Could Germany defeat the Soviet Union one on one?

Could Germany defeat the Soviet Union one on one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 95 41.9%
  • No

    Votes: 59 26.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 73 32.2%

  • Total voters
    227

Deleted member 1487

If Heisenberg gets all the resources and funding he needs, sure. Otherwise, no. The Germans beat the Soviets in every single battle at the tactical level historically. Then the next Corps sized Russian unit came up and the Germans were out of bullets. You can't stop that short of the first sentence given here.
Remove the British economic blockade, strategic bombing, the naval war, and all other fronts in WW2, plus maybe no Battle of Britain losses to the Luftwaffe and no losses from 1941 on for the Luftwaffe and Germany army (Afrika Korps, 2nd and 5th Panzer, plus a LOT more Luftwaffe and paratroopers available for Barbarossa) and you change the war radically. Same with the Italian army being able to send it's own handpicked, perfectly equipped army/air forces in 1941. It's a complete game change for the War in the East. Without Britain and the US the USSR has substantially less GDP than Germany alone, not factoring in Italy and Germany's allies. Plus in terms of combined population the Germans+allies outnumber or at least equal the Soviets. IOTL the Germans from the moment Barbarossa started Germany was still spending over half it's military budget on weapons to fight the British and it only increased as the war went on, meaning Germany never spent more than half it's OTL military budget on fighting the USSR.
https://www.amazon.com/How-War-Was-Won-Cambridge/dp/1107014751/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8

Even with Lend-Lease the USSR would be screwed fighting Germany and it's European allies by itself without Europe being blockaded by the British and later US.
 
Does Hitler still attack France (and capture it)? If yes, and he doesn't launch any attack against Britain (and specifically say so) to concentrate power on SU, he might gain significant edge against the SU.

However, there is an off-chance that Stalin saw through this and prepare before hand. And even if Stalin doesn't, SU still held the edge in term of industrial output and manpower.

It'd be a real tough fight for the SU (I expect the casualty to be about 32 million or more, with total destruction of the western part (modern day Ukraine, Baltic States...) but they would still win
 
Hitler got within 20kms of Moscow, despite that offensive beginning a week before the mud season, and after focussing on the Kiev pocket which wasted a month and a half. Hitler could have had Stalingrad in July 42 if he hadn't diverted tanks to the Don crossing (one of his generals said this just got in the way, did nothing to help the battle).

So I reckon he was close enough to have done it. Moscow was an important rail hub, and an important propaganda point. Taking it in 1941 (August is plausible, September more likely, especially with Smolensk battle etc) would have royally stuffed the Soviets. They could have fought on, from places like Kuybyshev, but after a point they wouldn't have enough big cities to recruit new soldiers from. Sverdlovsk and Vladivostok can't provide nearly as many troops as Moscow or Kuybyshev.

- BNC
 
Britain drops out of the war in 1940 and the Reich never declares war on the US.

Germany can now devote most of their resources, vehicles, manpower, and effort against the USSR in time for Operation Barbarossa. The USSR is still getting Lend Lease though.

Can Germany not distracted by other fronts and campaigns (air, naval, Africa etc) defeat the USSR?

How much does not fighting the US/UK increase the Reich's chances of victory against the USSR?

Much depends on the background, I would guess the UK is rearming and prepping for round 2, which forces Germany to keep a reasonable force present to deter them.

Meanwhile Stalin probably knows he is next and the Russian force deployment may well reflect this danger in a more effective manner. This could take away the element of surprise for the Germans and make the initial days more costly. A more effective first month or two for the Soviets could make the rest of the campaign easier for them.

The German army probably misses out on some of the lessons and experience of its campaigns in 1941, but might have more equipment. Where there may be a problem for Germany is the lack of incentive to upgrade its equipment as fewer lessons are learnt in battle. Thus they might go into Russia with lighter tanks and weaker anti-tank weapons. The probable year of 'peace' might also take some urgency out of the German preparations, and deprive them of the chance to loot Yugoslavia and Greece.
 
voted maybe because we do not know how GB forced out of the war. worse beat at Dunkirk or Axis Iraq? (the latter they are in pretty strong position even if Soviets anticipate invasion)
 
Remove the British economic blockade, strategic bombing, the naval war, and all other fronts in WW2, plus maybe no Battle of Britain losses to the Luftwaffe and no losses from 1941 on for the Luftwaffe and Germany army (Afrika Korps, 2nd and 5th Panzer, plus a LOT more Luftwaffe and paratroopers available for Barbarossa) and you change the war radically. Same with the Italian army being able to send it's own handpicked, perfectly equipped army/air forces in 1941. It's a complete game change for the War in the East. Without Britain and the US the USSR has substantially less GDP than Germany alone, not factoring in Italy and Germany's allies. Plus in terms of combined population the Germans+allies outnumber or at least equal the Soviets. IOTL the Germans from the moment Barbarossa started Germany was still spending over half it's military budget on weapons to fight the British and it only increased as the war went on, meaning Germany never spent more than half it's OTL military budget on fighting the USSR.
https://www.amazon.com/How-War-Was-Won-Cambridge/dp/1107014751/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8

Even with Lend-Lease the USSR would be screwed fighting Germany and it's European allies by itself without Europe being blockaded by the British and later US.

Assuming a near-infinite number of universes where this ASBish setup is replicated (Germany & Italy in control of the continent, yet at peace and not bothered at all by anyone else), what win percentage would you expect the Axis to achieve?

100%? (i.e. in every such similar TL, they defeat the USSR?)
66%? (about two thirds of the time)
etc etc

Personally, I would put it as follows:
- 15% if there is a serious risk of WAllied intervention, Stalin reacts to pre-invasion warnings properly, LL still takes place and the Germans get cocky from their previous successes
- 85% if none of the above is included
 
It is pretty much nonsense to say the USSR can beat the Germans one-on-one. Germany almost beat the Soviet Union with 40% of their resources directed elsewhere. We have discussed on this board that Leningrad and Stalingrad were such close things, that Germany could have won the war in the East as is.

Add that 40% and if Germany does not outright win in 41 (which they may via better logistics thanks to all resources being committed to the East), then it is a sure thing in 42 that Germany wins. Leningrad and Stalingrad will go Germany's way, Lend Lease is only through the Bering straight, and the USSR is screwed.
 
It is pretty much nonsense to say the USSR can beat the Germans one-on-one. Germany almost beat the Soviet Union with 40% of their resources directed elsewhere. We have discussed on this board that Leningrad and Stalingrad were such close things, that Germany could have won the war in the East as is.

Add that 40% and if Germany does not outright win in 41 (which they may via better logistics thanks to all resources being committed to the East), then it is a sure thing in 42 that Germany wins. Leningrad and Stalingrad will go Germany's way, Lend Lease is only through the Bering straight, and the USSR is screwed.
Where did you get the 40% statistic from?
 
I've often thought about this and read various replies on this board. My personal view is this:

European Axis v Soviet Union - No lend lease or other aid outside of cash and carry; USA and UK neutral (or otherwise involved with Japan only):
If the Soviets don't suffer a political collapse, I still suspect they will (just) be militarily defeated sometime in 1942 or 1943. Even if they are not, I cannot see the Soviets managing to 'liberate' Europe on their own and therefore a deal will be done in 1944 to this end, with Germany getting territorial concessions from the Soviets (probably Belarus, Baltics and most of Ukraine). Round two in the nuclear armed 1950s could be.... fun.....

European Axis v Soviet Union - Lend lease or other outside aid; USA and UK formally neutral (or otherwise involved with Japan only):
Perhaps the UK has come to an arrangement (under Halifax) but both US and UK don't want to see Germany win and supply the Soviets. However, here I think the Soviets will (just) manage to avoid defeat but I again struggle to see how they can liberate all of Europe on their own so another peace deal will probably be arranged with the Soviets back at the 1938 borders perhaps.

European Axis v Soviet Union - No US or US Lend lease but UK allied:
The Soviets will (probably) win this one but it's going to be long and hard to meet the British on the Rhine in 1947.

European Axis v Soviet Union - No US but US Lend lease and UK allied:
The Soviets will win this one but it's going to be almost as long and hard to meet the British on the Rhine in 1946.

European Axis v Soviet Union - No UK but US allied with Lend lease (no idea how - I posted this in ASB once - it presumes a highly isolationist UK but Germany DOWs US after Pearl Harbor for the lolz whilst somehow keeping UK from also being DOWed by Japan):
The Soviets will win this one but I'm unsure if they have the supply line to take them all the way to Brest. Berlin, sure. Essen - okay. But Paris and western France? Probably the 'West' falls to internal revolt and the French resistance (which may or may not be Communist). Certainly a highly Soviet friendly Europe after this however.

Under every one of these five situations there is a risk, just like OTL, that the Soviets fall to political collapse in July 1941 anyway when instead of appointing Stalin Minister of Defence, they shoot him and engage in civil war instead - which basically dooms them anyway.
 
Having more respources later in the war doesnt hurt Germany, but it doesnt help the critical phase, the second half of 1941.
The failure is logistical one - the road and rail net simply couldn't support a bigger army (it can be argued it couldn't even support the OTL one!).
You cant fix the rail net. You might get more trucks, and fuel (from where,exactly? The British and Americans arent keen on supplying it - and guess who pretty much control oil supply, and if they do will demand immediate payment in strling/dollars, which aren't available).

Germany will have better reserves, so the units will stay stronger longer,but against this is that now Stalin KNOWS Hitler is coming for him, there wont be a repeat of the blindness of OTL.

My gut feeeling is that Germany would do a bit better in the Autumn, get hammered as OTL during the Winter, but that unless something causes a collapse in the political will of the USSR, the war will end up in an exhausted stalemate around 43-44, probably with Germany still inside Russia, but not by that much.
Of course, the best thing to hit Russian morale is to halt L-L. But how? U-boats against the American/British convoys will just get you back to war against Britain and the USA again. And with L-L (and a Britain at peace and able to sell you even more war supplies), I dont see Russia collapsing - they'll play for time and attrition.
 
Having more respources later in the war doesnt hurt Germany, but it doesnt help the critical phase, the second half of 1941.
The failure is logistical one - the road and rail net simply couldn't support a bigger army (it can be argued it couldn't even support the OTL one!).
You cant fix the rail net. You might get more trucks, and fuel (from where,exactly? The British and Americans arent keen on supplying it - and guess who pretty much control oil supply, and if they do will demand immediate payment in strling/dollars, which aren't available).

The OP says peace with Britain is in 1940, so this means no Crete and tons more JU52s and Fallshirmjaeger. This improves logistics and may avoid certain quagmires (such as Odessa, Sevestapol.) Tons more anti-shipping aircraft.

It is possible that AGS starts on time (June 10 1941) and opts for a double envelopment of Soviet forces in Ukraine instead of a frontal assault. If this occurs, then AGC never gets diverted south. Moscow can fall. Rommel on the Eastern Front may mean Leningrad actually falls. So many knock-ons because the Germans can avoid so many close things that went against them on the march.

Germany will have better reserves, so the units will stay stronger longer,but against this is that now Stalin KNOWS Hitler is coming for him, there wont be a repeat of the blindness of OTL.

I have speculated that a Stalin that knows Hitler is coming will actually lose the war within 10 weeks. IOTL, Stalin ordered frontal assaults. IOTL, he was already mobilizing at full speed. If he literally has a letter that says "Hitler attacks in May" he will attack first. The Germans will easily rebuff the Russians from a better logistical standpoint, shut down the Russians offensively, and with the Stalin-Line and reserves in the rear gutted to support the attac, the Germans will surround and destroy the Russians right near their border and sprint for the Stalin Line unopposed. Then, the Russians will have reserves, but so few and none up to speed that there will be a general collapse.

It would be the original German plan of kicking down the door, but it would actually work.
 
I have speculated that a Stalin that knows Hitler is coming will actually lose the war within 10 weeks. IOTL, Stalin ordered frontal assaults. IOTL, he was already mobilizing at full speed. If he literally has a letter that says "Hitler attacks in May" he will attack first.....

And with the Soviets attacking first, they will lose the ability to appeal to the US and UK as defenders.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming a near-infinite number of universes where this ASBish setup is replicated (Germany & Italy in control of the continent, yet at peace and not bothered at all by anyone else), what win percentage would you expect the Axis to achieve?

100%? (i.e. in every such similar TL, they defeat the USSR?)
66%? (about two thirds of the time)
etc etc

Personally, I would put it as follows:
- 15% if there is a serious risk of WAllied intervention, Stalin reacts to pre-invasion warnings properly, LL still takes place and the Germans get cocky from their previous successes
- 85% if none of the above is included
Allied intervention is a game changer, but it depends when it happens, because enough damage may have been done already to cause them to collapse. Soviet prep for invasion really isn't going to save them either in 1941. In 1942 sure, but not in early June 1941 (the Germans could attack sooner because of no Balkans/Greek campaign). LL is going to have a harder time getting in without the Allies being at war because Germany could declare a legal blockade of Murmansk and enforce it (probably even take it with the extra resources of TTL), while even compensation via Vladivostok doesn't work as well due to the distance it would need to travel. The Germans were already cocky from previous successes.
I don't think putting a specific number to it is really that valid but around 2/3rds of the time it would be an outright Axis victory with enough time (assuming just 1 on 1) and the remaining 1/3 or so would have an Axis favorable peace result. I cannot see the Soviets ever ending up close to their 1941 border, let alone over it, without allies intervening in the war. If Japan joins in the USSR is screwed. If the Wallies join in we'd need to know when and in what context, but I think that would be an exceedingly low chance.

Having more respources later in the war doesnt hurt Germany, but it doesnt help the critical phase, the second half of 1941.
The failure is logistical one - the road and rail net simply couldn't support a bigger army (it can be argued it couldn't even support the OTL one!).
You cant fix the rail net. You might get more trucks, and fuel (from where,exactly? The British and Americans arent keen on supplying it - and guess who pretty much control oil supply, and if they do will demand immediate payment in strling/dollars, which aren't available).
That is actually not true, the Germans did not put in the resources necessary to make the rail net work, partly due to lack of resources. With Britain out of the war they'd have the steel to complete the 'Otto Plan' to build up the rail net in Poland (the key bottleneck in the 1941 campaign), which fell by the wayside in 1940-1941 due to the need to spend on fighting Britain that was not planned on. Thereafter they have a lot more men and raw materials to put into logistics things that they lacked IOTL because they were investing heavily in Uboats, air defense (1/3 of the Wehrmacht budget went into AAA in the 2nd half of 1941, not counting civil air defense bunkers and FLAK towers), production expansion, Uboat pens in France, the Atlantic Wall, etc. Lack of manpower and resources was a constant problem for the logistics effort of converting rails and building it up; there is a limit to what could be done to fix the problem as quickly as possible and that was NOT done IOTL. Hitler also held back a lot of resources and replacement equipment/supplies because he was planning on a 2nd campaign after Russia against the British in the Middle East. David Stahel talks about that a fair bit in his book on the reasons for the failure of Barbarossa early on.

Getting more trucks is an issue of resource allocation and not being blockaded. The war would be over and unless the US declares and embargo of Europe (not happening) the US auto and oil companies could resume normal sales to Europe/Germany. Plus Germany could import from the occupied European colonial empires (Belgian Congo rubber and copper, Dutch East Indies oil, rubber, nickel, etc., whatever the French had) and neutral nations. The Iranian Shah was very pro-German and gave them a bunch of contracts to develop Iranian infrastructure from pre-war through 1941 when the British invaded and overthrew him; he warned the Germans in the country and they were able to flee via Turkey first. South America had a ton of oil as well (Venezeula, Mexico) which was available for purchase with looting gold from Europe; plus German companies now have access to their subsidaries in the Americas and the millions earned in foreign currency that the government could use to purchase abroad.

And the Germans did manage to counterfeit the Sterling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Define defeat the Soviet Union is my answer.

Conquer a great chunk of Soviet land and force a humiliating peace yes? Conquer their way to the Urals? Probably not unless the Soviet politicians ans generals decide to start killing their political leaders and purged of their brass in their panic.
 
Again with the 'start the invasion earlier because no Balkans'
All starting earlier gets you is WORSE results as you get stuck in the mud.
The invasion was delayed due to the bad weather in 1941, not the Balkans campaign.

Also not sure why not building a small number of U-boats magically translates into loads of railway supplies.

Now, as to fuel. The only likely source is the DEI (thats going to make Japan so happy...). US and British controlled supplies will demand payment in hard currency, which Germany doesn't have.

You have a conundrum with cash. If you screw it out of the rest of Europe, just why is everyone sitting back watching you carry on with your war. If you treat reasonably, you dont have hard currency. This is solvable in a longer term plan, just not in the few months you have on this time scale.
And if the Shah starts selling Germany oil on credit, an overthrow is likely again. Of course it wont be as blatant as OTL. And the oil companies who actually produce it are all Anglo-American again.Will Rumania still be willing to provide you all their oil on credit, now there is apparantly peace? Remember, you are (I presume) trying to look like you arent going to invade Russia asap?

If you are busy screwing the economies of the rest of Europe (as OTL), despite peace, just how much do you expect Britain and the USA to sit back and go 'well, of course thats OK?'

The problem is, Germany securing peace in 1940 does not equate to the European economy returns instantly to normal, and Germanies raw material issues vanish overnihgt.
 

Deleted member 1487

Again with the 'start the invasion earlier because no Balkans'
All starting earlier gets you is WORSE results as you get stuck in the mud.
The invasion was delayed due to the bad weather in 1941, not the Balkans campaign.
Yeah again because there is some truth to it. May was out and the first week of June was because of weather. June 10th was the earliest it could have started. That's almost 2 weeks earlier and 2 extra weeks before mud would be a game changer around Moscow. Plus the Balkans campaign wore out a ton of equipment and meant that 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions lost their equipment getting out of the region due to transports being torpedoed by the Brits in the Mediterranean.

Also not sure why not building a small number of U-boats magically translates into loads of railway supplies.
The Uboats built from 1941-45 equaled about as much raw materials as would be needed to make 10000 Panzer IVs. All that freed up labor and raw materials could be put into other stuff like rail road equipment and rolling stock. Plus it could be used to fix the Polish bottle neck and convert rails.

Now, as to fuel. The only likely source is the DEI (thats going to make Japan so happy...). US and British controlled supplies will demand payment in hard currency, which Germany doesn't have.
This has come up time and time again and been proven false over and over:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_plunder
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1999/spring/nazi-gold-merkers-mine-treasure.html
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world...y/news-story/7a4c9452379d967c4f451e57741e3e11
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lost-350million-nazi-treasure-stolen-7809895

You have a conundrum with cash. If you screw it out of the rest of Europe, just why is everyone sitting back watching you carry on with your war. If you treat reasonably, you dont have hard currency. This is solvable in a longer term plan, just not in the few months you have on this time scale.
Part of reparations for the final peace. That's how they got it IOTL and occupied Europe just sat and watched and collaborated.

And if the Shah starts selling Germany oil on credit, an overthrow is likely again. Of course it wont be as blatant as OTL. And the oil companies who actually produce it are all Anglo-American again.Will Rumania still be willing to provide you all their oil on credit, now there is apparantly peace? Remember, you are (I presume) trying to look like you arent going to invade Russia asap?
How so? The Brits were only able to get away with the invasion because the war was on, if they are at peace they don't have the peace time legal authority to invade unless they get parliament to declare war and if they are going to do that over oil sales they will have a BIG problem with the rest of the world. Iran had control over their own oil sales prior to the invasion IOTL due to a deal made to placate the Shah at the start of the war, regardless of the ownership of the company pumping it (owned partly by the Iranian government). Romania would be bartering for oil as per OTL, getting coal and weapons in return, perhaps more even as Germany couldn't provide all the weapons asked for, but without the war against Britain, Germany has more to sell.
Beyond that occupied Europe can import whatever they need to run their economies on their own dime, the Germans didn't take everything they had, plus they can export to raise money. Hitler might not care about appearing if he wasn't going to invade.

If you are busy screwing the economies of the rest of Europe (as OTL), despite peace, just how much do you expect Britain and the USA to sit back and go 'well, of course thats OK?'

The problem is, Germany securing peace in 1940 does not equate to the European economy returns instantly to normal, and Germanies raw material issues vanish overnihgt.
Taking reparation isn't totally screwing them if done is a sustainable way that doesn't impact private industry, but does hurt the national governments...which can be paid for by having them cut their defense budget to the bone and pay that to Germany instead. France and the other occupied nations won't have significant armies within Europe after the war is over, while the Germans will probably be offering contracts to make non-military items for Germany so they could specialize in war materials. Britain and the US need European trade in peacetime if they want their economies to function well, especially Britain interested in rebuilding it's finances, plus Britain is pretty anti-Soviet pre-WW2 so probably won't be that upset about watching the totalitarians fight it out. The US has lost interest in Europe with the Nazi victory and barring an embargo they will be more interested in trade to make money. Embargoing Japan is one thing, but the area of occupied Europe is a larger GDP than the US, so foreign trade is going to be critical given that the Europeans are going to want to buy what the US has. Clearing things won't be 100% normal, but they will be FAR better than IOTL without the blockade.
 

nbcman

Donor
Assuming the war with the west is over, what is going to happen with all those Mefo Bills and other government bonds that have to be paid out? Or will the Nazis still keep rolling the debt over and continue to not make any payments on it which would be very suspicious to outside parties. The Nazi's better seize a lot of gold because there would be little confidence in their currency due to their bond bubble.

Plus, how does Stalin fail to understand the Nazi's are coming in 1941 when there are millions of them in Eastern Europe during 'peacetime'? While the Soviets may not be able to stop the buildup, the buildup is clearly directed at them and the Soviet military would at least not be completely surprised as OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming the war with the west is over, what is going to happen with all those Mefo Bills and other government bonds that have to be paid out? Or will the Nazis still keep rolling the debt over and continue to not make any payments on it which would be very suspicious to outside parties. The Nazi's better seize a lot of gold because there would be little confidence in their currency due to their bond bubble.
It's been working out just fine so far for the US debt since Vietnam. And they did seize quite a lot of gold.

Plus, how does Stalin fail to understand the Nazi's are coming in 1941 when there are millions of them in Eastern Europe during 'peacetime'? While the Soviets may not be able to stop the buildup, the buildup is clearly directed at them and the Soviet military would at least not be completely surprised as OTL.
What's it going to matter? If you've read David Glantz's "Stumbling Colossus" they were desperately trying to prepare for war by reorganizing, upgrading their equipment, and expanding their army all at once, but they turned their military into a total mess with that and the ongoing purges. Doing more to prepare for war is actually not going to improve their combat abilities that much and would be more than offset by the greater force the Germans could bring to bear. The Soviet military was just a disaster of epic proportions by this point and the more men and equipment they put on the border, the worse it would be for them when the Germans pincer them. Their communications and general CiC was a complete disaster and relied primarily on landlines that the Luftwaffe cut when they started bombing and German infiltrators had been cutting left and right from before the start of the invasion.
For example why the border is just a pocket waiting to be formed:
AGS-1-20Sept-675x1024.jpg


FI02_03_ZF_Jun22-Jul11_41.jpg
 
Top