What would be the actual outcome with a USSR fighting Germany with no Wallied bombings or material?

It took the USSR from 1945 to 1949 to produce an atomic device (not a deployable weapon) with a good deal of information from their spy system and the fact that they were no longer pouring resources in to supporting the battle against the Nazis. If the UK is not in the war, the Nazi threat is not perceived quite the same as OTL. It was the fear of a German bomb that had the USA throwing tons of money and resources art the problem, the use against Japan was just an extra benefit. Especially without LL the USSR is going to be hugely resource strained. If the Germans do better militarily with BARBAROSSA, which they will inevitably do if they and their allies are not devoting resources to fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, fighting in Yugoslavia and Greece, fighting in North Africa, not worrying about aircraft over Germany, this means the internal resources available to the USSR are going to be less than OTL.

The USSR has only so many resources, which include engineers and technicians and skilled workers. With the Nazis attacking the USSR needs them doing what they can to crank out more tanks, trucks, aircraft etc. Especially since all those trucks, radios, locomotives, gallons of AVGAS, SPAM, and more is not going to be flowing in to the USSR via LL. It took the USA, with essentially unlimited resources, and no attacks on the USA directly, over three years to produce a deliverable weapon and a delivery system (the B-29 and also the backup B-32). Expecting the USSR to do this under the circumstances of an enhanced BARBAROSSA and no allies, is simply unrealistic.
To recap some prior points of mine:

-I don't see the Soviets even contemplating building nuclear weapons in this time line unless they have:

-proof that they can actually be built. (Ie a successful test by the U.S.)


In this time line I would expect they would receive some assistance vis a vis the designs via espionage.

To add some other points:
I seem to recall some historical Soviet strategic bombing against German targets in ww2. In the absence of a western allied air campaign the Germans may not have heavy air defences. It doesn't seem impossible to me for the Soviets to deliver a special weapon assuming they can build one. (Which I agree is by no means a certainty.)

In terms of the circumstances in which the Soviets might pursue nuclear weapons,
I am envisioning a long more or less stalemated campaign between the Germans while they digest their new eastern holdings and the Soviets while they lick their wounds and build up their forces while continuing to keep pressure on the Germans.

I can see some efforts being made to clone a U.S. Nuclear weapon during this time period. If the Soviets are able to buy critical items from the west with their gold and likely other natural resources that may make things easier. If the Germans behave in their conquered eastern territories as they apparently planned on doing I suspect there will be a lot of sympathy in the west for the Soviet cause. This may translate into more help via espionage or perhaps other means.

On the other hand depending on the starting parameters the Soviets may win without needing to try and build nuclear weapons.
 
How committed are the Anglo-French to having this be "a straight-up war between Germany and the USSR?" If this is Iran-Iraq: The Prequel and the Germans know they will not intervene no matter what German conduct looks like (or they're even slightly backing the Germans) then it shouldn't be unachievable to have Dyhernfurth become operational early provided that the Germans throw enough bodies at the problem out of wartime necessity, considering the major reason for the delays were 1) worker shortages and safety and 2) it not being that much of a priority due to the WAllies (and specifically only the WAllies) being likely to retaliate with the same stuff according to German intel.

If that happens, then I think we can say "this German victory was brought to you by the letters GA and GB" and leave it at that.
 
So in 1941 not much is going to change, not much lend-lease got to the USSR that year anyway. So the Nazis are still halted outside Moscow.

In '42 it's possible that without the lend-lease and distraction in North Africa the Caucasus will fall. Seems unlikely to me but possible. Without oil or the Volga-Don region I think the USSR collapses in '43.

If the drive south fails as OTL though, the Soviets will start to push Germany back. Just more slowly than OTL, and if the Nazis dig in somewhere around western Ukraine and the Baltics everything might kind of grind to a halt. In that case, in a long war of attrition, I don't know what happens. My gut feeling is that the Soviets eventually push through due to having a more efficient total war economy and German oil shortages (unless the West is selling Germany oil, and I don't know where Germany is getting hard currency for that after the first few years of war)

If we're talking about an ATL where Germany didn't invade France, well, as said before they don't have the trucks to make Barbarossa work. They get to the Dneipr and freeze to death. Unless there's some other change helping out their logistics.
 
Why is everyone assuming either or both are trading freely? It is quite possible for Nazi Germany not to be at war with the West and yet be under a complete trade embargo, the same goes for the USSR.
 
1) worker shortages and safety

Which are going to be much worse without access to much of the historical slave labor drawn from the west. Historically, the Germans only option to plug their manpower shortage gaps was slave labor, of which 40.8% came from occuppied Western and Southern Europe. Hell, if Barbarossa gets strangled badly enough, they'll also lose out on much of the slave labor they got from the USSR, which is another 33.6%.

Why is everyone assuming either or both are trading freely? It is quite possible for Nazi Germany not to be at war with the West and yet be under a complete trade embargo, the same goes for the USSR.

Assuming they conduct their OTL actions up to and through mid-1939, then they'll have certainly antagonized France, Britain, and the US with trade wars and diplomatic aggression to the point where official trade will have crumbled. With the USSR... well, if the Winter War still happens, then they'll be under trade embargos up until January of '41, but prior to that they were constantly making large purchases of American goods. Who attacks first is also gonna have some influence on how willing the West is to bargain.
 
Assuming they conduct their OTL actions up to and through mid-1939, then they'll have certainly antagonized France, Britain, and the US with trade wars and diplomatic aggression to the point where official trade will have crumbled. With the USSR... well, if the Winter War still happens, then they'll be under trade embargos up until January of '41, but prior to that they were constantly making large purchases of American goods. Who attacks first is also gonna have some influence on how willing the West is to bargain.

There are four possibilities

1) The West trades with both. Let's assume France doesn't fall in this scenario. Germany will have to redirect at least some of its manufacturing to non-military just to have things to trade so as to pay for raw materials.
2) The West trades with the USSR but not Germany. Let's assume France falls in this case and GB throws in the towel.
3) The west trades with Germany but not the USSR. In this scenario let's assume when the USSR invades Finnland trade is cut off. The Winter War takes place and the West threw Poland under the bus earlier.
4) The West trades with neither. In this scenario, the West decides "A pox on both houses".
 
Assuming that German forces will be at the same strength pre-Barbarossa as they were OTL, the problems that hindered Barbarossa in real life(weather, supply lines, enemy manpower pool, etc) will still exist whether or not they're bogged down in Western Europe/the Med. Barbarossa as we know it would still fail to fully defeat the Soviet Union. German offensives down the road will still be hampered by fuel and personnel shortages, and as someone stated earlier Fall Blau succeeding is possible but in no way likely. This is not to imply that the Soviets will not also face severe supply problems, however the crushing German victory some have suggested would not occur due to the same reasons as in real life.

By the way when are we assuming German invasion would start? I would think May but for all I know it could begin in June.
 
Germany will have to redirect at least some of its manufacturing to non-military just to have things to trade so as to pay for raw materials.

Well, there in lies the obvious catch-22. For the Germans to pay for their imports required they cut back on military manufacturing. Even if it was politically possible to do so when waging a life-or-death fight against the USSR, it’d mean depriving their armies of badly needed armaments and munitions anyways. The Germans by ‘39 simply don’t have the slack. They burned it all up over the past 3 years.

This was, by-the-by, pretty much as Hitler intended. He was unconcerned about the sapping of Germany's cash reserves on massive military expenditures because once he got the war he wanted he didn't intend to have much use for foreign exchange anyway, he was just going to steal or demand what he needed. The fact that the Germany economy was fit for nothing else except war by 1939 was thus very much by design.

2) The West trades with the USSR but not Germany. Let's assume France falls in this case and GB throws in the towel.

That represents a rather different scenario then the others, simply because the addition of multiple modern economies to Germany’s war chest via the conquest of France and the rest of Western Europe gives it a lot more slack to work with.
 
Last edited:
Well, there in lies the obvious catch-22. For the Germans to pay for their imports required they cut back on military manufacturing. Even if it was politically possible to do so when waging a life-or-death fight against the USSR, it’d mean depriving their armies of badly needed armaments and munitions anyways. The Germans by ‘39 simply don’t have the slack. They burned it all up over the past 3 years.

This was, by-the-by, pretty much as Hitler intended. He was unconcerned about the sapping of Germany's cash reserves on massive military expenditures because once he got the war he wanted he didn't intend to have much use for foreign exchange anyway, he was just going to steal or demand what he needed. The fact that the Germany economy was fit for nothing else except war by 1939 was thus very much by design.

Agreed, but he would have no choice. Arms production would decline anyways if he doesn't get the raw materials. It would probably decline less by diverting some of his production rather than wait for a total collapse due to having no resources.
 
That represents a rather different scenario then the others, simply because the addition of multiple modern economies to Germany’s war chest via the conquest of France and the rest of Western Europe gives it a lot more slack to work with.


OTOH it does lets the USSR gets to purchase things abroad. It is not as good as OTL but it is in better shape than the other scenarios except 4 IMO.
 
While the USSR has Siberian gold to make cash purchases (and the Spanish gold) the problem is how do they get the goods? Even going from Germany rather than Norway, absent a need to be in the Atlantic the KM can be making life Hell for Soviet flagged shipping going to Murmansk/Archangelsk with U-boats and surface ships. If the Finns are co-belligerents you can have Luftwaffe anti-shipping flying out of Northern Finland (tough logistics but doable). The Baltic route is 100% closed. Until the Crimea is taken there is the theoretical Med/Black Sea route, but the Regia Marina and additional German U-boats again make this very tough for Soviet shipping. Land supply via Iran, that only was useful after the US and UK basically rebuilt and improved Iranian infrastructure - ports, roads, railroads to allow for high volume shipments (and if the US and UK are not in the war this is not happening). This means only the US/Canada-Vladivostok route is pretty much free and clear, however his means everything has to be sent west on the TSRR which is the limiting factor.

I can't speak for red ensign flagged ships, but under US neutrality laws you won't have US ships bringing stuff to Russia through war zones, across the Pacific maybe. How many merchant vessels do the Soviets have in 1941? The USSR did get Liberty ships from the USA for the pacific run, not happening here. Also, the reality is that even OTL most Soviet shipyards that could build merchant vessels were overrun or otherwise put out of business by German advances.

Needed materiel purchased for cash sitting on the dock in New Jersey or Liverpool is useless, it needs to get to Russia.
 
While the USSR has Siberian gold to make cash purchases (and the Spanish gold) the problem is how do they get the goods? Even going from Germany rather than Norway, absent a need to be in the Atlantic the KM can be making life Hell for Soviet flagged shipping going to Murmansk/Archangelsk with U-boats and surface ships. If the Finns are co-belligerents you can have Luftwaffe anti-shipping flying out of Northern Finland (tough logistics but doable). The Baltic route is 100% closed. Until the Crimea is taken there is the theoretical Med/Black Sea route, but the Regia Marina and additional German U-boats again make this very tough for Soviet shipping. Land supply via Iran, that only was useful after the US and UK basically rebuilt and improved Iranian infrastructure - ports, roads, railroads to allow for high volume shipments (and if the US and UK are not in the war this is not happening). This means only the US/Canada-Vladivostok route is pretty much free and clear, however his means everything has to be sent west on the TSRR which is the limiting factor.

I can't speak for red ensign flagged ships, but under US neutrality laws you won't have US ships bringing stuff to Russia through war zones, across the Pacific maybe. How many merchant vessels do the Soviets have in 1941? The USSR did get Liberty ships from the USA for the pacific run, not happening here. Also, the reality is that even OTL most Soviet shipyards that could build merchant vessels were overrun or otherwise put out of business by German advances.

Needed materiel purchased for cash sitting on the dock in New Jersey or Liverpool is useless, it needs to get to Russia.
Yes.. I expect Merchant shipping availability and rail road capacity limits would likely put some hard limits on what the Soviets could import.

I also wouldn't totally rule out the Germans being able to inflict some losses on trans pacific shipping, but without a suitable base in the hemisphere it is going to be very challenging for the Germans to inflict more than symbolic losses.

(Maybe a few long range u boats supported by tankers could lay mines near the Soviet pacific ports ?)

It is unclear to me if the Germans could mount enough of an effort in the pacific for the area to be considered a war zone ? I suspect a lot would depend on the U.S. attitudes towards the Soviets.
 
But what about Japan? Will they stay neutral? Maybe the Su says go to town on China but leave us alone. Siberian gold for ships and RR equipment.
 
But what about Japan? Will they stay neutral? Maybe the Su says go to town on China but leave us alone. Siberian gold for ships and RR equipment.
The original poster (OP) didn't elaborate re Japan.

Thinking out loud it is possible that the west (ie, The UK and USA) might be a bit more lenient towards Japan if Japan helps ensure western goods to flow to the USSR without impediment. This might butterfly away the conflict between Japan and the West.

On the other hand Japan may be tempted to take advantage of the Soviets being weakened by the conflict and or may wish to gain favour with the Germans.

In my view a lot hinges on how sympathetic the U.S. and the UK are towards the Soviets. (Or perhaps if the U.S. and the UK have a goal of seeing the Soviets and the Germans grind each other down in a long term conflict.)
 
The Japanese can, like in WWII, allow Soviet ships free passage as they/Soviets were not at war, at least until the Japanese are at war with the US and UK the same would apply to those ships. In terms of Japan supplying any significant materiel to the Soviets, not really. They don't have any raw materials, and such military goods as they make are both not anything the USSR would want or available in excess of Japanese requirements. Similarly for shipbuilding.
 
If there had just been a straight-up war between Germany and the USSR during WW2, perhaps with Germany striking first at the USSR and the western powers namely the British Empire and the US sitting it out at that point, perhaps viewing it as two evil empires going at each other. So no mass bombing raids on Germany and perhaps most importantly no material aid as well.

not sure how you have the UK and US sitting out the conflict? to get to the USSR, Germany has likely invaded Poland? (does the UK not declare war?)

guess you could have an uncharacteristically aggressive Soviet move(s) west, Germany seen as (unwelcome) defender of Poland and/or Finland?
 
The UK threw Czechoslovakia under the bus first at Munich and then when Hitler occupied the rest of the country. One of the German propaganda themes early on directed at the British and French was "why die for Danzig?" The British and French also did nothing about the USSR taking half of Poland and literally stabbing them in the back, so deciding to throw the Poles under the bus is not entirely out of the question/ASB especially if the UK does not sign the defense agreement with Poland after the Czech business. Of course the UK deciding after the fall of France to quit, get the prisoners back and a white peace with Germany is also possible, there was a significant sentiment to do just that. With the UK out of the war and normal trade (more or less) going on, no U-Boats and so forth, and the US worries about Japan/Pacific getting the US involved in a Germany-USSR (only) war is pretty ASB. Selling stuff cash only, and transport in your country's ships (cash and carry) to BOTH sides is the likely outcome.

In 1940/41 the pro-Nazi and pro-communist elements in the USA can mount demonstrations urging supporting one side or another, but both are pretty fringe elements - giving loans for purchases ("and how will these be paid back we are still owed for the Great War") or seeing American boys die ("if the Russians/Germans want our goods let their seamen risk their lives, no American boys should drown delivering the goods") simply won't happen. Most Americans saw both Hitler and Stalin as rather unpleasant dictators, the slaughter of the Holocaust is not happening in 1940/41 (just retail deaths), and the US population as a whole could care less about Jews in Nazi areas wearing yellow stars and being excluded from universities and professions.(1) IMHO even had the Nazis started building death camps in 1939/40 and begun the deportations I very much doubt that going to war and seeing good Christian American boys dying to save European Jews would ever pass through Congress.

(1) Since the 1920s leading universities and post graduate schools had strict quotas overtly on Jews, many companies and entire industries would not hire or limit hires of Jews, restrictions on where Jews could live were common {often entire towns}, and social discrimination was rampant. What the Nazis were doing between 1933 and 1939 went further, and was seen as "gauche" but, after all those pushy Jews brought it on themselves.
 
The UK threw Czechoslovakia under the bus first at Munich and then when Hitler occupied the rest of the country. One of the German propaganda themes early on directed at the British and French was "why die for Danzig?" The British and French also did nothing about the USSR taking half of Poland and literally stabbing them in the back, so deciding to throw the Poles under the bus is not entirely out of the question/ASB especially if the UK does not sign the defense agreement with Poland after the Czech business. Of course the UK deciding after the fall of France to quit, get the prisoners back and a white peace with Germany is also possible, there was a significant sentiment to do just that. With the UK out of the war and normal trade (more or less) going on, no U-Boats and so forth, and the US worries about Japan/Pacific getting the US involved in a Germany-USSR (only) war is pretty ASB. Selling stuff cash only, and transport in your country's ships (cash and carry) to BOTH sides is the likely outcome.

a great summary. it seems much more conceivable for UK to remain out of the fray if France has already been defeated. also stays closer to historical events.

they could have a deal with Vichy regime under this scenario to use air bases in Syria, if not an agreement with Turkey also.
 
Top