Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

Haven't been apart of this what if, So ill put in my 2 cents

Without the USSR Germany would be free to deploy her armed forces where she pleased, 2 area's come to mind straight off, North Africa and the Middle East with a possibility (only a theory, I have no knowledge to support or denounce it) of pushing down Sudan towards the Horn of Africa. Considering there would be no strain on German logistics due to the Russian front they would be able to provide increased support to forces in NA, Which honestly would make quick work of it.

A bonus of not being at war with Russia would be keeping there elite trained and tested formations intact. The Panzer divisions as well as all other divisions would actually be bought up to full strength, With likely equipment sitting in depots as reserve's/replacements. With the lack of need to send so much equipment and resources to the East, The Atlantic wall might actually partially resemble what propaganda made it out to be. The Luftwaffe would remain strong, At the same time being able to give more resources towards developing the Messerschmidt Me 262 Jet fighter and the Arado Ar 234 bomber. With Germany having a head start on these aircraft over the Allies, Assuming Hitler doesn't do as he did with the tiger and Panther, Field them before all the bug's are worked out and they have been supplied in sufficient numbers. If fielded in sufficient numbers, and working properly they could be what gains Germany aerial superiority over England.

Other aircraft that might be developed or close to final testing stages:
Focke-Wulf Ta 400
Junkers Ju 390
Heinkel He 274
etc..

With such an effective air force covering the skies of Europe i don't see a bomber carrying a nuclear pay load actually getting through... More likely to end up with the plane shot down and the remains of a nuke in German hands speeding up there own project.

 

Problem with this is the axis are logistically very limited in that region. They really didn't have the log structure to support what they sent already. In this case they could add to parts of the log structure but probably not the critical parts.

 

That and the oilfields of the mid-East were not no where near developed as they are today. The major oil producing and exporting county at that time was the US of A.

 

True enough if adding vastly more men is what you did, But what about more supply drops by air? A bigger investment into the logistics that supplied Rommels forces. With out the need o fuel the forces that rampaged across the USSR, How about fueling the Italian fleet? A sizable potent force that rarely saw action due to lack of resources. As such there crews suffered from lack of experience in warfare, As in on land, While Italian casualties at first were high, and there gains nil.. They soon learned, adapted, and began to take victories. So while there navy would suffer losses at first, They would soon learn, Adapt and win against the weaker British forces based there. Even if not taking total victory, They would allow there transports to reach ports closer to the front, Reducing the logistics problem.

no place was as near developed as they are today, But the Middle East was still highly developed, With iraq in '39 or '40 producing some 2.5 million tones of oil, And shipping it via oil pipe lines going through Palestine and Syria. Persia was at the time also producing around 9 million tones and they ended up producing nearly 20 million tones a year combined by 1945. And the vast majority of this was shipped away, Maybe no to England, The Iraqi oil fields ended up largely supplying the British/Commonwealth forces in NA, and i believe to some extent British forces based around the Indian ocean region. While the Persian oil was used to supply British forces in Burma etc and Russia? (not sure on this one, have heard statements about it, But if is true do not know how they got it there.) The oil there doubled what the Axis had access to in there controlled territories.

Now some will question how to get it to Europe.. Fair enough.. How about with there being no war with the USSR at the time, they are able to actually divert resources to building merchant vessels, such as oil tankers.

 

Well,the préwar ME oil production was essentially the oil production of Iran,and,as there were no pipelines going from Iran to the Mediterranean,the transport of the Iranian oil was depending on the availability of a sufficient oil tankers,sailing from Abadan to the Mediterranean or to the Horn of Africa .
IMHO,it is an illusion that Germany would be able to do this .Before the war,Germany had some 40 oiltankers:how could these sail from Hamburg to Abadan,and return ?
There also is the point that Germany did not need the ME oil:it had enough oil:its oil stocks were
1939:8.353 million of tonnes
1940:6.868
1941:8.485
1942:8.65
1943:10.497
1944:6.504
About the importance of the ME oil:
1934:8.85 million tonnes(of which 7.08 for Iran);world total:207;ME % 4.28
1935:11.49(Iran:7.47)world:225 ME % 5.1
1936:13.03 (Iran:8.2) world:244;ME % 5.34
1937:14.76(Iran :10.6)world:278 ME % 5.31
1938:14.85(Iran:10.19)world:270 ME % 5.5
1939:15.81(Iran 9.58)world:278 ME % 5.69
If one is subtracting the Iranion oil,the remainder(not all from Iraq) is marginal .
THere also is the problem of the German refinery capacity:from what I know,this was almost insignifiant:how could the Geman refineries refine an extra 3 or 4 million tonnes of oil ?
And the time it would demand for the oil to arrive at an refinery ?14 days to transport the oil by pipeline,and the tankers,and the transport to the refineries,and,and,....
Source : oil in the ME:its discovery and development;appendix IIP 478/479

 

I seriously believe that the newer posters need to go to the first page, and read them all rather than just start at the end and add their own.

The removal of the Soviet Union from the equation of “the war” ignores what caused the conflict to start with. It started out as “settling old grudges” as per territory in the west and immediate east (Polish corridor), then became economic, and eventually morphed into the ideological. Germany couldn’t afford to not “control” their own destiny economically, and as an importing nation of fuel, food, fiber, and alloy; they had to either be able to purchase them or conquer the source.

Without the monetary “slack” to purchase, or trade for the goods only conquest could gain the goods they needed to survive as a nation. As the major source of many of Germany’s needs in food, fuel and alloys the Soviet Union was a valuable supplier. However, the Nazi German nation couldn’t use the “clearing” policy they used with Turkey as barter for the Turkish materials. Trading manufactured goods for raw material was the answer in Turkey, i.e. I’ll give you “x” number of locomotives and rolling stock for “y” number of tons of (chrome, cotton, grain, tobacco).

Germany was a major supplier of machine tools for the re-building Soviet Union, but truly a nation only needs so many of those. And America was also competing to fill that need, as well as building the largest steel processing plants in the world for the Soviets at Magnitogorsk (Kerr), and Henry Ford was building the auto plant at Gorky.

The Turks needed rolling stock and locomotives for their indigenous rail system, and it was the same gauge as the European standard which Germany used as well. Converting German production to Soviet gauge would be both expensive for export and worthless to the German nation if not exported. The Soviets didn’t want nor need the German gauge, the German industry refused to build at the wider Russian gauge. Plus the German industrial “giants” (Krupp, Farben, et al) who had financed Hitler were no longer willing to “give” their expertise to the Soviets without a return. They were “businessmen” after all, profit is the goal. They were seeing no profit, all loss to themselves and their shareholders.

The Turks needed military goods, and were willing to barter, and taking those instead of cash gave the Nazis an advantage in trade, manufactured goods for raw materials again. The Soviets needed and took some military goods, but little since they themselves had a flourishing arms industry (if lacking in some respects), they needed less than the Turks.

There is simply no way that the Soviets aren’t going to be invaded by the Germans when the Nazis need the stuff and cannot pay for it. A desperate nation will try to take by force what it cannot purchase.

No matter which “numbers’ you wish to put together to combat the western allies, the German nation couldn’t be fueled, fed, nor clothed, nor produce the weapons without imports from conquered, occupied nations. Specifically (in Hitler’s mind) from the Soviet Union. After mid-1941 and Barbarossa, the “writing was on the wall” for Nazi Germany, and then it turned into an “ideological” battle to protect the homeland and purity of its “blood” rather than the economic war for self-sufficiency it had started out as.

The Soviets were never “NOT” going to be in the conflict, and even as a “what if” this stretches reality a bit too far. If the original postulate (no Soviet Union in the war) cannot be removed from the situation, the entire position is indefensible. Just my opinion of course.

 

Completely agree that the USSR would eventually be at war against the Axis powers some time between 1942 and '44. Economically if Germany wanted to export materials/equipment etc around the globe they needed to gain a way to do this, Taking the Med would allow this, So would have to secure Gibraltar and the Suez canal, Suez canal may be blocked, But from Gibraltar they can get out with much better chance as so much was concentrated in there home waters.

 

By summer 1941 Stalin had some 1000+ T-34´s, and by summer 1942 I recall some 5,000-6,000 T-34´s. How many Tigers would Germany have?

 

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge Kai-Petri, But i think you estimates are off a bit. Seeing as the T-34 when it was first bought into production had about 1,360 units built in a 10 month period (give or take). So allowing 200 tanks a month for increased performance in its construction that would mean only another 2,400 tanks in '42 (relating to the T-34, KV's is another story, I believe they were producing about 2 T-34's to every KV).

 

Some rough figures from pkka.narod.ru/losses
medium tanks on 22 june 1941:900
received till 31 december:2200
lost 2300
remaining :800
received in 1942:13400
lost 6600
More detailed figures (from the rkkaww2 website,available on armchair general)
Production of T34
1941(july-december):1886
1942:12661
1943:15710
1944:10662
1945:6080

 

Don't deny the massive numbers of T-34's that could be produced. But im of the beleif that production was ramped up due to the war footing.

 

Converting German production to Soviet gauge would be both expensive for export and worthless to the German nation if not exported. The Soviets didn’t want nor need the German gauge, the German industry refused to build at the wider Russian gauge. Plus the German industrial “giants” (Krupp, Farben, et al) who had financed Hitler were no longer willing to “give” their expertise to the Soviets without a return. They were “businessmen” after all, profit is the goal. They were seeing no profit, all loss to themselves and their shareholders.

The Russian gauge was only about 3" wider than German/standard, i.e. pistons, running gear, etc. on each side would have to be moved outboard about 1 1/2". Although standard gauge was proliferating, it was (and is) far from universal. Manufacturers often adapted their products to their customers' needs. The United States supplied rolling stock to Russia in both WWI and WWII. A Russian order would presumably be in substantial enough numbers to make it worthwhile. German firms might still be too parochial to be interested, but there is no technical reason they could not supply locomotives or railcars.

 

Air supply operations are hiddeously inefficient in both material and fuel consumption. They also tend to be pretty hard on the aircraft themselves.

When? If you want more tankers they take months if not years to complete.

But it still has to contend with the RN and the British can commit a larger fleet.

The problem is the British forces for the most part weren't weaker and the British had deeper reserves. There's a goog chance by the time they "learned" there would be nothing left to defeat the RN with.

I wouldn't call it highly developed. Nor were these facilities likely to be captured intact.

When do they decide to do this and how long does it take them to produce the tankers and repair the oilfields and pipelines? Can they hold on long enough to do all this? Can they even acomplish it in the first place?

 

I don't disagree here, it is a question (to my mind) as to whether or not the German product (rail) could compete or was worth the bother to the Soviets. They had just established major production plants for locomotives and rolling stock, and really didn't NEED German input as manufactured goods, where the Turks did.

That is my point here, producing local to meet rail needs meant jobs for Soviet citizens, importing German manufactured goods meant fewer jobs. And after all it was the "worker's paradise", and having your job supplanted by a German import may not have fared well with the "workers".

The manufactured material the Germans really had to export were things in the nature of rail goods and military as large ticket items. They most likely didn't wish to add military capability to the Soviets, and couldn't use their locomotive and rolling stock as "clearing" chips as they could with Turkey and other nations they needed "stuff" from.

Just a thought.

 

Maybe so, But they werent trying to invade England against a superior opponent, They were facing an opponent that could not rely on home turf advantaged with a constant stream of replacements, There replacements had to travel all the way around Africa, So yes, It would be inefficiant, and hard on the aircraft, But with the numbers of aircraft they could put in to supplying the AK it would pay off.

The fuel didnt have to come from tankers, Could come via the air drops. or with the ability of increased air coverage the tankers could come further up the coast, Not having to unload so far away.

Not true so much, The RN was far to spread out. And commiting more ships to the Med would mean weakening there Home fleet/Scapa flow allowing the Kriegsmarine break out oppertunities. And once again, Any increase in forces would have to travel around Africa if they intended to reinforce the Suez canal. Any attempt to rush across the med would make for very tempting targets from the Luftwaffe and Italian air force.

They had deeper reserves, But they also had more holding's to protect spreading them out and nullifying there numerical superiority. Add to that the Axis would be ableto field greater force of aircraft, They would not have the chance to cripple the Regia Marina before the aircraft set upon them.

They may not have been 'highly' developed, But they were developed none the less. And while damage would be inflicted to the facilities, Not garaunteed that they would be outright destroyed. NA was a fast moving war, Assuming that the Axis forces received the needed supplies and broke the British/Commonwealth forces and sent them on the retreat they would be able to make there way to the Suez canal in a veery small amount of time, So small that the allies would havethe choice of staying to destroy the pipelines and facilities to the point they couldnt be repaired in any meaningful time, But also doomingthem to be captured, or they could do some damage, That would most likely not be enought, and escape with the forces that would be making head way for the Port of Sudan.

Assuming they start putting more forces into NA, Around that time i would gather. If they started pushing the British back and out ofNA, They would come to realize that there holdings would need a greater merchant fleet to supply there forces and to bring back the resources they had captured (oil etc). Building merchant vessels and oil tankers took no time at all, On average it took Germany 12 months to build the Dithmarschen class, Which was a whole new design encompassing oil tanker with replenishment ship. Vessel like that would have been perfect for the Med, delivering oil and suplies. Considering that 12 months was in peace time, I believe it could be speeded up in wartime, With no USSR draining panzer reserves there would be no need for steel to be diverted there on such a large scale.

 

This is bunk of the purest sort, even the little Liberty ships (which the Germans couldn't sink as fast as they were made) took time to produce. There were a few "propaganda" ships built in only a few weeks, but most took almost 42 weeks on average, nearly a year from keel to launch, and another few months or so to be fitted for sea duty after they cleared the ways, and put into service. That time for construction includes the sub-assembly production time, and not just the final assembly time from the pre-fab sections when shipped to the ways for final consolidated assembly. But those pre-fab weeks have to be spent somewhere, and Germany didn't have the resources to do so.

And of course the multiple shipyards in America were free from any bombing raids by anybody. They could run 24/7, year round. The German navy yards had no such immunity, nor ability for production on that scale.

 

In the first half of 1941 some 900 T34 were produced,in the second half :the double:1886

 

And let's not forget that the production kept climbing even when both the Leningrad and Stalingrad production lines were closed down and the machine tools and stamping presses moved to the new "Tankograd" site where T-34 production replaced the KV heavy as its primary product.

 

Might i suggest looking up on the liberty ships then, As there time of being laid down and then launched started of at 6-7 months, and decreased within 12 months to 1-1 1/2 months. As for fitting out the liberty ships, They were not war ships, They did not carry or require nearly as much as what a war ship of similar size had to be fitted out with. Actually, outfitting times for the liberty's over the same 12 months dropped to less then a month.