Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aenri]

PTW, how appropriate that off topic thread gets off topic.

[Sergarr]

It would be very confusing to have a multi-threaded discussion, constantly jumping from thread to thread. It's better to keep it in a single thread, so that the line of discussion doesn't get lost.

[mainiac]

I did not realize the nature of this topic before.  Reposting from other thread:

Germany had allies.  At the end of 1941 the ratio of Axis to Soviet available population and economy was 2-1.  And that was a German economy that was blocked from all sea trade by the oft-overlooked British blockade.  I wouldn't just say that it was possible that the Axis would have been able to beat the Soviets alone, I'd say that it was all but overwhelmingly likely.  The Soviets were taking casualties at a worse then 1-1 rate and the Axis had more troops to sacrifice.

If the war had drawn onto 1946 the Soviets would have had to go from inducting 6 million men a year into the armed forces into inducting 1 million men.  They simply didn't have more manpower to draw.  As it was they suffered a famine in 1946.  If they had been fighting the Axis alone and the war was still going the famine would have been worse.  Germany ran out of manpower historically but they would have run out if Italy hadn't surrendered (to say nothing of other allies) and they didn't need to bother with North Africa+Normandy+3 million men on anti-aircraft and repair duties.

It would have been a long, grinding affair.  The Germans were in a horrible logistical situation that meant they couldn't achieve blitzkrieg successes.  It would have been a war of attrition.  But the Soviets despite the myth of Soviet hordes did not have infinite manpower and that manpower would have been exhausted first.

[Sergarr]

It's all purely theoretical, since it assumes that Germany somehow gained the territory of Poland and France without getting war declaration from Allies.

It counts in all possible advantages of conquering Europe while ignoring all disadvantages.

[mainiac]

If that's the line you are taking then the answer to:
"Could the Soviets have beat Germany alone" would be:
"No, the Soviets would not have fought Germany alone."

[Knit tie]

I still believe that the question "could Soviets have beaten Germany alone" is fundamentally speculative and impossible to answer with any degree of certainty.

Wars don't happen in a vacuum, you see, and more often than not they don't go according to plan.

[mainiac]

Well obviously any hypothetical is speculative.  That's a tautology.

What isn't speculative is to look at the historical resources of each side and look at the rate they used those resources and use simple extrapolation to see that Soviet resources would have exhausted years before Axis ones.  That's simply stating what happened, not speculating that it was fated to happen that way.

[Guardian G.I.]

posting to warm my hands with the heat of this warming thread

[Sergarr]

Well obviously any hypothetical is speculative.  That's a tautology.

What isn't speculative is to look at the historical resources of each side and look at the rate they used those resources and use simple extrapolation to see that Soviet resources would have exhausted years before Axis ones.  That's simply stating what happened, not speculating that it was fated to happen that way.

And I'm pointing out that Axis would not have had these kinds of resources in that scenario, unless Allies would supply Axis with lend-lease.

Germany bought a lot of resources from USSR after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Germany needed those resources. Germany wouldn't get those resources without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which wouldn't happen if Poland wasn't invaded, which couldn't happen because Axis is not at war with Allies.

Germany in that scenario would be a lot weaker than in reality. Not to mention the lack of combat experience which came after the Europe campaigns, which are impossible in this scenario since Axis is not at war with Allies.

Am I wrong?

[Erkki]

Well obviously any hypothetical is speculative.  That's a tautology.

What isn't speculative is to look at the historical resources of each side and look at the rate they used those resources and use simple extrapolation to see that Soviet resources would have exhausted years before Axis ones.  That's simply stating what happened, not speculating that it was fated to happen that way.

And I'm pointing out that Axis would not have had these kinds of resources in that scenario, unless Allies would supply Axis with lend-lease.

Germany bought a lot of resources from USSR after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Germany needed those resources. Germany wouldn't get those resources without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which wouldn't happen if Poland wasn't invaded, which couldn't happen because Axis is not at war with Allies.

Germany in that scenario would be a lot weaker than in reality. Not to mention the lack of combat experience which came after the Europe campaigns, which are impossible in this scenario since Axis is not at war with Allies.

Am I wrong?

Only partially - Germany actually lost quite a bit of combat vehicles in France and especially aircraft against the RAF, and had not been able to fully recover yet when Barbarossa was launched. Both fighter and especially bomber forces were actually smaller than they were in 1940 before the attacks on France and Benelux countries, and the latter due to heavy casualties was also less experienced. Wehrmacht had to use trucks salvaged from France to be able to patch the gaps in lines. Also many of the existing units, and not exactly the worst ones, were left to Norway(1 fighter, 2 bomber regiments IIRC) and France(2 fighter regiments) and some were fighting in the Mediterranean TOE. Plus the troop and armor garrisons, and the whole mass construction of a submarine fleet that was taking up fit men, workers and manufacturing capacity.

[Helgoland]

It's all purely theoretical, since it assumes that Germany somehow gained the territory of Poland and France without getting war declaration from Allies.

It counts in all possible advantages of conquering Europe while ignoring all disadvantages.

Okay: Hitler makes peace with Britain in 1941, before Barbarossa starts. Who wins?

[mainiac]

Well the Soviets would be caught slightly less of guard but I have to ask why Britain would accept such terms.  Is Germany making another 200 submarines a year, at the cost of huge land forces not built?

[SaberToothTiger]

It's all about tanks, guys.

Tanks are nice and warm.

I would like to have a tank.

A nice, warm tank.

Tanks.

[Mr. Strange]

It's all about tanks, guys.

Tanks are nice and warm.

I would like to have a tank.

A nice, warm tank.

Tanks.

I'm a taaank!

[mainiac]

I'm not sure if they'd have been able to beat them, but I think they'd have been successful in at least defending Russia. After all, the whole Russian winter, their culture (from what I understand of it) and such generally results in a rather hard place to capture, combined with Hitler's intelligence, or lack thereof. You send guys in, they freeze. If they don't freeze, the sudden geurilla groups kill them. Both of those fail, then Hitler would probably manage to fuck SOMETHING up.

It wasn't really the winter that was the problem, it was the mud before and after the winter.  The freeze itself was when it became possible to move again.

But really the terrain is overstated.  Everyone freezes their ass off during a winter.  What actually killed the Germans is when the Soviets could launch a massive offensive with six million men that advanced 500 miles and enveloped entire armies as it went.  Ya know, military stuff.