern european country, socialist. Then the the early nineties where evil politicians came to power who wanted capitalism and so called independence, got greedy started wars and now bosnia is like the mexico of europe.. It all started with the fall of soviet union and that idiot Gorbachev that kissed the american and western european(brittish) ass and thats why i'm in america now, a slave to big corporations.
i hope one day capitalism (in america its actually like almost modern feudalism with the illusion of freedom) will collapse one day and the world becomes socialist/communist. whatever you wanna call it but something at least close to fairness and equality amongst people where bussiness and money dont come before human life.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 06:29 |
It was certainly possible for the Nazis to defeat the soviets though it would have required a serious restructuring of the command structure and probalbly a later start date to the war. The original plan was a war statrting between 1943 and 1945, then German rearmament would have meant that germany would have been sugnificantly stronger than in 1941.
Hitler needs to butt out of tactics and leave it to his more than capable generals, Guderian, Mannstein, Von Rundstedt.
Blitzkreig never failed in good weather until Kursk, so even the improved Russian Armies of 42 and early 43 could not stop the wehrmacht unless really heavily dug in.
They needed to find a way to avoid the endless seige warfare and instead engage the russians where they knew they could win in the field. whats more during the winter they should have allowed the Russians to attempt counterattcaks as in 1941, which would cost russian lives, rather than press on when the conditions clearly favoured digging in.
They most of all needed to act like liberators to Ukrainians and Balts and Belorussians, rather than being even worse thanthe soviets.
Japanese support would ease the German soldiers load but was not crucial, not declaring war on the USA and gaining a very powerful industrial enemy would be crucial.
Germany could win, following these suggestions, but no other way.
|
|
Russian
Pretorian
Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 09:26 |
Originally posted by Disraeli
It was certainly possible for the Nazis to defeat the soviets though it would have required a serious restructuring of the command structure and probalbly a later start date to the war. The original plan was a war statrting between 1943 and 1945, then German rearmament would have meant that germany would have been sugnificantly stronger than in 1941.
Hitler needs to butt out of tactics and leave it to his more than capable generals, Guderian, Mannstein, Von Rundstedt.
Blitzkreig never failed in good weather until Kursk, so even the improved Russian Armies of 42 and early 43 could not stop the wehrmacht unless really heavily dug in.
They needed to find a way to avoid the endless seige warfare and instead engage the russians where they knew they could win in the field. whats more during the winter they should have allowed the Russians to attempt counterattcaks as in 1941, which would cost russian lives, rather than press on when the conditions clearly favoured digging in.
They most of all needed to act like liberators to Ukrainians and Balts and Belorussians, rather than being even worse thanthe soviets.
Japanese support would ease the German soldiers load but was not crucial, not declaring war on the USA and gaining a very powerful industrial enemy would be crucial.
Germany could win, following these suggestions, but no other way. |
A littel mistke, wermacht would not stop the SU army, it is the other way from what you said, ok.
In 1943, SU army was not really stoppable, especially in the end.
Also, SU DID heavily dig in at Kursk, it was major offensive.
They knew they could win in the field? Well, Kursk was a field and they LOST.
Also, If Stalin would have listen to his generals also, I don't think wermacht would have a good chance to win, if Stalin also wouldn't commit many war errors.
NOw about russian counter-offensives, Stalin wanted Red Army to only attack, he never believed in Red Army defence, that's why there were so many problems. Also one of his major war errors, if SU forces would dig in properly in hte beginning, germans wouldn't even advance that far. Also, a major defensive, Kursk, was a great success.
If USSR would have lost to Germany by some unknown reason, it would be pretty much done for the continent, the continent would be of Hitler, and many many people would have died, and guess what, our freedom fighter US and Britain would declare peace with Hitler.
Edited by Russian - 12-Jun-2006 at 09:30
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 09:32 |
Without the USSR the USA and Britain couldn't be defeat Germany. The 80 percent of the Wermacht and the Eastern European allieds of the Axes were defeated by the Red Army. The Soviets didn't have only the biggest army in the world history, but they had excellent equipment. And not only before, but after the D-day the German main forces were contained in the Eastern front. |
In 1944 its more like 70 percent of German forces and that is at the high end, second even if the USSR were somehow magically defeated, which I'm sure involves Zhukov choking on a chicken bone. There are two things to consider. First the Eigth Air forces interdiction campaign which had been destroying rail yards and stations throughout Axis controlled Europe. Meaning that even if the the USSR does collapse the Wermacht would not have an effective way to transport their units from the steppes to Western Europe in a timely and efficient manner. Meaning that I don't believe Germans could move a sufficient quantity of troops westward before the Allies could breakout in Normandy.
Second at this time Allied Air Forces had been savaging Axis refining capacity. Making it more and more difficult for the Werhmacht to launch offensives.
Edited by Laelius - 12-Jun-2006 at 09:50
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:30 |
"If USSR would have lost to Germany by some unknown reason, it would be
pretty much done for the continent, the continent would be of Hitler,
and many many people would have died, and guess what, our freedom
fighter US and Britain would declare peace with Hitler."
Do you really think Germany could have defended such an area with its
forces? Thats a massive area with no local support. The Russians
themselves would have mass partisan units i guess. Can you really look
at it like that: Russia loses, the world loses, a little simplistic or
what? Germany would have had no allies left in Europe under its
previous vassals.
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Greek Hoplite
Pretorian
Joined: 12-Jun-2006
Location: Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 02:33 |
I think that Germans could have won Russians if Japanese army have attacked to the USSR from the east.If this has happend the situations would be very diificult for USSR, and the most possible was the deafet of USSR.Also don t forget that Greece has not yet been conquered by Axis since 1941(the Italians have been deafeted) so Germans had first sth to do conquer and Greece(Actually Germans at the battle of Ruppel they didnt won the Greek army, but because they had heavy casualties and couldnt pass the Metaxa's line take another path.)So the strong resistance in Greece(France hold some days) was a problem for Germans before their invasion in USSR,and this gave the time to Russians to do better preparations.
Edited by Greek Hoplite - 13-Jun-2006 at 02:34
|
My blog
http://mankap.blogspot.com/
|
|
TheDiplomat
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 08:26 |
General Von Meinstein argued that if the war on the eastern front had been maintained by the generals rather than Hitler,the war would have been won.
Hitler said in his final days that the disastourus fact for Germany in her war with Soviet Russia was that the war began both too soon and too late for Germany.
Yes,The Germans could have captured Moscow...But the question is would it bring an end to the war? Absolutely not... As the German genrals acknowldged thge bitter fact later that they had underestimated the strength of the Red Army.
Back to the topic,if a more-than miracle had happened,and the USSR had losted the war to Nazi Germany, the situation would be the biggest nightmare for the Slavic peoples of Europe.
Hitler wanted to establish a kind of European pyramide with Germany coming at the top...So The christian peoples of western Europe would not suffer much under his European Union.
But in the end, such a regime was destinied to its very downfall,vanish one day...
Sooner or later,the Nazi Empire be put an end like the Soviet Empire. Hitler had no successor...and The top Nazi leaders were arch enemies of themselves. Speer against Martin Bormann, Ribbentrop against Gring, Alfred Rosenberg against Himmler...etc
|
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!
|
|
tsar
Samurai
Suspended
Joined: 12-May-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 19:53 |
Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem
Without the USSR the USA and Britain couldn't be defeat Germany. The 80 percent of the Wermachtand the Eastern European allieds ofthe Axeswere defeated bythe Red Army.The Sovietsdidn't have only the biggest army in the world history, but they had excellent equipment.And not only before, but after the D-day the German main forces were contained in the Eastern front. |
Well how could they not, the brits especially were still playing catch up on tactics from the whermacht.
|
|
tsar
Samurai
Suspended
Joined: 12-May-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 19:55 |
Originally posted by tsar
[QUOTE=Nagyfejedelem] Without the USSR the USA and Britain couldn't be defeat Germany. The 80 percent of the Wermachtand the Eastern European allieds ofthe Axeswere defeated bythe Red Army.The Sovietsdidn't have only the biggest army in the world history, but they had excellent equipment.And not only before, but after the D-day the German main forces were contained in the Eastern front. |
Well how could they, the brits especially were still playing catch up on tactics from the whermacht.
Edited by tsar - 15-Jun-2006 at 19:56
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 05:40 |
Originally posted by tsar
Well how could they not, the brits especially were still playing catch up on tactics from the whermacht. |
That must explain why it was the US asking British troops to help theirs with "extra training"! Or why the first US major combat was such a disaster that Rommel dismissed the Americans!
By the time the Americans joined the British were catching up with the Germans and developing their own techniques (night bombing, commando raids etc). There was no "especially" unless you want to attribute it to the Americans.
|
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 00:41 |
That must explain why it was the US asking British troops to help theirs with "extra training"! Or why the first US major combat was such a disaster that Rommel dismissed the Americans! |
The US asked for help with forming its Ranger batallions and for the rest the US wanted to capitalize on the British buffoonery at Dieppe. Of course the American effort in North Africa was pathetic compared to the masterful conduct of the BEF in France...
You might be quick to throw stones but the efforts of the British army and Airforce weren't always stellar...
Well how could they, the brits especially were still playing catch up on tactics from the whermacht. |
Consider one important fact, the US was fighting a war on two fronts and for the most part had yet to engage the Germans on land en masse. If you allow the US the same advantage of the USSR and allow a war on a single front the it would become apparent that the US would have a number of advantages of its own. First the US fleet of WW2 was arguably the most powerful in history, only Nelson's fleet bears exception, with this unparalleled naval power the German positions in Italy, Greece and Scandinavia would become unteneble. The Allied air forces would still sweep the Luftwaffe out of the sky, Allied bombers would still be able to savage German railways and refineries whilst the Werhmacht would be forced to fight the allies on a number of different fronts from Scandinavia to the Greek peninsula. Ultimately if the bomb doesn't get the Germans the Allies win against a castrated Germany in a Cold War like solution.
|
|
Polish Rob
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 17:23 |
Had the Germans reached the Caspian oil fields, there is no doubt the war would have continued, and may have reached US soil.
|
|