German vs. Russia - No England.

[SIZE=+1]Country[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]% of Total Warmaking Potential[/SIZE]

United States 41.7%
Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%
UK 10.2%
France 4.2%
Japan 3.5%
Italy 2.5%
Seven Powers (total)(90.5%)

 

The question is not if Germany could have won against the USSR alone but just a question of when they would win and how much land they would grab.

 

Im sure those starving Russian peasants in the 1930's just loved him.

 

If your determining an outcome of a war based solely on industrial output you will be sorely disappointed.

You are obviously not taking into account human and resource factor. There is no reason to build 10 tanks if you can only man 5 of them and have enough fuel for only 2.

I would also like to see your source which claims Soviet Union's industrial potential was only 14%

Those starving Russian peasants were actually Ukrainian (different country but part of the Soviet Union). Stalin was not viewed by them in the same way his was by Russians. This is one reason why some Ukranians (Western) joined the Germans.

 

If Britain surrenders, then Germany still has to garrison the country, which will be troops and equipment not going to the Russian Front.

If Britain negotiates a peace, there will still be a huge German presence on the western front in case the UK abrogates the agreement (like Hitler did with Russia).

The one pro in this, is Germany's industrial base and access to raw materials is undamaged (for now).

 

Dont compare an outright war-maker, greedy and idiot dude (Bush) that after all is the product of what happens when people vote for an idiot which means is democracy after all, than a dictator that was hated by his army, life is cheap doesnt even come close to describe the regard Stalin had for life, he sent soldier that knew they were going to be slaughtered by Germany without allowing them to retreat only to make them lose ammo and weaken them a bit, the Army would most likely take the first chance they have to stop beign sent to the slaughterhouse if enough people backs up the German invasion (a lot), if the German take the attitude of liberators and if their moral is weakened enough they will certaintly turn on Stalin. USA is a democracy an invasion will mean things will change to its rights, rights in USA are overestimated and hyped by people, Stalin's USSR had no rights, what they had to lose?

If you want to transport it to a USA scenario imagine a dictator takes up USA, strip americans of all its rights, turns USA into a slaughterhouse, horribly kills a good part of the army just for the lulz, and send its soldiers to the slaughterhouse more and more showing your life is less than a toy for him, you will take ANY chance you have to be free from him.

 

For a rough measurement you often compare the GDP of the adversaries. Look here:

Allied and Axis GDP

The numbers are from Harrison and are quoted by other historians (like Tooze).

 

Hmmm.. I never noticed this thread so far – how come?

Anyway, it is a What if, that leaves some important questions open.

1. How would the US react on this? Would they still make land lease with Stalin, and if so would they also be willing to make some $ with Hitler? IIRC American companies had received orders from Hitler Germany before the war started.
2. With an armistice or peace treaty signed between Hitler and Britain, vital logistics and materials would be accessible to Hitler – he might not have decided to attack Russia in 1941. (I would even tend to say, he sureley would not have attacked Russia in 1941) – why should he?

Then it would be more likely for Hitler to attack the Sovietunion in 1942 or 1943.

3. If so, how would Hitlers weapon development program have faired? Not really knowing about the T34, would a Panther or Tiger have been available by 1943?
4. Would the Japanese have still attacked Pearl? And Hitler declare war towards the US?

Allright the thread says, Hitler would still have attacked Russia in 1941. Then I would believe that the Wehrmacht would have come closer to its Archelansk – Caucasus line. Stalin would not have offered a truce and neither would Hitler. Not ignoring Hitlers racial dogmas – the Wehrmacht would have a gigantic problem in drawing away forces in order to control an imense area. Hitlers only chance for a peace or peacetreaty would have been due to a revolt or assassination which results in the death of Stalin.

Till then Hitler would have had a very hard time controlling the conquered Russian territories and Stalin would have build up his forces and continued to fight Hitler. Due to climate, geography, infrastructure and the extreme vastness of Siberia I do not believe that Hitler without drawing manpower by the millions from the occupied countries such as France, Holland, Belgium etc. could have continued to go into Siberia.

At the end the question would be, who would develop the A-bomb first, Stalin or Hitler? Maybe the Americans would even include some A-bombs into lend-lease from August 45 onward.
Or even more likely, the US would have nuked Germany (certainly the US would never standby and watch a Hitler Germany rising to such imense power) demanding that Hitler would withdraw to borders in favor to the US – maybe right back to the borders of 1939 or 1940.

Regards
Kruska

 

Simply no.
The forced famine effected the Ukraine, Southern Russia, the Caucasus and Kazakhstan very badly.
Food seizures by the Soviet authorities knew no ethnic boundaries.

 

Mark Harrison, ed., The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison, Cambridge University Press (1998).

Ok lets look at the populations of the powers and a few others things.



Population in 1939

USSR 190.000.000
Germany (including Austria) 76.008.000

A big advantage in terms of population for the Soviets there however by December 1941 around one third of the Soviet population was in German hands.
If we add to this the population of Germanys allies the Axis have a population advantage.
This is before we even mention the fact that if it wasnt for British/US lend lease then the Soviets would have to put a lot more of their population into production rather than warfare.
If we add the 56 extra German divisions and a lot more airpower that was in the West at the time even more than a third of the Soviet population will be in German hands by Dec 41.

 

If Britain signs a peace agreement then they wont be a need for 52 divisions in the West.
The number will be far less.

 

What has always been the case? It has worked on occasion and not on others.

Indeed but had the Germans really behaved as liberators would it have been the case?

 

If the Nazis had de-collectivised farming and turned the Ukraine into a semi-autonomous National Socialist state then the vast majority of the Ukrainian population would have backed the Nazis.

 

If Britain was occupied, Hitler would have the benefit of its economy and industries. Germany's exploitation of occupied territories was not always efficient, but they made good use of Czech, French, and other industries. So that might be a net gain for Hitler even with the need to garrison the islands.

If Britain was completely out of the war, either by conquest or a peace settlement, there would be little reason for the US to intervene in Europe, nor much means to do so. It might be different if a British government in exile was determined to carry on, but we would probably still confine ourselves to support rather than entering combat in Europe or the Middle East, unless Hitler offered suitable provocation. We would also be determined to protect the western hemisphere, including European possessions, from Axis intrusion - which Hitler would avoid if he was sensible.

It's true that a peace settlement would still require Germany to maintain some forces in the west, but they would be spared the ongoing wastage of combat. Internal resistance to Nazi occupation depended on British support and would largely dry up without it.

Hitler's fundamental goal was expansion to the east. From his point of view, fighting the western allies was the distraction, to be concluded as quickly as possible so he could get back to the main event - though there was some satisfaction in giving the Versailles powers, especially France, some comeuppance. So I expect he would get on with the attack on Russia as soon as he felt able to.

Although the United States had done some massive industrial development projects with the Soviets in the 1930s, it would be difficult to justify something like Lend-Lease in a pure Hitler-Stalin struggle. Historically the perception of an Anglo-German war spreading to Russia made it easier for us to consider Russia one of the team.

 

You have clearly missed the point.

You are from Japan, no? Would the Japanese welcome the American troops as liberators?

On which occasions has it worked?

Im a bit confussed here. Liberating who exactly? The Russian people from Stalin? What makes you think that the Russian people felt enslaved by him? Whether or not they felt enslaved is a domestic matter. Had they felt that way, then they would have gotten rid of him, or at least tried. What happened in surrounding countries is another matter. Had the Russians invaded Germany and claimed to be liberating the German people from Hitler, would the Germans not have sided with Nationalism put asided their differences and try to rid the invader? Of course they would have.

What makes you think that the Ukranians would want to be part of a Nantional Socialist state? Ukranians and Belarussians have nothing in common with Germany. These people had different alphabets, religion and culturally were on a different planet. Yes, to them Stalin was bad, but at least he was domestic, Hitler was as foreign as ET.

And it was not possible for the Germans to NOT confiscate Ukranian food let alone "liberate their farms". One of the main reasons why Ukraine was invaded was to secure a food source for the German army in the east. Unless, an alternate food source is somehow provided, to simply state that the Germans shouldnt have taken their food is rediculous.

 

When the Germans first advanced into the Ukraine, they were astounded to find little plaster icons and portraits of Norwegian Vidkung Quisling in places of honor. He had been in the anti-famine relief aid from the League of Nations program after all.

Vidkun Quisling of the "Nasjonal Samling" (National Unity) party was a remarkable person in many respects, with idealistic visions that rarely if ever fitted in with real life. His later disgrace only came about when he "hitched his wagon" to the Nazi star. He had worked together with the famous Frithjof Nansen co-ordinating famine relief aid in the Soviet Union in the late twenties, early thirties. He had a fine reputation as being an intelligent, quiet, self-deprecating gentleman, who was not afraid of hard work. He and Nansen were credited with saving the lives of milions of Ukranians, mostly children. He also served Norway as its Minister of Defense in the Agrarian Government for two years between 1931/'33. Remember Quisling had graduated from the "West Point" of Norway with the highest score to that time. He was quite the student, and saw himself as both a military man and an educated philosopher.

His humanitarian work with the League of Nations in the '30's earned him the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) award from Great Britain, and he took great pride in this award from the British Crown. During operation "Barbarosa", the invading Nazis were astounded to find painted "icons" and plaster of paris statuettes of Major Quisling in the peasant houses of many farm families in the Ukraine. Those persons almost considered the man a "saint" due to his work in the thirties saving many millions from starvation.

 

Romania was even more different and yet they adapted to Fascism quickly.
Besides Stalin starving 5 million Ukrainians to death is a good motivator.

Just look at the greeting the Germans got here -

YouTube - World At War: Barbarossa Part 4 of 6

If they had exploited this and used the Ukrainians and Baltic Nationalists and de-collectivised the farms they could have had huge numbers of volunteers.

 

The Russians and all people under the Soviet Union

Indeed

The people starved and worked to death for example, another good example if the people living in constant fear, the army specially had a intense hate towards him only surpassed by their fear

Try to get rid of him? What for? to end up slaughtered as the army leaders were by the purge, to cause another purge? After the purge people feared Stalin greatly and had in mind that if you were to get rid of him you better success or face an horrible death while they kill also all your family in the process

German people still supported Hitler and didnt felt enslaved by him, Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler was with minorities, with his own people

They wouldnt had liked it very much but they would had thought "at least is better than ****ing Stalin" when Hitler invadind USSR there were groups already preparing to side with germany, of course they never did their job when they learned Hitler was as bad as Stalin, I agree with USSR Germany may not had been able to conquer it or occupy it as a mere satelite country like Poland or so, but they can place a puppet goverment

Maybe is so, but is the only way they have to defeat USSR without having to destroy the Red Army, maybe they could conquer it and turn it into a satelite like Poland but at least could place a puppet goverment, either way is the only way they have to win because the other way is destroy the Red Army which they could had done, not even if you doubled Germany military capacity, the winter never comes, give then 10 Tsar Bomb nukes, add superman in their army, give then alien technology and give Hitler the Infinite Gauntlet, the only way Germany had to win was to reduce as much the Red Army (this can be done via desertions for example and adding might to the German army with rebels against Stalin) and to avoid having to destroy the Red Army (AKA force them to surrender without having to destroy it). It is either bid for a small chance of winning without having to face the Red Army in its full might or take the "destroy the Red Army" strategy and face a 100% possibilities of failure

 

No Romania was not "even more different", quite the contrary. They were NOT "Slavs" and Hitler had far a higher opinion of them then he did of the Ukranians and Belarussians. Romanians were also never invaded by the Germans! They turned fascist by CHOICE after a military coupe erupted bringing Ion Antonescu to power! You are obviously not familiar with the Iron Guard and their popularity. Care to take a guess on their political affiliation?

Yes, for this reason Western Ukranians welcomed the Germans as liberators. Eastern Ukranians did not and sided with the Soviet Union. Even today the rift is evident as Western Ukraine wants to be part of NATO and Eastern Ukraine wants nothing to do with it and has just elected a communist president!!!

Life in Russian under Stalin was no walk in the park. Yes, he was brutal yes many didnt like him, but life continued and people moved on everday with their lives. His purges were known, those that knew and didnt agree wisely kept their mouths shut. There were also those that knew and thought it was the right thing, those who didnt know and those who didnt care. But life went on and no one felt like a slave! Communism was the choice of Government, getting rid of Stalin and putting a fascist in his place would not have solved anything.

This is only your opinion and its clear you are unfamiliar with life in Germany under Hitler. If you were a Jew,a gypsie, handicapped, a homosexual, Bolshevist, opposed Hitler publicly or non "Aryan" you would not be sayingt this. Most Germans did not like Hitler and life for Germans wasnt much better than life for Russians under Stalin. IMO more Russians liked Stalin than Germans who liked Hitler...

Once again this only your opinion and a poor one at that, no pun intended. People fought for mother Russia NOT father Stalin!

I ask you again, would the Japanese welcome the U.S. troops as liberators?

Maybe so?

What would the German army in the eat east while Hitler is having this epiphany? And where is it stated that this would guarantee a German victory?

How old are you?

 

Just maybe

I know is quite suicidal for the army not to starve Russia, but is not doing that or nothing, now I clearly stated that even Germany entering as liberators, having great numbers joining the german army and desertions in the red army MIGHT not even be enough to have Russia conquered as a satelite nation just as Poland, but in my opinion at least could put a Russian puppet pro-nazi goverment

Nowhere, neither I stated to be so, you dont get it my friend Im not saying "If Germany entered as liberators and avoid winter they would had raped Stalin into oblivion" no, Im just stating that seeing the suicidal choice of attacking USSR is the "less worst" option they have, Germany only have in my opinion 2 ways

1)Enter as liberators and avoid winter, both increasing their strenghts (if people welcome them) and weaken the Red Army (in case of desertions) as also eliminate the disadvantadge of winter, thus allowing the chance to cause a Soivet surrender without the need of having to face the entire might of the Red Army

2)Enter as bloody conquerors thus HAVING TO DESTROY THE RED ARMY TO WIN, a thing they had no chance at all to achieve, not even if you double germany military might, give them 10 Tsar Bombs nukes and add superman to their lines and reality bending technology.

I am not saying that guarantee a german victory but is the best chance at all, having a minimal chance of achieving a Soviet surrender exploiting Stalin's brutality to their favor (of course even if this works they are still achieving heavy cassualities), or having zero chance of winning by having to destroy the Red Army in a total conquest campaign, is either take a minimal chance to win or get horribly rapestomped

This isnt a very friendly question right? I dont see the relevance of this in the debate