Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

Looking back over it, I fail to see were people have stated the the German industry would out produce the Allied industry.

As far as i can tell people have only stated partially or fully, directly or indirectly that the German industry and economy would be improved due there being no need to maintain a permanent large scale army. That the troop's that made up the army that were taken from German industry would be able to return to it and bring it up to scratch. No one stated that it would out produce the Allies.

Though in all reality the majority of allied production was due to the US directly or indirectly.

The resources Germany gained from the occupied area's of the SU were minimal, Very minimal as by the time they started to get the sites operational the Russian forces were gaining the upper hand and preventing and meaningful production. In the end more resources were expended on the Eastern front then they actually gained. As such no war with the USSR would have been better economically.

Seeing as the industry part of this has been brought back up, I'm curious as to what effect the extra man power would have had on Germany's resource mining, And is it possible that German worker's returning in large number's would occupy factories in occupied countries?

 

What I'm curious is how much resources Germany would be able to obtain from Stalin, from how much time, and how much that could have impacted in the industrial production.

Von, your statements about the bomb are wrong, as can be seen here:

Buckley argues the German war economy did indeed expand significantly following Albert Speer’s appointment as Reichsminister of Armaments, "but it is spurious to argue that because production increased then bombing had no real impact". But the bombing offensive did do serious damage to German production levels. German tank and aircraft production, though reached new records in production levels in 1944, was in particular one-third lower than planned.[SUP][17][/SUP] In fact, German aircraft production for 1945 was planned at 80,000, "which gives an idea of direction Erhard Milch and the German planners were pushing", "unhindered by Allied bombing German production would have risen far higher".

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other point I would like to make is that if Hitler didn't wanted to attack the Soviet Union and focused in the West, then the most logical thing would be put the Soviets in the Axis. That would probably force the Western Allies to accept peace.

 

Logically it would make sense, But they were far too different, They were willing to cooperate when they both got something out of it, But what was in it for Russia by working with Germany to fight the Allies? Nothing.

As for my statement about the bomb.. To what statement are you referring to? I'm a little confused so perhaps you could quote it so there will be some clarity please.

Cheers, von_noobie

 

Stalin was trying to obtain the most of the German technology as possible, he was being paid in such way. If Germany wanted to continue the war with the West, it would need to give more and more, and be dependent of the Soviet Union for everything, unless it could conduct a effective campaign to seize the Middle East. But even so, I doubt the Germans would acquire some irresistible power against the Western Allies. While Stalin would be able to extort as much of he wanted from Germany using the powerful Red Army and German economic dependence.

My conclusion: the scenario of this thread only benefits the Soviet Union, as it would effectively rule Europe and sustain most states.




As for my statement about the bomb.. To what statement are you referring to? I'm a little confused so perhaps you could quote it so there will be some clarity please.

Cheers, von_noobie[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, Stalin was trying to obtain the most of the German technology as possible, he was being paid in such way. If Germany wanted to continue the war with the West, it would need to give more and more, and be dependent of the Soviet Union for it's economy stay afloat. While Stalin would be able to extort as much as he wanted from Germany, using the powerful Red Army and the German economic dependence.

My conclusion: the scenario of this thread only benefits the Soviet Union, as it would effectively rule Europe.

Sorry, it was other person who talked about the bombing.

 

I still fail to see how the German economy was reliant on Russia when it remained intact and grew through out the war.

Through out the war were Germany expended so much in the way of man power, resources and time on the Russian front but got pretty much nothing out of it, Not enough to make up for there 'investment'. So if the Germans could sustain a war against Russia, the biggest drain on Germany then how is it they wouldn't be able to survive against the Allies when they wouldn't not be expending those resources, But actually building them up.

When the Axis invaded the USSR they cut them selves off from all supplies yet there fuel output increased with in Germany (synthetic) and production in aircraft, tanks and various weapons increased, All with out Russia. I personally believe you are giving Russia to much credit for Germany's war effort when after 1941 they provided nothing but losses and hardship.

Cheers, von_noobie

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

von, take a look at the table at the end of this article. I know Wik is not the best source, but what do you think?

 

Had a read of it, and as interesting as it is it still fail's to show how Russia was the vital key to the German economy. All it show's is that Russia was one of several sources that provided Germany with resources for cash.

Did the Russian exports to Germany help at the start? I would assume so. But what about after that? Germany was once again cut off from Russian resources, and used up a lot more then what the Russians sold to them so my point still stands that Russia when invaded failed to be of any use, It was a drain on man power, money and resources. Therefor not going to war with the USSR would put the German economy in a better position would it not?

Oh and a for trade, Taking into account Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, And the U boats the only ones open to doing safe trade was the Germans, The Russian's would be cut off as much as the German's so i still don't see a collapse in the RM affecting there ability to purchase worth while size amounts of resources. If I'm not mistaken was Russia not known for aiding in the value of there currency on the exchange market, Similar to how the PR China is doing today, Im sure Germany would be able to do a similar feat.

 

Perhaps the 'confusion' stems from the time period. When Germany received trade from Russia her war production was considerably lower than 1942-45. As such the resources from Russia was at that time responcable for a good deal of Germany's production. In the later years Germany did produce greater levels, but did so at a rate that was unsustainable long term. Taking measures that were not cost effective and highly disruptive on her economy.

Much like someone who paces themselves as opposed to someone who overworks in the short term then finds themselves exhausted to the point they cannot do anything else.

 

The past several posts directly or indirectly claim that Germans have attacked Soviet Union just to provide resources to continue the war against the United Kingdom. That is essentially wrong because such claims are is directly in collision with German war objectives: Soviet Union was the Primary Target.

The Earth is a sphere!

 

One thing was connected with other.

 

The way i see it, and correct me if I'm wrong. Germany attacked the USSR to gain primarily land. Removing the threat of Soviet Russia and access to the resources in captured territory would have played a big part but the soviet threat removal would have been short term while the resource gain would have been long term in the requirement of converting there track system to standard European gauge and getting the mines up and running again. There was no chance of Germany being able to use those resources unless Russia surrendered in 1941 and the war dragged on into 1945-1946+.

 

Germany had a small chance of win the air war. After the air war is lost, Germany would certainly go down. There would be no 4 million soldiers in the French beaches that would repulse any invasion like some think, not only because it's sheer unrealistic, but also because the Allied planes would not let any large German armies and their supply lines move, due to the European airspace be smaller and the terrain easy to cover.

 

No one has stated there would be 4 million men in France on the beaches. So far the only area's we have discussed relating to operations against the Allies by the freed up German forces and resources is based around North Africa, The Middle East, Malta and possible Regia Marina activities through either Gibraltar or into the North Atlantic (Though not all have been agreed upon in there ability to be carried out successfully).

But seeing as you decided to bring up the Western front I'm happy to run with it. I see Germany halving the amount of men the fielded which was about 5 million in 1941, With no more then 300,000 being based within the Middle East/North Africa (Assuming German/Italian operations had secured those regions), 1,200,000 on the Eastern front along with forces from Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc. and a similar number in France and the low countries with the rest being used as occupation forces. With 1.2 million men in France and the Low Countries the situation when D-Day came would be far different.

Would the Allies still have aerial superiority? Yes but that does not mean that the Luftwaffe would be able to provide limited cover for the Army or launch ad hoc attacks on the fleet. History has constantly shown us that a small force can defeat a larger force so there is no guarantee of the Allied aerial superiority stopping German movement entirely.

With over a million men based within France from the day they were conquered to D-Day would be able to produce a vastly superior defense then what the Allies ran into on D-Day. With more men then more locations would also be bale to be protected. Add to that the troop's would be fresh, well trained and equipped and likely mostly motorized.

So the D-Day invasion could very well be contained and repulsed.

 

There's a good discussion about this in the Axis Forum: Axis History Forum • View topic - 1942: Mediterranean-Black Sea connection

As many members have proved there, the Axis supply problem in Africa was impossible to solve.

About the claims of D-Day being impossible, this is pure bullshit. With air supremacy, there would be not German troops that would hold, there would be not resistance that could not be breaked. Only people who don't understand the decisive power of aviation don't see this.

What I woud like to see is the Russians defeating the Germans alone. The Luftwaffe had much better pilots, would not have fuel shortages, would have more more planes, etc.

 

The Western Allies were the only ones that had a realistic chance against Germany if alone. Why? Because they had equilibrium in ground, aerial and naval forces, and resources in general. The Russians were only strong in ground. If the Russians had to fight alone, they would lack the conditions for a victory, because without their Allies to cover their back, the Germans would fully unleash their industrial, ground, and aerial potential, and apply the naval resources in other areas against them. The German potential in ground and aerial forces against the Russians alone would more than adequate to deal with them. Together with the lack of the Lend-Lease, the Russian chances would be really slim. The Western Allies however, were strong in all all three areas, and therefore the Germans would not be so able to enjoy significant advantages against them.

 

How it happened then that the Red Army has literally pulverized Germans? May I suggest you to use real sources, not the Axis Forum.

 

Only because it was part of a global war. This is the problem of people like you and most of the historians when talking about the Eastern Front. It seems like it was not part of the global war, the Germans would not become much more stronger if they only had to fight and employ resources there, the Soviets would not have their capabilities significantly reduced by this together with the lack of the Lend-Lease, etc.

I will just give you an example: Luftwaffe. Just some hundread planes, just some, can avoid or inflict a massive defeat from the ground forces. And where MOST of the LW was after mid-43? In the West! WWII was 3D, and the Soviets, while certainly brave, would face much more pressure if they were alone. The Luftwaffe pilots were much better trained, they had better Command and Control systems, better aircraft, would not have fuel shortages without a war with the West, and would have numerical superiority in short time. The Western Allies not, they had the conditions to face the Germans in the air, in the ground and at the sea.

Didn't touched me. The capability of the ports in North Africa is well know as inadequated, and so was the ground logistics in that theater. And this just for the troops that historically operated there. Now imaginate for much more troops and Panzer Divion. Dream world. My other arguments are all based in interpretation and common sense.

 

That's dubious,or unlikely:I like to see that the German industrial output (which is not the same as potential) could equal or exceed the Soviet one .
You also are giving to much importance on the air war in the east .
It would be difficult for the Soviets,but,IMHO,the chances for the Soviets to goose-step in Berlin,were greater than the chances for the Germans to goose-step some where at the Ural .
A German attack on the SU is impossible without a German attack on Poland,which resulted in a war with the west .The campaigns in Poland and the west resulted in 200000 German casualties and in the loss of thousands of tanks and aircraft .
If in december 1940,Britain had given up,the result would be a German occupation army of 300000 men in Britain,with thousands of aircraft to protect the coasts of Ireland and Britain,against the actions of a British De Gaulle .
All this would result in a German invading force aequal to that of the OTL(3 million) which failed to defeat the SU in the summer of 1941.
For the Germans to have a chance in 1941 ,a doubling of the invading force was needed,and,IMHO,even if Britain was out,this was impossible .The war would go on,and,no one can predict the outcome.What,if there was no war between the US and Japan (because of no embargo),but,OTOHnthere was a US/SU Lend Lease ?

 

It equalled in 1944, despite the desesperated German situation. In this scenario, it would exceed it; no blockade, no submarine production, no bombing, no Lend-Lease.

You can't execute operations with enemy planes controlling the skies. The planes will destroy the supply lines and attack the troops. This was exactly what the Germans did in 1941. The Soviet air situation improved as the war progressed, but so the German improved. However the Germans needed to fight in several fronts.

I think otherwise. Just by maintein the occupation of the Soviet territory for more time, how much millions more the Germans would kill and slave? With millions more killed, the Soviets would continue? They would have man to draft? The Soviet production and offensives would be at least considerably slowed, if not unable to continue without the Lend-Lease. And if the Germans just avoided the Soviets to recapture their rich regions, without the Lend-Lease they would certainly suffocate. Then you make the math of what the Germans would be able to produce, deploy and execute in the time; lots of things. Also, you need to make the math that without need to fight the West, millions more of men used there would been avaliable. Only the disaster of Stalingrad would been more than compensated by the German and Italian troops that fought in Africa (and without much of the Luftwaffe transports in Africa, perhaps there would not be a Stalingrad disaster). There would be always a flux of German soldiers, well trained soldiers, together with pilots and tank crews. Just the production of the Panther in large scale and it's deployment with experienced cews would inflict very high casualities in the Soviet T-34s. Already most of the T-34s were lost in combat. You know, it's mind boggling the negative consequences the Russians would experience.

Yes. But the scenario is not realistic anyway. I just want to say for those who like to desconsiderate the Western participation in the war, to be more careful.