Well, is it? I'm not saying the Nazis win the entirety of WW2, but is it plausible they could simply knock out the Soviets? I came across someone who believes any scenario where the Soviets lose is completely impossible. I don't agree, but I figured I'd get some opinions from you guys. Also, how important were the Far East divisions? Say the Soviets couldn't transfer any divisions from the Far East from around Fall '41 on. Would that effect the West?
Is it plausible for the Soviets to be defeated - WW2
- Thread starter General Mosh
- Start date
BlondieBC
Banned
I have read claims that Stalin either consider or did extend a ceasefire offer to Germany, so if true, then yes. You could also keep the USA out of war with different President. If there was a coup attempt (someone tried to kill Stalin), i could see the USSR falling into Chaos. Or with series of POD to help the Nazi war machine, it gets in the plausible range. Vast will to fight is not the same as unlimited will to fight.
IMO, a more realistic type TL would be an exhausted USSR slowing down the pace of attack after holding the Germans and begin pushing the Germans slowly back. So say the Kursk type scenario where the Germans decide not to attack and the USSR decides not to attacking waiting on the USA to open a second front. If we combine with the Germans doing better in 1941 and 1942 so Russia is more exhausted, it would make an interesting TL.
IMO, a more realistic type TL would be an exhausted USSR slowing down the pace of attack after holding the Germans and begin pushing the Germans slowly back. So say the Kursk type scenario where the Germans decide not to attack and the USSR decides not to attacking waiting on the USA to open a second front. If we combine with the Germans doing better in 1941 and 1942 so Russia is more exhausted, it would make an interesting TL.
MalcontentRex
Banned
Without Lendlease, Western fronts (be they North Africa, Overlord, or the standoff with Britain), and the air war over the Reich to completely draw away the Luftwaffe, the Soviets are royally screwed.
The Nazis obviously won't be able to conquer all of "Russia", but the Soviets will be reduced to along the lines of a Nationalist China.
The Nazis obviously won't be able to conquer all of "Russia", but the Soviets will be reduced to along the lines of a Nationalist China.
In what way might they blunder? And also, how important do you think the 20 or so Far East divisions were in the west?
Mix up the Soviets a bit in a further back POD (eg no 5 year plans, less of a tech base, poor political leadership) and the Reich can bulldoze it's way to the Urals with ease. Anything less than what the Soviets had OTL stood little to no chance of realistically stopping the German conquest of the Russian portion of the USSR.
EDIT: Also no Lendlease will screw them in this scenario, but if the Russians have their tech base they can slowly push the Germans back or stalemate it eventually. It'll just be plenty bloody.
EDIT: Also no Lendlease will screw them in this scenario, but if the Russians have their tech base they can slowly push the Germans back or stalemate it eventually. It'll just be plenty bloody.
BlondieBC
Banned
You need even worse leadership. For a TL, I would go with having Stalin killed by the other Politburo members about a week into the war, then having the leadership fall into chaos as the war gets worse. You need a military blunder. So if the 20 Soviet Siberian division are not sent, this should let the Germans hold part of Moscow over the winter. Say the Soviets decide that Japan will attack. I would be looking for a blunder that would cost the Soviets about 250K extra POW/KIA to light German losses. OR You probably could have the Leningrad defense handled poorly, and having the city fall quickly. This would free up extra German troops. Or maybe the Siberian divisions are used in some pointless attack around Rostov on the Don.
To be honest I posted this because I'm arguing with someone over a scenario I read. In it, the Japanese invade the Maritime Province, tying down Far East divisions. It doesn't say much about the Eastern Front, but it does tell you that Moscow falls, and it kind of hints that the US/UK alliance eventually beats them anyways. However, said person says not only is the scenario implausible, but any defeat of the Soviet Union by the Germans is completely impossible. The former may have a grain of truth, the latter certainly not.
Which kind of sounds like the foundation for an earlier Stalingrad-sized strategic defeat -- this time to Army Group Center.
Lend Lease alone doesn't make or break the Soviet effort. LL merely quickened the Soviet victory.
Seems to me that a POD for a Soviet defeat needs to have so many of the elements mentioned by the earlier posters that, while far from ASB, is unlikely to happen in combination.
BlondieBC
Banned
Well, there is a missing peace of information that I have never seen well analyzed. After X more casualties, the USSR would have been unable/unwilling to continuing fighting. The question is what is X. Million, 5 million, 10 million killed? Another year of war? 20% less food production in 1943. If someone has a feel for this number, then one can back into the POD's that can get there.
And I am not sure Japan attacking turns Moscow into a Stalingrad type defeat. The Soviets had lost most of their tanks and had disbanded their tank armies. To me, encirclement looks a lot harder in this scenario. IOTL, the lead scouts for the Germans had a line of sight on the Kremlin, so for Germany to hold Moscow for parts of the winter involves more removing a counter attack than massive additional German gains.
1. Taking Moscow. Not only extremely unlikely, but also a good way to have Stalingrad x10 happen a lot earlier if it actually does. Also, depends on what other operations you're not committing to if you're committing to taking Moscow. So what are you giving up? Kiev? Crimea? Leningrad? Which armies are the Soviets pulling back for the counter-offensive?
2. Far Eastern Divisions: almost no impact at all. They were at full strength the entire war, and expanded in 42 and again in 44/45. They took some officers, equipment and logistics units from them and transferred the Pacific naval infantry, yes. But the Japanese army is so poor (and the Soviets know this) that they can do the same again and still achieve victory in defense. The rest of the '41 divisions were mostly from European Russia and the Urals, put together in Kazakhstan.
Some Transbaikal units were transferred over the course of the year, but that's Irkutsk, not Ulan Ude/Vladivostok. So Japan declaring war on USSR during Barbarossa - is bad for Japan. Moscow will not fall because of that.
3. LL: extremely important in mid-late '43, made Bagration possible the way it was carried out. Saved a lot of people from starvation. Some impact in '41, yes. About the same as Soviet help to KMT in the prior years in terms of scale (so not decisive). So Moscow will not fall because of that either.
4. No western Front: important but the units it would have freed up would still need oil, food and railways, none of which were adequate in German-controlled Soviet territory. Not a huge factor in '41.
5. Luftwaffe: by '44 the skies were dominated by the VVS. Here is where Western help really did mater. They brought the Aerocobras, the high-octane fuel, and even some structural materials. Would the USSR contest the skies without it? Yes. It just might not be dominant.
However, that's a deep POD that has more to do with taking out the Western Allies altogether.
I think even OTL achievements of the German attack were way out of the ordinary, and on most replays they wouldn't achieve even that much success. So doing better is even more unlikely. I would even say that for all intents and purposes, a clear military victory by Germany can be considered impossible, though a political one (USSR blinks, leadership panics worse than OTL) might be workable.
Of course if you go into negotiated peace territory, then the whole Hitler being Hitler, Nazis being Nazis, and German army in general having nothing but contempt for their counterparts comes into play. War with USSR until complete triumph is the raison d'etre for everything they did up to that point.
If they won't make peace, and a real military victory is extremely unlikely...what realistic victory scenarios are there?
Also: without USSR in the picture, the Western Allies are going to have a very tough time. Until nukes are developed, at least.
2. Far Eastern Divisions: almost no impact at all. They were at full strength the entire war, and expanded in 42 and again in 44/45. They took some officers, equipment and logistics units from them and transferred the Pacific naval infantry, yes. But the Japanese army is so poor (and the Soviets know this) that they can do the same again and still achieve victory in defense. The rest of the '41 divisions were mostly from European Russia and the Urals, put together in Kazakhstan.
Some Transbaikal units were transferred over the course of the year, but that's Irkutsk, not Ulan Ude/Vladivostok. So Japan declaring war on USSR during Barbarossa - is bad for Japan. Moscow will not fall because of that.
3. LL: extremely important in mid-late '43, made Bagration possible the way it was carried out. Saved a lot of people from starvation. Some impact in '41, yes. About the same as Soviet help to KMT in the prior years in terms of scale (so not decisive). So Moscow will not fall because of that either.
4. No western Front: important but the units it would have freed up would still need oil, food and railways, none of which were adequate in German-controlled Soviet territory. Not a huge factor in '41.
5. Luftwaffe: by '44 the skies were dominated by the VVS. Here is where Western help really did mater. They brought the Aerocobras, the high-octane fuel, and even some structural materials. Would the USSR contest the skies without it? Yes. It just might not be dominant.
However, that's a deep POD that has more to do with taking out the Western Allies altogether.
I think even OTL achievements of the German attack were way out of the ordinary, and on most replays they wouldn't achieve even that much success. So doing better is even more unlikely. I would even say that for all intents and purposes, a clear military victory by Germany can be considered impossible, though a political one (USSR blinks, leadership panics worse than OTL) might be workable.
Of course if you go into negotiated peace territory, then the whole Hitler being Hitler, Nazis being Nazis, and German army in general having nothing but contempt for their counterparts comes into play. War with USSR until complete triumph is the raison d'etre for everything they did up to that point.
If they won't make peace, and a real military victory is extremely unlikely...what realistic victory scenarios are there?
Also: without USSR in the picture, the Western Allies are going to have a very tough time. Until nukes are developed, at least.
MalcontentRex
Banned
Look at it. The Soviets weren't really pushing back the Nazis through their own military power (as opposed to capitalizing on Hitler's complete lack of preparation for Generals Winter and Mud) until mid-1943 (i.e. after Kursk)--more than two years after Barbarossa began. Even after this point it was almost another two extremely bloody years before Zhukhov marched on the ruins of Berlin--even though the Third Reich was getting pounded into rubble with the full weight of the USAAF/RAF and was dealing with two western fronts in the final year.
Not coincidentally, mid-1943 marked (a) the time that the Nazis lost air superiority in the east for good (due to thousands of fighters being needed to defend the Reich at home) and (b) the time that truly enormous amounts of L-L were making themselves felt.
Without Lendlease:
a--a significant portion of the Soviet military and a gargantuan portion of Soviet civilians starve to death
b--the Soviets are able to produce very little premium-octane fuels
c--they have far fewer trucks for mobility
d--they have many fewer tank engines
e--advanced new designs such as the JS tanks are delayed because Soviet industry can barely produce enough basic machines
Compare the progress that the Western Allies made in one year (starting from D-Day), with far fewer men, tanks (and many of those inferior to Soviet tanks), and aircraft than the Soviets (and a huge chunk of their production going to Lendlease) to what the Soviets accomplished in four, and you will see what I mean.
I'm not saying the USSR's war effort was trivial--no other nation on planet earth could have suffered the material, human, and psychological loss that it did and survived, but it would still not have amounted to all that much without intensive assistance from the Western Allies.
Not coincidentally, mid-1943 marked (a) the time that the Nazis lost air superiority in the east for good (due to thousands of fighters being needed to defend the Reich at home) and (b) the time that truly enormous amounts of L-L were making themselves felt.
Without Lendlease:
a--a significant portion of the Soviet military and a gargantuan portion of Soviet civilians starve to death
b--the Soviets are able to produce very little premium-octane fuels
c--they have far fewer trucks for mobility
d--they have many fewer tank engines
e--advanced new designs such as the JS tanks are delayed because Soviet industry can barely produce enough basic machines
Compare the progress that the Western Allies made in one year (starting from D-Day), with far fewer men, tanks (and many of those inferior to Soviet tanks), and aircraft than the Soviets (and a huge chunk of their production going to Lendlease) to what the Soviets accomplished in four, and you will see what I mean.
I'm not saying the USSR's war effort was trivial--no other nation on planet earth could have suffered the material, human, and psychological loss that it did and survived, but it would still not have amounted to all that much without intensive assistance from the Western Allies.
Japan attacking?
I wasn't talking about them at all. I was talking about your scenario of the Germans holding a chunk of Moscow over Winter. Yes, the scouts saw the skyline of the Kremlin, just. Briefly. We can't butterfly away the immense difficulties the German's were having at the very end of their logistical train in a season that they weren't fully prepared for.The question you raise about that magic "X" number of Russian casualties is a good one worth exploring. I have no answers for it.
Both of those Western Fronts put together were less than 1/5th in manpower costs of the German forces committed and lost in the East, and often inferior units were involved. That explains your cited dramatic progress without anything else needed. Of course the allies had great logitiscs and tremendous technical expertise, nobody is denying that. And they were way more sparing with their men, nobody is denying that either. But it doesn't explain away the bulk of the German army dying elsewhere being necessary.
"Hitler" is not an excuse I will accept either, no more than you would accept my blaming "oh that's just Stalin" for stupidity during Mars or the disintegration of the Southern Front (which did somewhat well until then) at Kharkov.
So in effect, platitude, platitude, platitude, still trivial, blah blah LL. Except of course I strongly disagree with your interpretation of what happened. It wasn't trivial, it was decisive. Stupid, wasteful, but decisive. The war at large was a team effort, and the other Big Two put in their effort for sure, but how you propose fighting a German army x5/6 times larger without an Eastern Front to occupy 5 of those 6 (and the supplies those 5/6ths need), I don't know.
Last edited:
Stalin decided to move those divisions anyway, deciding that Moscow is more important than Far east. If he isn't sure if japan will attack he may transfer less of the.
They will not be used in soe pointless attack around Rostov. In Novemeber both sides knew Moscow is where everything will be decided so anything fresh goes there. And Stalin finally realised throwing armies at Gemrans doesn't do the trick and he needed to guard fresh troops. And he did.
As for "having sight of Kremlin" that means ef all. I was at Khimki and I can tell you it's quite a distance from Kremlin. It's not same as seeing white cliffs of Dover from France or american politicians gazing upon Mother Russia from their houses
D) but it's close to that. It was Moscow's suburb (still is) and just because you stand in city's suburd it doesn't mean you'll actually take it.I might be recalling incorrectly . . . But I could swear the Soviets actually did try to offer a peace deal to the Germans. I believe it would have for all intents and purposes been a Brest-Litovsk 2.0 . . . But the Germans ignored it because they assumed total victory was assured, and so decided it'd be easier to just redraw the map as they please instead of bothering with peace negotiations.
Then a few years later, when the tide of the war had decisively turned against the Germans, they actually tried to go "Remember that peace deal you offered way back when? We're totally ready to accept it now."
But by this point the Germans were obviously losing, so the Soviets naturally ignored that.
-----------------------
Anyways . . . I'm in the camp that thinks that if the US never bothered to give the Soviets even the tiniest scrap of LL for whatever reason . . . The Soviets wouldn't have been able to defeat Germany.
A German victory over the Soviets would still require a bit of luck, but the Soviets aren't marching into Berlin.
Then a few years later, when the tide of the war had decisively turned against the Germans, they actually tried to go "Remember that peace deal you offered way back when? We're totally ready to accept it now."
But by this point the Germans were obviously losing, so the Soviets naturally ignored that.
-----------------------
Anyways . . . I'm in the camp that thinks that if the US never bothered to give the Soviets even the tiniest scrap of LL for whatever reason . . . The Soviets wouldn't have been able to defeat Germany.
A German victory over the Soviets would still require a bit of luck, but the Soviets aren't marching into Berlin.
Is this no LL, or no buying of anything whatsoever at all? Because there's that option too (and that was the relationship early on).
MalcontentRex
Banned
Winter 1941 Soviet counteroffensive that "saved" Moscow: It only succeeded because the Nazis were freezing to death in their summer uniforms and were grotesquely undersupplied. More Germans died in the late 1941/early 1942 counterattacks from disease, starvation, and hypothermia than the Red Army.
Late 1942 counteroffensive against Case Blue and encirclement of Sixth Army: It only succeeded because (a) once more, the Nazis went in undersupplied and unprepared for winter, and (b) the drawing off of Luftwaffe power enabled the Soviet siege. It was still a pretty close battle, and 100 Ju52s that got sent to Torch might have made all the difference in the world.
Of course Stalin made lots of mistakes; where did I deny that? If he hadn't had purged the entire Red military and sent a sixth of the SU's adult population to the gulags in the decade preceding WWII, of course the Nazis wouldn't have been able to get as far as they did.
I believe the figure is exaggerated--after D-Day I believe the EF took only around 60% of total German manpower--but let's pretend that 5 out of 6 Nazi soldiers were indeed tied up there. Guess what; 5/6 of the Luftwaffe was being destroyed over the Reich itself or the skies over Normandy and Italy. An army of a hundred million quality fighters is pretty helpless if it has zero air support.