Could the USSR Have Defeated Nazi Germany Without the Help of the Western Allies?

I have been pondering this question for some time, and we have gone back-and-forth on this board an uncountable number of times about it. Could the Soviet Union have defeated Nazi Germany without the help of the Western Allies?

Imagine no supplies reading the Soviet Union via the Arctic convey routes or Iran. Imagine no bombing raids against Germany by the Western Allies? Imagine no Italian Front and no cross-Channel invasion. If none of these things had happened, would the flag of the Red Army still be lifted above Berlin at some point?

POD could be anything. Perhaps a Halifax government government makes peace with Germany in 1940. Whatever- it doesn't matter. I'm just curious about the question.

Discuss!

Would've been an extremely long and difficult battle, but I think Germany and her allies would barely prevail.

Unless the Stalinist government was toppled in 1941, then yes. There is no way the Reich could have won. It might take ten years, but the Soviets would win through attrition. Without American arms, the Soviets would have been in bad shape for the first couple of years, while its industry was moved east of the Urals.

I voted no. IOTL, they received a lot of Lend-Lease aid which helped them pull through the tough years of 41-43. Without all those trucks, their logistical capability would have been smaller and I'd be surprised if they pushed back the Germans to '41 borders with a smaller tank production (due to more truck production).

Also, IOTL the Nazis were fighting on multiple fronts (Africa, later southern Italy and France) and were being bombed around the clock. Without a bombing campaign, German production would be higher and with a neutral Britain the Germans could just import the stuff they themselves lack. Also, all the troops on air-defence duties and Luftwaffe units in Germany could be shifted east. The odds are stacking against Stalin who now only has his strategic depth to retreat into. OTOH, he might be more prepared. If Britain makes peace and Germany continues war production, even he is bound to notice (but then again the Red Army was crap in 1941 so how much difference will there be with Stalin in charge ordering badly prepared counteroffensives?).

Brest-Litovsk V 2.0 is best case scenario unless Hitler does something incredibly stupid (even compared to OTL, that is). Stalin will strike back eventually though and in Hitler vs. Stalin round 2 we might see nukes being used.

One on One.

Nazi Germany vs Soviet Russia, Russia still wins.

Both governments would collapse before the war decisively ends.

Yes. Even if it's a phyrric victory, it still counts.

Campbell1004 said:

One on One.

Nazi Germany vs Soviet Russia, Russia still wins.

Click to expand...

That's a myth generated by successful Soviet propaganda. Look at the numbers. The Germans took half of their industry and population. In a one on one fight without Lend-Lease and no other fronts for Germany, they can't win, not a conventional war in any case. And don't come to me with Siberian factories and how Stalin could magically pull tanks out of his ass. One his own he couldn't win (something his incompetence had partially caused by the way). If the USSR has to produce its own trucks, tank production will be lower (and they have to cause they need trucks and with half of their industry in German hands, tank production can't become as massive as it did IOTL with western help).

Onkel Willie said:

That's a myth generated by successful Soviet propaganda. Look at the numbers. The Germans took half of their industry and population. In a one on one fight without Lend-Lease and no other fronts for Germany, they can't win, not a conventional war in any case. And don't come to me with Siberian factories and how Stalin could magically pull tanks out of his ass. One his own he couldn't win (something his incompetence had partially caused by the way). If the USSR has to produce its own trucks, tank production will be lower (and they have to cause they need trucks and with half of their industry in German hands, tank production can't become as massive as it did IOTL with western help).

Click to expand...

What constitutes a victory in this case? If it's the defeat of all Soviet forces and occupation of all their major hardpoints, then Germany cannot do that, period. One must bear in mind poor German strategic decisions, and not just industrial figures.

Russia would lose, but they could still pose to be a serious problem in terms of partisan resistance for quite some time.

Ultimately the strategy of Lebernsraum was doomed to failure, even if the Soviets were pushed beyond the Urals, they'd be back. The steppe would become a black hole for German capital and militarily an insane challenge to defend.

There's a TL I pondered a while back, basically an isolationist US never pisses off Japan, meaning Britain is left alone in the west. Churchill organises landings in Sicily and Crete by 1944, before a bloody slog secures Greece and Southern Italy by 1946, along with Sardinia and Corsica. At the same time the Soviets have slowly pushed the Germans back (Lend-Lease is replaced by good ole' trade, as the Soviet war machine is a useful customer to get America back on its feet). A deal is made with Vichy and France is liberated by a mass uprising heavily armed by Britain, plus limited landings. By 1947 the war is over, with Germany and Northern Italy initially acting as neutral buffers between the Two Blocs, however by 1950 both have fallen to Communists. The Soviets despite the ravages of the War are in FAR better shape than Britain and France and effectively offer economic aid ala the Marshall Plan (though obviously on a far more limited scale), something the Empires can't really do.

But yeah, America was a close trading partner with Russia for decades before Barbarossa, they might not be freebies but I can imagine American munitions still getting to Moscow, and as said ultimately the USSR has advantages of men and resources so the longer the war, the better for them.

No. The trucks, the quality avgas, the extra food, medicine, radios, and all of the other various bits of gear that got sent to the Russians were what enabled them to actually maintain their war effort. Take that away and either they have to divert industrial capacity they can't spare to making these things or they don't make them and then have their logistics utterly collapse.

Russia would partly win, pushing Germany into Poland, before the two exausted empires make peace like Iraq and Iran.

Don't forget that without a Western Front or a hreat of such, Germany wouldn't have had a million men tied up in AA defense, and would have had thousands of AA guns, primarily 88s, available for anti-tank duty on the Eastern Front. Additionally, they would not have been forced to continually drain off units to Africa, Italy/Sicily, France, etc., nor would they have been forced to garrison Norway or the Balkans or anywhere else nearly as extensively. For example, as of D-Day, the Germans had on the order of 46 divisions in France, and something like 30-40 more in Italy and the Balkans.

The weren't all of great quality, but imagine not only their immediate effect in the East, but their CUMULATIVE effect, had they been available from Day 1.

Germany also diverted very significant air assets to the West, which would have been very helpful in the East.

All of this doesn't even take Lend Lease into account, which had very little measurable effect until early 1943. However, as has been pointed out, the trucks and avgas were vital, as were little things that we don't always think about, like food and clothing. Yes, the Soviets could have replaced them, but only at the cost of tanks and guns.

Obviously, I don't think the Soviets could have defeated Germany alone.

I have to say definitely. The Soviet Union made a rather poor showing in the war up until at least 1943--hobbled by poor commands, political control over the armed forces at the expense of critically needed flexibility of command, inferior gear (to be honest, German Gear in WW2 was probably superior to anyone else in the war), and of course, the implications of the great purges and the horrible positioning of forces in Barbarossa proper.

The Soviet Union has the ability to fight the war far better than OTL. Even something like KOing Finland in the Winter War and turning it into a vassal state would greatly improve the situation of the Soviets. The answer to this question has to be yes--if the Western Allies aren't playing, then the Soviet Union wouldn't be at such a low level of readiness on June 22nd.

When I wargamed the position of the Soviet Union, I was able to use a fighting withdrawal to jam the German advance and deploy a major attack against Finland--grabbing Helsinki and knocking them out for good. I was then able to continue the slow withdrawal and swing south, taking the Ploesti Oil Fields. While such a case is clearly SovWank, with a PoD of October 1939 it is clearly obvious that the Soviets can turn Barbarossa into a horrible disaster for Germany.

Germany got very lucky against the Soviet Union in its surprise attack in Barbarossa. To reduce this to even "Average" luck would clearly lead to a major Soviet Victory. The only reason this is a question at all is because the Soviets fared so poorly in 1941--and they would not fare so poorly if they understood that there would be no West in play.

Blatant Plagiarism!

Otto Skorzeny kills Joseph Stalin with this bare hands, throws him off the highest tower of the Kremlin, and screams into the night, "I am the New Aryan Man! Fear Me!!! Uhh, where is everybody..."

Definitely, if the surprise of Barbarossa was maintained in this POD and "win" is defined as win in the conventional war (if not, then maybe).

If the surprise was kept, then I would assume that peace with the UK would allow the start of Barbarossa a few months earlier. That would probably allow the Germans to capture Moscow, which just knocks out the largest railway, industrial, and political hub of the country, not to mention the huge hit on morale that would have on Soviet troops. This also frees up tons of Italian troops, which probably won't have much of an impact on the front lines, but would certainly relieve Germany of partisan and supply duties.

Another huge implication of the UK surrendering is the avoidance of the losses in the Battle of Britain and the following strategic bombing on Germany. This would mean more experienced pilots, and more planes to fly them on. Without the Allies, Germany proper would simply be untouched by the war.

Also, this win against Britain would free up troops in France that were kept for occupational duties. After all, France was set to become relatively independent after the war against the Allies. And without France, Germany wouldn't have to deal with creating the Atlantic wall defenses which obviously could have led to further material advantages towards Germany.

Nazi Germany probably couldn't have done it. You would need to change the top leadership creating too many butterflies. If a coup occurred and somehow Germany still wanted to invade the USSR, then it would be a lot different.

Doraemon said:

Definitely, if the surprise of Barbarossa was maintained in this POD and "win" is defined as win in the conventional war (if not, then maybe).

If the surprise was kept, then I would assume that peace with the UK would allow the start of Barbarossa a few months earlier. That would probably allow the Germans to capture Moscow, which just knocks out the largest railway, industrial, and political hub of the country, not to mention the huge hit on morale that would have on Soviet troops. This also frees up tons of Italian troops, which probably won't have much of an impact on the front lines, but would certainly relieve Germany of partisan and supply duties.

Another huge implication of the UK surrendering is the avoidance of the losses in the Battle of Britain and the following strategic bombing on Germany. This would mean more experienced pilots, and more planes to fly them on. Without the Allies, Germany proper would simply be untouched by the war.

Also, this win against Britain would free up troops in France that were kept for occupational duties. After all, France was set to become relatively independent after the war against the Allies. And without France, Germany wouldn't have to deal with creating the Atlantic wall defenses which obviously could have led to further material advantages towards Germany.

Click to expand...

These conditions don't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest.

No Allies, and:

The Soviets can take all of Finland.
The Soviets are not going to think that Germany has a different foe to fight, therefore the entire structure of the Red Army will be such to survive an invasion from German Forces.
The Soviets would stop supplying Germany with resources.

In short, the Soviets don't deserve the disadvantages and constraints that come with consideration of the allies--and I'm not at all sure that a lack of Allied Aid is anywhere near as serious a detriment as losing the standing Red Army of 1941. Germany can't win against the Soviets if they're ready for a fight, if they've completely removed any threat to them from the North and if they don't suffer the massive encirclements at the start of the war.

It is very easy to consider a better war for the Soviets to more than compensate for allied help.

A valid point was raised here that we must bear in mind, and that was concerning Soviet perparedness.

Stalin knew of the exact date of Barbaross prior to the invasion thanks to Richard Sorge. He dismissed it, however, because (perhaps understandably) he refused to believe that Hitler would turn on him with Britain still in the war. Even when Germany was positioning troops on the border, he didn't think they'd strike until Churchill called it quits.

With no war in the West, Stalin and the USSR would have been on a much better war footing and most likely not to be so dismissive of intelligence reports. So, no Western front at all means more Soviet preparedness, which probably means a drastically less-effective Barbarossa, and eventual Soviet victory.