If the Soviets did not get involved in WW2

[Serutan]

The Soviets didn't do too much damage, they just took up a lot of German resources. The death rate on the eastern front was 1 German to 10 Soviets. Quite a horrific scene on the eastern front, it was a trading of atrocities.

Obviously, tying up between 2/3 and 3/4 of the Geman military, causing
a similar proportion of total German casualties, and driving the Germans
out of all their conquests in Eastern Europe is trivial in comparison to the
American and British contributions.

While the ratio of Soviet to German casualties was very high in 1941, as
the war wore on, that ratio went down considerably as the war went on.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

A much more brutal war for the west would of ensued. We would of felt the full force of Hitler's war machine since the eastern front was closed off. D-Day would of been much more difficult, if not impossible. The war would of lasted longer and Germany might of become a nuclear wasteland, due to the difficulty.

 

[la cosa nostra]

Considering 82% of Axis manpower was destroyed on the Eastern Front by the USSR should already answer this question. The timeline would probably be something like this:

* The Germans win the Battle of Britain - the British airforce is destroyed and the British groundforces are weakened for a ground assault.
* The entire UK is steamrolled by Germany in one or two weeks.
* Spain and other likeminded nations quickly hop in on Hitlers side given the potential gains that can now be made - at the same time its easier for nations like Vichy France to re-assert their allegence to fascism.
* N.Africa capitulates - Axis captures British possetions in the Middle East - oil ...
* USA now forced to fight a jet-fighter, ballistic missle armed Axis in the Atlantic and Japan in the Pacific

At this point it seems unlikely that the USA can win the war (unless they can get say, the whole of S. America on side - unlikely), given the situation the Axis would probably use its airforce to bomb the manhattan project in its infancy - the USA would never have enough time to ramp up to superpower level and would probably be crushed as well.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Axis would probably use its airforce to bomb the manhattan project in its infancy - the USA would never have enough time to ramp up to superpower level and would probably be crushed as well.

The Manhatten project was based in Los Alamos which is in New Mexico. No bomber until the 1960s could fly that far and back. Most likely the US would still have get A-bombs before Germany.

And considering the massive amount of land and people involved, a land invasion of Canada and the US would be quite impossible.

 

[Colonel_here]

Overall, if Soviet Union did not participate in the World War II it is clear that the war mostlikely would have ended with US and Japan sorting out their troubles, while there would have been peace with Germany. Germany would have never invaded Britian but would have forced it to abondon claim to channel islands. Reasons why: Germans did not have capacity to reach US by air. They never build a single aircarrier no matter how much Luftwaffe asked for it. Navy though it was a waste of ressources. US would see no threat at the moment and would have stayed with its celf centered politics that it adopted untill hit by Japan. Whether Germany actually would have sided with Japan is unknown. Even though treaty existed it seems that it was not that strong. Japan made a peace pack with Soviet Union almost right after German attack on them. (This considered to be one of the reason why Soviet Union was able to beat Germany). Britian would not get invaded because of the follwoing reason. What would happen to Royal Family when German endager London? Think about it. Of course, they ship them to Canada. Canada, Australia, New ZEaland, and all other Commonwealth nations, dominions and colonies would still be at war. The leader is still alive and have not surrendered. (Yes, it is a figuritive leader but still influential enough for all commontwealth to declare war on Germany one day later after UK). Germany did not have capacity to deal with them all. That was one of the reasons why Sealion was canceled. The same reason why Western Allies POW got much nicer treatment than the Russians. Germans did not want any complaints from their side after the war ended.

 

[CaptainF]

I would talk about such dystopian things, if i wouldn't be so damn lost for words.

 

[sydhe]

Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor despite already being at war with Britain and Russia. Why are so many people assuming it would not have declared war on the US if she wasn't involved in Russia?

My guess is Germany would have taken over all of North Africa including Egypt, and taken over Syria, Palestine and Iraq. They wouldn't have taken over Great Britain, and the US and UK would still have invaded Africa and faced a difficult war until nuclear weapons came in.

 

[Colonel_here]

The reason Germany would not declare the war on US is because it can't invade US or even hit it seriously enough. It did not have V2 or bombers to reach it. It would declare war on US if it is involved in USSR (USSR is not Russia, it was way bigger) because it hoped that japanese would attack USSR from the East. If there was no peace treaty between Japan and USSR. Stalin would not have moved almost all of its forces in Ural and Siberia to front against Germany (These were forces that led the contre-attack against Germans near Moscow) . The reason: fear that Japan will attack too and he needs those forces there two. I would like to point out that USSR realy treasured the treaty and only went to war against Japan after Germany has surrendered.

 

[fing0lfin]

The Soviets didn't do too much damage, they just took up a lot of German resources. The death rate on the eastern front was 1 German to 10 Soviets. Quite a horrific scene on the eastern front, it was a trading of atrocities.

I think there would be heavier Allied casualties, but when you just look at the numbers, the Allies would have won. The US mobilized 11 million troops IIRC, and only 235,000 died. The UK mobilized around 4.5 million troops and lost around 280,000. The Germans, of course counting the eastern front, lost almost 3 million troops of the 10 or so million mobilized. In a war of pure attrition, which WWII probably would have been, the Allies would still have won.

The Germans would probably have had just as many resources, as they only would have been focused elsewhere. Vichy France would probably have just been outright annexed, Switzerland might have been invaded, and at least some token effort to land in Great Britain would have taken place.

First...the death rate doesn't relly matter. It doesn't show the casualties of the Germans.

Second...no the solvients didn't do too much damage to the Germans, the solviets destroyed the German military machine. I don't know what recourses are you talking about. This war was won in the Eastern front.
The Germans lost everything there. Most of their army was fighting there. The wermacht, the Luwtwaffe, the panzers...everything. Germany lost the war in the vast Russian fields..

Third...what casualties are you talking about?? How do you expect an army which hadn't really fought to have casualties ??

 

[fing0lfin]

Germany failed to conquer England between June 1940 and June 1941, without facing another adversary. I don't know why the Wehrmacht should have been able to defeat England in 1942 or 1943. There was a reason Hitler decided to abandon the invasion of Britain after the summer of 1940: the British military could increase its strength at a faster pace than the German Wehrmacht, because the latter was already fully mobilized, while the British were still picking up pace. If Germany had tried to conquer England a second time instead of the Soviet Union in 1941, I think the situation would have been worse for Germany, and the defeat more resounding.

Germany would have been able to smash Britain if it wasn't preparing for war with USSR. May be Germany hadn't started it's invasion of USSR during the battle for Britain, but the planes for this invasion were made much before it and the German army was preparing and spending almost all of it's recourse for the invasion in USSR.


I think that saying that the British army was better than the German without giving arguments is SCI-FI.

 

[Colonel_here]

I support fing0lfin in his comments about importance of Eastern Front. The underestimation of Eastern Front is a legacy of Cold War when the West wanted to give itself more credit. While I am not saying they were not important however it is wrong to assume that they did it all by themselves.

 

[lz14]

well I reckon Japan would have no influence on USSR either way. I doubt this "Japan didn't attack Soviet was a important factor for ...."

Siberia especially the eastern part was a bunch of vast waste lands, doesn't have the resource Japan needs, there is no people to extract the resources anyway. And unless Japan can reach the Urals, it won't matter much for the Soviets. USSR has very little reason in defending it. And why would Japan go that far for no benefits other than helping the Germans and it won't ease the pressure from USA at all. And even somehow they got that far the damage they can do at that point is very questionable. Japan's army was largely tied in China and if the Siberia is their main direction their world class navy becomes a huge waste of money and resources.

 

[deo]

If Soviets would not participate, well than europe and perhaps the US too would be nuclear wastelands, or perhaps germany would sing peace with USA and war would be over, perhaps hitler would be assasinated, in the other way Germany staying at peace with the Soviets, perhaps for a few year's ( with hitler of course). Who know what would happen, WWII was simply unpredictable before late 42.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

The Soviets didn't do too much damage, they just took up a lot of German resources. The daeth rate on the eastern front was 1 German to 10 Soviets. Quite a horrific scene on the eastern front, it was a trading of atrocities.

That's not true, 80% of all German causalties (about 3 million men) happened in the Soviet Front.

Also, it was only 1 German to 10 Soviets in between July 1941, and 1942, the early part of the war. Later on, the Soviets became more mobilized, and more technology, and they crushed the Germans. By the time the Soviets invaded Manchuria in 1945, their armies were so much superior to the Japanese, that there were fears of a Russian occupation of Japan. Japanese casualties in Manchuria were much higher then the Russians.

 

[Point]

I reckon the Americans would seek an agreement with the Germans if a second attempt at britain succeeded or if the increased German navy's blockade worked out in their favour, neither side would be able to hit each other with any real effect. Americans like to make money, and a Germany with no enemies on its continent makes for a very rich trading partner, and a good friend in the event of west vs east showdown.

 

[fing0lfin]

That's not true, 80% of all German causalties (about 3 million men) happened in the Soviet Front.

Also, it was only 1 German to 10 Soviets in between July 1941, and 1942, the early part of the war. Later on, the Soviets became more mobilized, and more technology, and they crushed the Germans. By the time the Soviets invaded Manchuria in 1945, their armies were so much superior to the Japanese, that there were fears of a Russian occupation of Japan. Japanese casualties in Manchuria were much higher then the Russians.

I have heard that only one soldier from the Japan Machurian army survived. The others either got killed by the Russian or made themselves sepuko (ritual sucide) becasue they have lost the battle...

 

[El_Tigre]

fing0lfin, I completely agree with your argument about the eastern front.

Germany would have been able to smash Britain if it wasn't preparing for war with USSR. May be Germany hadn't started it's invasion of USSR during the battle for Britain, but the planes for this invasion were made much before it and the German army was preparing and spending almost all of it's recourse for the invasion in USSR.

The premise of this argument is that Hitler had made no plans to invade the Soviet Union, and not that he planned the invasion of GB from the beginning.

Anyway, until early 1941, neither Hitler nor the Wehrmacht had committed themselves to Operation Barbarossa. From May 1940 to Winter 1940, the undivided and sustained attention of the Germany was focussed solely on Great Britain. In this period of time, Great Britain was at the low point of its military strength (Dunkirk), and Germany at its height. After that, the gap started to close, especially between the Air Forces, as the Luftwaffe failed to destroy the British plane industry in the Battle of Britain. "It's the economy, stupid", and Germany's head start in terms of aircraft production and pilot training was melting like ice in the sunshine after May 1940. Can you name just one reason why Germany would have won a second (Air) Battle for Britain, under worse conditions?

Another reason why Germany would not have won the war in the west: Hitler would have been forced to deploy most of the Wehrmacht close to the Russian border anyway, because an attack of the Soviet Union would have been possible at any time. Not planning to attack the Soviet Union doesn't mean that you are safe from being attacked by the Soviet Union. So don't try to argue with me that Germany would have just switched to producing solely planes instead of tanks without Operation Barbarossa. Even with a considerably boosted emphasis on aircraft production, the RAF would have been too strong for the Luftwaffe. Furthermore, in our hypothetical scenario the German situation gets even worse after June 1941: if the Soviet Union didn't join WW2, then the substantial number of US planes and resources sent to the SU under the Lend-Lease programm would have been sent to England instead.

I think that saying that the British army was better than the German without giving arguments is SCI-FI.

1. I never said that.
2. This whole discussion, as every historical what-if question, is Sci-Fi in itself.

 

[Colonel_here]

well I reckon Japan would have no influence on USSR either way. I doubt this "Japan didn't attack Soviet was a important factor for ...."

Siberia especially the eastern part was a bunch of vast waste lands, doesn't have the resource Japan needs, there is no people to extract the resources anyway. And unless Japan can reach the Urals, it won't matter much for the Soviets. USSR has very little reason in defending it. And why would Japan go that far for no benefits other than helping the Germans and it won't ease the pressure from USA at all. And even somehow they got that far the damage they can do at that point is very questionable. Japan's army was largely tied in China and if the Siberia is their main direction their world class navy becomes a huge waste of money and resources.

Siberia is not a wasteland. Sorry to crush your image of ice barrne lands. However Siberia has a rich forests and wild life. Siberia at this time was being industrialised heavely. Oil and natural gas was being extracted from there. The population was there also significant. Overall Siberia is one of the resource richest places on Earth. Japan at the time of WWII had a believe that they were destined to rule all of Asia and Siberia was considered to be a place for attack. Japanese did try to advance at Siberia early before they compelted war with China but were beaten back by General Jukov. (at that time the spear point of all military polcies of Stalin was in Siberia, which he turned into huge military training camp). While resource extraction industries were located in Ural and Siberia. The second and third stage processing was doen in Western part os Soviet Union. As the Germany invaded those parts the factories were evacuated to Ural regions and Siberian regions (reason: German bombers could not reach them there.) If Japan attacked with full force Siberia, such evacuation would have been almost impossible and all the factories would still be under threat of attack. Also large amounts of troops would still have to be fighting against Japanese. Japan's world class navy was created in order to control and obatain the island parts of it Asia empire.

 

[fing0lfin]

fing0lfin, I completely agree with your argument about the eastern front.


The premise of this argument is that Hitler had made no plans to invade the Soviet Union, and not that he planned the invasion of GB from the beginning.

Anyway, until early 1941, neither Hitler nor the Wehrmacht had committed themselves to Operation Barbarossa. From May 1940 to Winter 1940, the undivided and sustained attention of the Germany was focussed solely on Great Britain. In this period of time, Great Britain was at the low point of its military strength (Dunkirk), and Germany at its height. After that, the gap started to close, especially between the Air Forces, as the Luftwaffe failed to destroy the British plane industry in the Battle of Britain. "It's the economy, stupid", and Germany's head start in terms of aircraft production and pilot training was melting like ice in the sunshine after May 1940. Can you name just one reason why Germany would have won a second (Air) Battle for Britain, under worse conditions?

Another reason why Germany would not have won the war in the west: Hitler would have been forced to deploy most of the Wehrmacht close to the Russian border anyway, because an attack of the Soviet Union would have been possible at any time. Not planning to attack the Soviet Union doesn't mean that you are safe from being attacked by the Soviet Union. So don't try to argue with me that Germany would have just switched to producing solely planes instead of tanks without Operation Barbarossa. Even with a considerably boosted emphasis on aircraft production, the RAF would have been too strong for the Luftwaffe. Furthermore, in our hypothetical scenario the German situation gets even worse after June 1941: if the Soviet Union didn't join WW2, then the substantial number of US planes and resources sent to the SU under the Lend-Lease programm would have been sent to England instead.


1. I never said that.
2. This whole discussion, as every historical what-if question, is Sci-Fi in itself.

The operation Barbarossa was planed much more before 1941, just the name of the operation was different. The German military attention was entirely focued on Britain.

The reason is that Germany would be able to use much more planes, to produce much more planes, to put all efforts to conquere Britain.

Russia wasn't ready for war and Hitler knew it. He wouldn't have to deploy so much forces in the Solviet border(as though Germany don't have border with Russia ) Wuftvaffe, with the planes from the Eastern front, would have beaten tha RAF. And Lend-Lease is not very immportant actually. It can't change the course of the war.

But let's think mogre global. Without beeing at war with Stalin, Hitler would have stormed Africa with no Problems. So the Britain wouldn't have patrol, therefore wouldn't have fuel for the RAF

Other possibility is a trade agreement between Germany and Russia. Germany could buy a lot of raw materilas from Russia at low costs. Let's not forget that the attitude between Hitler and Stalin was good. But this is very hypotetical

 

[El_Tigre]

The operation Barbarossa was planed much more before 1941, just the name of the operation was different. The German military attention was entirely focued on Britain.

1. Typo? Do you mean Soviet Union? Otherwise, you support my argument.
2. It doesn't matter when Operation Barbarossa was planned, it's important to know when it was implemented: Spring/Summer 1941. Until then, Germany's war against GB was not affected by Operation Barbarossa.

The reason is that Germany would be able to use much more planes, to produce much more planes, to put all efforts to conquere Britain.

Russia wasn't ready for war and Hitler knew it. He wouldn't have to deploy so much forces in the Solviet border(as though Germany don't have border with Russia ) Wuftvaffe, with the planes from the Eastern front, would have beaten tha RAF.

You seriously underestimate the strength of the Red Army: a major cause of the huge losses in 1941 was the moment of surprise. Without the destruction of the Soviet Air Force on the ground and the encirclement of vast numbers of Soviet troops, the balance of power was actually quite precarious; the Red Army certainly outgunned and outmanned the Wehrmacht. If this Army would have been left alone in 1941, it would have been a serious threat to Germany, and the major part of the Wehrmacht would have to be deployed in the east.

And Lend-Lease is not very immportant actually. It can't change the course of the war.

See next post.

But let's think mogre global. Without beeing at war with Stalin, Hitler would have stormed Africa with no Problems. So the Britain wouldn't have patrol, therefore wouldn't have fuel for the RAF

GB got most of its oil and petro-products from the US, the world's leading oil exporter at that time: approx. 75% !! Other major sources of oil were South America and the East Indies (until conquered by Japan).

The Middle East was not nearly as significant an oil producer in WW2 as it is now. In 1937, the US accounted for 60% of global oil production, and South America another 15%. Following next: Soviet Union, with 10%. At that time, the Middle East produced not more than 5% of the world's petroleum.

In other words, a major offensive in North Africa would have had no impact on the fighting capabilites of GB, while it would have seriously weakened the German attack on the British Isles themselves. If Hitler wouldn't have attacked the SU, such an offensive would have been the next best thing that could happen to GB: to pull Axis resources and manpower to an unimportant theater of war.

Other possibility is a trade agreement between Germany and Russia. Germany could buy a lot of raw materilas from Russia at low costs.

But that's just what happened between Sept. 1939 and June 1941!! Germany bought tons of resources from the SU; the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had detailed paragraphs about the raw materials the SU had to provide Germany with.

Let's not forget that the attitude between Hitler and Stalin was good. But this is very hypotetical

A joke?