Would Operation Barbarossa still be executed if Britain is out of WW2 by then?

[Barry Bull]

From your source:

"We cannot measure the distance of the Soviet economy from the point of collapse in 1942, but it seems beyond doubt that collapse was near. Without Lend-Lease it would have been nearer."}

It is speculation, it is right there.

Are you calling reasonable postulation by professional historian who had gone through primary sources "Speculation"?

Given that you have not provided any source to support your argument, aren't your posts also mere speculations, unsupported by primary and secondary sources?

 

[JAG88]

Are you calling reasonable postulation by professional historian who had gone through primary sources "Speculation"?

Given that you have not provided any source to support your argument, aren't your posts also mere speculations, unsupported by primary and secondary sources?

Read the quote, he admits he cannot measure nor determine the point of collapse, all he offers is that they would have been worse off without it, no $hit...

What I said is that the bulk of L&L arrived in 1943 and after, provided tables, perhaps you missed them? Or didnt understand them? Let me know...

 

[Barry Bull]

Read the quote, he admits he cannot measure nor determine the point of collapse, all he offers is that they would have been worse off without it, no $hit...

What I said is that the bulk of L&L arrived in 1943 and after, provided tables, perhaps you missed them? Or didnt understand them? Let me know...

Have you read the whole article which explained why the Soviet was likely to have collapsed in 1942 without the LL, even though the amount delivered was relatively small before to 1943.

No one is disputing that the bulk of LL cargo was delivered in 1943 and thereafter, but you are not answering what other posters are arguing i.e. The small amount of LL cargo delivered before 1943 was cruical to pre 1943 Soviet survival.

You are welcome to argue against the aforesaid notion, but merely repeating "the bulk of L&L arrived in 1943 and after" is not answering other people's queries.

 

[JAG88]

Have you read the whole article which explained why the Soviet was likely to have collapsed in 1942 without the LL, even though the amount delivered was relatively small before to 1943.

No one is disputing that the bulk of LL cargo was delivered in 1943 and thereafter, but you are not answering what other posters are arguing i.e. The small amount of LL cargo delivered before 1943 was cruical to pre 1943 Soviet survival.

You are welcome to argue against the aforesaid notion, but merely repeating "the bulk of L&L arrived in 1943 and after" is not answering other people's queries.

I quoted the author's own conclusion, he cant affirm that the USSR would have collapsed without it, only that it would have been closer to it... big whoop.

The source provided doesnt support the claim being made, actually it does the opposite.

I am glad that at least you are no longer accusing me of providing no sources... that is a start I guess.

 

[steamboy]

Of course it would have happened. Hitler and co had kind of been broadcasting about their views on the Russians and slavs for over a decade with this little thing called Mein Kamf.

 

[DrakonFin]

The Finnish advance stopped because the Americans "ordered" it. It's hard to see the Americans making this threat without the British in the war, or the Finns taking it as seriously. From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Aspirations,_war_effort_and_international_relations

The Americans and the British both applied a lot of political pressure against the Finns in 1941 to stop the attack. And yet the Finns took their objectives in Soviet Karelia according to plan, to reach the so-called three isthmus line that was considered the most defensible. The Finnish leadership did of course listen the British and American opinions very closely, but the Finnish advance was not stopped because of them. The Finnish advance did not end in early November (the date mentioned in that quote) but would continue until December 8th when the Finns took Medvezhyegorsk and reached the Stalin Canal. The Finns in fact also took a part of the original Murmansk railway (the part running along the shore of Lake Onega), so it was not as if American pressure would have stopped the Finns from going against the railway entirely as one might understand from your quote.

The same book referenced in your quote also says that the military effort used for the advance was a major burden for the Finnish nation, and that a lot of soldiers needed to be demobilised already during the fall to support the Finnish war economy. The Finnish advance would have been needed to stop when it was stopped IOTL, in December 1941, pretty much due to supply and logistical issues alone. At the very least, Finland needed a breather before any continued major operations. Such as the planned one against the Murmansk railway, that is against the branch between Belomorsk and Obozersky that made Soviet rail traffic between Murmansk and the rest of the USSR possible even if the Finns had taken a part of the Murmansk railway proper.

 

[Aber]

What I said is that the bulk of L&L arrived in 1943 and after, provided tables, perhaps you missed them? Or didnt understand them? Let me know...

Tables also show that a huge amount of bombs were dropped on Germany in 1945; but nobody's arguing that these had the most impact on the course of the war.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Because the Red Army was defeated repeatedly in OTL 1941. Would the better prepared Red Army need that much external assistance in TTL, esp. if the German-Soviet war is postponed to after 1941?

If the war happened in 1942 probably not as much, but remember that if Britain is out the Axis would have quite a bit of extra material heft themselves, which would require the Soviets to either have stepped up their game considerably or have a lot more internally produced material to compensate.

 

[merlin]

The longer the Germans leave any attack after 'peace in the west' the less believable would their answers to 'why haven't you demobilised?'

In '41 they could claim, for example, that they were conducting 'exercise' to absorb the lessons of fighting in the previous year. With no one left to 'fight' you have no reason to deploy a huge army, so leaving it until '42 would be suspicious.
In OTL Stalin had warnings from Britain, and dissident Germans who supplied info to the Soviets - the British were not believed - a provocation, while the 'dissidents' were also suspect. The only cause for complaint that Russia could have in this eventuality also as per OTL, was the spying photo-recon overflights of Soviet territory.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

If the war happened in 1942 probably not as much, but remember that if Britain is out the Axis would have quite a bit of extra material heft themselves, which would require the Soviets to either have stepped up their game considerably or have a lot more internally produced material to compensate.

Well, the historical Barbarossa destroyed or disrupted 85% of Soviet war industry in late-1941 alone, never mind the civilian and dual-use industries. Suffice to say, the Soviets would have a lot more internally produced material to compensate. Additionally, even a peaced out (for now) Britain and America would be hostile to the Germans, which translates into Anglo-American aid for the Soviets and trade wars to lock the Germans out of foreign markets.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Well, the historical Barbarossa destroyed or disrupted 85% of Soviet war industry in late-1941 alone, never mind the civilian and dual-use industries. Suffice to say, the Soviets would have a lot more internally produced material to compensate. Additionally, even a peaced out (for now) Britain and America would be hostile to the Germans, which translates into Anglo-American aid for the Soviets and trade wars to lock the Germans out of foreign markets.

85%? What are you counting as disrupted?
Also who is to say that a later invasion without Britain in the war wouldn't see similar levels of destruction/disruption? Aid may just end up being cash and carry like it was for Britain and it was for the USSR until October 1941 per US law. Britain might well just sit back and watch while retaining equipment for itself other than what the Soviets want to buy from them.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

85%? What are you counting as disrupted?

Yes. 85%. That’s the figure given by Voznensky for factories that were either “lost/captured or out of order” in 1941. Further German advances in ‘42 also set off a second round of losses, evacuations, and disruptions. Even in the latter case where a factory was out of order because of evacuation, it could take years before production was restarted, depending on the factory and the priority it received. There’s the case of a munitions factory evacuated in 1941 not restarting production until the start of ‘43 and didn’t reach pre-war capacity until the end of the year. I’m not even factoring in how the loss of major resource stockpiles also affected production.

Also who is to say that a later invasion without Britain in the war wouldn't see similar levels of destruction/disruption?

Well, for a ‘42 Barbarossa, given the improvements the Red Army would make in it’s rearmament and reform program would render it possible to blunt the German invasion down to an attritional slugfest in the frontier region, which obviously leaves Soviet industry rather untouched. A ‘41 invasion is, obviously, a much more iffy affair and avoiding some degree of industrial disruption and destruction is impossible then even if the Soviets handle Barbarossa better (and it’s entirely possible they don’t).

I’m just assuming for the moment Soviets do manage to dodge the damage, however they do it being beside the point.

Aid may just end up being cash and carry like it was for Britain and it was for the USSR until October 1941 per US law. Britain might well just sit back and watch while retaining equipment for itself other than what the Soviets want to buy from them.

Strictly speaking, the Soviets were never subjected to cash-and-carry and a lot of American aid given to them in June-September was never paid for. In some cases lend-lease was retroactively applied to them and in other cases the law was just ignored. Whether that would be the case or not ATL is dependent on a number of issues, some under Soviet/German control and some not, but I’m just observing it could happen.

 

[Athelstane]

Well, the historical Barbarossa destroyed or disrupted 85% of Soviet war industry in late-1941 alone, never mind the civilian and dual-use industries. Suffice to say, the Soviets would have a lot more internally produced material to compensate. Additionally, even a peaced out (for now) Britain and America would be hostile to the Germans, which translates into Anglo-American aid for the Soviets and trade wars to lock the Germans out of foreign markets.

Hostile to the Germans, perhaps, but not exactly friendly to the Soviets, either.

The Soviet role in the 1939-40 war would not (and in OTL, did not) exactly endear them to Western leadership in London or Washington. And London is no longer fighting for its life.

And if Halifax is the PM - he was always more tepid toward working with Moscow than Churchill had been.

I think you'll see trade, but no Lend-Lease or wink-and-a-nudge shipments. The British won't be in quite as feverish of a rearmament mode since they're at peace; but Lend-Lease will not exist for either them or Russia, so it's cash and carry, and any Halifax or Attlee government will stay within their ability to pay. This also means less British material available to send to Russia.

 

[JAG88]

Tables also show that a huge amount of bombs were dropped on Germany in 1945; but nobody's arguing that these had the most impact on the course of the war.

Specially me, so what is your point?

 

[M79]

Perhaps we can agree that while the qualitative majority of the Lend Lease supplies to the USSR in/after 1943 their impact in late 1941/1942 is perhaps markedly understated?

 

[JAG88]

Perhaps we can agree that while the qualitative majority of the Lend Lease supplies to the USSR in/after 1943 their impact in late 1941/1942 is perhaps markedly understated?

Given how much some people want to make out of some tanks and planes in late 1941 I would argue for the contrary...

The reds simply kept throwing men at the Germans in 1941/2 regardless of equipment and supplies, the few things sent to them were helpful but not very relevant in the huge expanse of the eastern front.

Without them they would have done what they had been doing what they did since they ran out of regular troops, throw badly armed and badly led reservists at the Germans and slowly bleed them white, which they had already achieved by late 1941.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Given how much some people want to make out of some tanks and planes in late 1941 I would argue for the contrary...

The reds simply kept throwing men at the Germans in 1941/2 regardless of equipment and supplies, the few things sent to them were helpful but not very relevant in the huge expanse of the eastern front.

Without them they would have done what they had been doing what they did since they ran out of regular troops, throw badly armed and badly led reservists at the Germans and slowly bleed them white, which they had already achieved by late 1941.

Kind of hard to do without food. They were down to 40% of their arable land by the point Kuban was lost in Summer 1942.

 

[JAG88]

Kind of hard to do without food. They were down to 40% of their arable land by the point Kuban was lost in Summer 1942.

They took too many men from the arable land they had, they should and could have taken less.

 

[James Ricker]

Yes, because Nazi ideology demanded it

 

[AdA]

Why assume that without Britain in the war there would be no Lend Lease?
It was never in the USA interest to have a Nazi dominated Europe. The whole reason why the Nazis wanted to create an European superpower was to be able to fight the existing superpower across the Atlantic.
If Britain was out of the war the USA would support who ever fought Hitler.