What if western Allies agreed to truce with Germany

I agree with Sloniksp.
If Axis could throw 700+ divisions against Soviet, got help from aliens and the Moon would've fall on the Siberian part of Russia - then no doubt axis would've win!


I think it's silly that people are fantasize about 700+ Axis divisions.

 

Not silly just an observation, i would suggest you find out how many divisions the Axis could field during WWII (excluding the Japanese) and throw them against the Soviets, and before you comment, i know how many divisions the Soviets had and in itself had impessive numbers, it is just my belief without Britain and USA offering no military aid or lend-lease to the Soviets it would be tough to take on the entire Axis by itself.

The only silly comment is this tired old help from aliens jibe, that is so passe, in itself is joke just like the "loser sneeze".

 

Thanks for your suggestion, but i actually did look into it befor i made my previous post! That's why i sad talk about 700+ Axis divisions on the Eastern front (in 1941 ) is silly. It is in the same lines with alliens IMO.

But, now i can see you're talking about "during WWII" . I think you Sir should be more specifik on the period of time we talk here about. Otherwise people might think we talking about whole periode of WWII in wich case number 700 might be possible.

Another thing i noticed in you post Rundstedt is you're saying and i qoute "Germany could have fielded something like 300+ divisions". Generally i don't like terms like that used in describing History . IMO History should be more precise science.

In 1941
- Germany field -210 divisions
- Italy -64
- Romania -33

Here is the list of Germans divisions by month through the entire war:

Axis History Factbook: Number of German divisions by front

Very interesting info IMO.

So, is it "at one point or another" or " throughout the war" ?

I'd really like to see some confirmation on this one. Even if it's true, the key words would be: throughout the war . NOT the summer of 1941.

Looks like you mixed this up Rundstedt.

That is another thing wich is off.
First you calulate the unreal amount of Axis divisions and then you assume they could all at once be send to fight russkie.

Axis could've nevere send 100% of their divisions to the East. Even if they were to became a "best friends" with UK and USA all of a sudden.

Two reasons for that:

- Even in case of signing of a peace with UK/USA, Axis had make sure not to be backstubbed by their new "friends".
- Keep oppressing force in occupied countries. Wrong to belive that for example French would convert to Nazi over night.

Based on that, i belive number of Axis divisions in the West would not have changed much. That means --> roughly the same number on the East.

No one should underestimate the part wich played Lend-Lease and other help from Allies toward Soviets.
But, on another hand, Soviets defeted Axis in " Battale for Moscow" and " Stalingrad" befor main goodies start arraving from allies. Lend-Lease first really took off from 1943 and on.


EDIT

Another thing just caught my eye:

Does that mean Rundstedt that you did't include 39 Waffen-SS divisions in you account of 300+ German divisions? Looks like double count to me...

From link i posted above - it's looks like Dec 1943 would be the pik for Germany in a number of divisions. Wich is 296, including all Waffen-SS, Panzer, Fallschirmjäger, etc., etc.
From wich aprox 75% were at the Eastern Front.

So yeah, 700+ Axis divisions on the Eastern Front in 1941 is a silly dream, nothing more. Even for "What If" scenario of a peace treaty between Germany and UK/USA.

 

When Germany launched Barbarossa, she die so with 80% of her war machine, plus with roughly 1 million of her allies. And failed to accomplish her main tasks ( Leningrad, Moscow and later Stalingrad ) while Russia was at her most vulnerable state and with NO lend lease.

Germany also suffered 80% of her casualties on the Eastern Front, perhaps if she sent in all of her troops then her casualty list might be 100%?

Sorry, I just couldnt resist

Oh and an excellent link Troglodyte, I have stumbled upon this on in the past but could have failed to find it again. Thanks!

 

I have quoted what i have read in books by Ellis and George. F. Nafziger, i relied upon their vast knowledge, so don't shoot the messenger, i have gone onto sites such as AxisHistory and Feldgrau and others and read other books on Orders of Battle of the Axis and have noticed how varied their information is, not one of them consistant with the other, so yeah my information on Divisions fielded is inaccurate but so is every one else, if you are the definiative expert on the subject and know everything i suggest you write the definiative book on the subject and write the mistakes and inconsistancies of others in the field.

 

Rundstedt, i was thinking about asking you the names of the books your were refering too. But, don't worry i'm not going to bother you with that. Kinda alredy know the answer i'll get.

Thanks for the tip about writing a Book! I might just do that, have plenty of time yet.

 

Hiter's propaganda minister, Goebbels, thought that if they held out for a while against the Russians in Berlin then the Germans could make a deal with the Americans and British Commonwealth. This obviously would never have happened, because the 3 allied supreme powers (US, UK and Russia) were already in it to the end because of the Yalta conference and they knew that the Nazi Socalist nation had to be destroyed so that November 1918 wouldn't happen again.

 

Also during the last moments Göbbels probably thought he could make a deal with the Russians because he did not commit suicide straight away once Hitler was dead. I think they sent Krebs to negotiate a possible deal and only when this failed did Göbbels kill his family and himself.Interesting isn´t it?

 

Are we talking about Occupying or Defeating?

 

One note on the subject of divisions fielded: It isn't just the number of "divisions" fielded, but their composition and quality that matters. A division that consists of say just 7 battalions of infantry and three artillery battalions that is largely equipped with indifferent materials, much of it captured, and lacks mobility is a far cry from say a typical Allied divsion with 9 or 10 battalions, 4 or more artillery battalions, equipped with top quality weapons and supported by a full logistics system and additional non-divisional support units all of which have adequite mobility.
The first is a "division" on paper but really maybe half a division or less compared to an Allied one.
Without this consideration, comparing numbers of divisions raised is largely meaningless.

 

We? Who the heck is 'we' ?

Besides...

You are talking of occupation forces moved to an operational zone, so we are allowed to question their combat value other than as cannon fodder. For an Infantry division to operate as an effective force it will need its full complement of support weapons, namely its artillery, at full strength, otherwise it won't be much use other than being able to occupy terrain and at reduced effectiveness at that. And I'm not going into it's logistical ability, as an occupying force will require less meansof transport (i.e. horses) than a movable one. At least their fodder requirements will be lesser.

So it seems you've got a non-starter here.

 

Well sorry for my short and simple answer but that never would happend.

 

I don't have a non-starter here i have addressed that in accordance with the original thread question and that is if were to strip all divisions that historically fought in North Africa/Balkans-Aegean/Italy, and that were stationed in France/Norway and the Low Countries thus leaving only static and security division, this would leave approximately 125 divisions, now after doing more research on this i have to whittle some away due to the fact many of those eventually did fight on the E-Front, thus leaving something like 75 divisions that could again be sent to the front by late 1942, i am quite sure that would give Germany at the time an enormous balance of power.

Another factor that a truce/armistice with Germany means no stategic bombing of Germany's industrial capacity meaning that Germany goes about it's war production without interference, and no destruction on her vital transportation hubs, her lines of communication remain intact, also the Roumanian oil fields remain intact and remain in full production in 1942/43/44/45. Germany's Luftwaffe remains intact, no longer fighting a two front war that is committed 24hrs a day. Also trade would have to be in the truce/armistice it would have mean that Germany is once again open to trade with America and Britain and other nations as well, i have rethunk the issue of Lend Lease and of course the US could still have lend lease with the Soviet Union but also with Germany, Imagine the Luftwaffe with 5,000 B-17's in service, or an additional 10,000 Shermans in her Panzerwaffe. The USA selling to both sides would make the USA very ruch post war.

One aspect of Britain signing a truce or armistice with Germany would be the revocakation of Declarations of War by Commonwealth Nations and that trade amongst those nations can now be sent into Germany. I will end by saying that without Britain/Commonwealth Nations and America, the Soviet Union would eventually lose.

 

This post reasoning has been rebuffed by pretty much all, yet you still return with the same nonesense, Bizarre.......

 

Ok what you are saying if i read you right, Germany and Axis Allies would still lose against the Soviets.

So this is what would not happen if Germany was to sign a truce with Britain and America.

Operation Torch (Invasion of North Africa and eventually Italy)
Operation Overlord (Invasion of France)
Operation Pointblank (The stategic air offensive of the RAF and USAAF).

Even all this is taken out of the equation, the entire Axis Alliance would still be beaten by the Soviets.

So answer me this, is the Soviets capable of opening up a second and third fronts to divert German forces, is the Soviet Union fully capable of taking on the sole role of a round the clock strategic air offensive and leading to the destuction of the German war effort the Soviet Red Airforce alone would need to launch at least 1.25 to 1.4 million sorties committs at least over the period of 1942 to 1945 a minimum of 110,000 aircraft, at least half that in four engined heavies, also the Soviet Red Navy would have to take on the sole role of eliminating the Kriegsmarine. And then destroy some thing like 600 to 700 Axis divisions on the ground. And to finish off hope to god that the scientists in the Soviet Union develop nuclear capability before Germany.

 

I don't know, if the Germans would have captured Moscow that would be it for the Red Army, Stalin had already signed a peace pact with Hitler. Now what would have happened is there would have been a unrelenting guerrilla war waged by the Russians on the Germans, doesn't mean they would have overthrown them though. Plus Hitler even said he was expecting an ongoing guerrilla war in Russia, they got very very close to taking Russia, I wouldn't say it never could have happened. But once they retreated there was no stopping the Russian hordes. Numbers definitely help, but not always, the Red Army was short on weapons during the battle of Stalingrad, one out of two Russian soldiers didn't have a rifle to fight with. The Nazis had tanks, artillery, a well mechanized Wehrmacht, stukas overhead.....and the Russians? had numbers on their side.....? come on.

 

YES

What second and third fronts? Surely your not implying that the Germans were capable of doing this when they could barely support their lines 40 miles away from Moscow on 1 front?

The Soviet Union was able to secure Moscow from the LW with it air defenses. The raids on Moscow steadily declined as more German planes were being shot down vs the damage they were inflicting.... In fact when the British representitives arrived in Moscow after Typhoon they were amazed as to how little damage the city received in comparison to London. So yes, the Soviet Union was capable of resisting the LW threat at least to a point where the Red Army was capable of accomplishing its objectives. Not to mention that one major reason why the allied bombing campaigns had such an impact is due to the fact that most of the LW was in or had fallen in Russia.

The LW had no long range bombers capable of inflicting ANY damage or interruption on the Soviet Industry which was over a thousand miles to the east of Moscow. This is why the Soviet Union within 1 year was able to outproduce Germany in virtually evey field.

As for the 600 to 700 hundred Axis division.... I dont even know where this number comes from. Germany was unable to muster more then 270 divisions(?) For the First 2 years the Soviet Union fought 80% of the BEST of what Germany had to offer and all of Germany's allies ( with the exception of Italian troops in Africa ) 1 million of them practically by herself.

Germany's allies proved to be good at one thing, cannon fodder. These allies had no tanks, artillery or planes even worth mentioning. They lacked leadership, supplies, experience and motivation.... These Axis allies resembled the Red Army in the first 4 months of Barbarossa.... They were worthless! ( With the exception of Finland, which had some success but only in retaking what she lost in the Winter War at least for a short while )

As for the Soviet Navy.... you have me there, the Soviet Union simply lacked one, then again it was far from a priority...

1, I have provided numerous posts contradicting your assumption on Russian plans had Mosocow fallen. YOU HAVE FAILED TO READ MY POSTS.

2. When did Hitler say he was expecting as guerilla warfare in Russia?

3. What Asian hordes are you talking about? If your unaware as to what Russians look like, please feel free to look at my pic in the Rogue gallery I look nothing of the sort.

4. No, the Germans did not get "VERY VERY CLOSE" in taking Russia. They got within 40 miles of Moscow then they were stopped and they never got that close again.

5. As for your numbers, the Germans and their allies outnumbered the Red Army in the beginning and held almost every possible advantage in the opening moths of Barbarossa.

6. Not every Russian soldier failed to have a gun. Far from the truth in this time period. Only Penal units were the ones with such shortages, most of the time. Stop watching Hollywood (enemy at the Gates ) and pick up a book...... Many Russians consider that movie insulting as it is nothing other then the distortion of facts.

7. This brilliant comment

is trully the icing on the cake! What peace treaty did Stalin sign with Hitler? Last time I checked, Germany and Russia signed the non-agression pact together in 39' carving out Poland and boosting trade amongst themselves. Then Hitler broke this pact and attacked, then shot himself 4 years later for doing so.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject is amazing. I believe you are now working on extra credit points in showing everyone in this great forum that you know virtually nothing other then Hollywood on the matter. Whats amazing is that you have been provided accurate information from multiple sources on the matter from many members and you fail to even make an attempt at reading it...... Unlike other forums which you might have visited in the past, members here actually tend to read which is why the information circulating in this place tends to contradict your constant ludicrous beliefs. Perhaps if you have read some works (reliable) then you would not be poised to try to pollute this forum with such trash.

With all due respect......


P.S.

Hitler is a Wanker

 

People sometimes say to me: "Be careful! You will have twenty years of guerrilla warfare on your hands!" I am delighted at the prospect... Germany will remain in a state of perpetual alertness.

Adolf Hitler
August 29, 1942

40 miles isn't close!? please tell me your being sarcastic. Asian hordes or the Russian hordes, same thing. Stalin had signed a peace pact with Hitler, but since they could never reach Moscow to capture it Stalin had no reason to fulfill the agreement. My lack of knowledge? you failed to point that out to me, except your own lack of knowledge about Hitler's remark. Referring to your statement about numbers win a war I repeat

The Nazis had tanks, artillery, a well mechanized Wehrmacht, stukas overhead.....and the Russians? had numbers.....? come on.

It was the bitter cold! thats it.

 

Hey, are you Stoopid? I have a lot of Russian immigrants working in my country. They are all taller than me, all have fairer hair than me, have bluer eyes than me. They don't look very much like Genghis Khan Mongols!

From this forums gallery:

 

Nazi dogs or Stupid PactofSteal, same thing.

He doesnt want to know the truth as it might destroy his German wet dreams......

I will no longer feed the troll!