Question: Germany vs USSR in WW2?

[Fiji]

suppose the UK folds in mid 1940 (for whatever reason) ... it's not occupied by the Germans but it is out of the war.
suppose Germany never declares war on the US and the US only declares war on Japan

we now have a straight up fight between Germany and the USSR on our hands.
Do the Soviets have any chance of winning without the allied shipments to Archangelsk or through Alaska?

any essays on this I can consult?

 

[wkwillis]

Oil and War

Germany is no longer starved for oil (or ore). This makes Germany a much more dangerous enemy.
On the other hand, Stalin goes to war at once. He was only waiting for England to surrender and Germany to attack. He was surprised because he knew that Germany would lose the war if it attacked Russia without eliminating England first (which is what happened in OTL). He mobilizes at once and attacks Germany to blood his troops (which means, really, that he will learn which of his officers are any good and promote them).
So a longer, bloodier, but less destructive war for Russia. A longer, bloodier, but less destructive war for Germany, too. England gets out, the US never gets in, and it just grinds on and on.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

If England loses and the USSR fights Germany, I doubt that the Japanese would bother with America; Japan is likely to get Hong Kong and other British holdings in SE Asia, and thus gets what it wants without having had to invade them (which the US had threatened war over). Expect it to launch an attack on Stalin's flank if and when Stalin pulls his strong Siberian troops to continue the fight against the Germans; and if he doesn't, then Germany will have that much of an easier time wiping out the Red Army.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

we now have a straight up fight between Germany and the USSR on our hands. Do the Soviets have any chance of winning without the allied shipments to Archangelsk or through Alaska?

Hm, under those circumstances, I'll have to say; bye, bye Mother Russia! There's a lot more to it than that, but lets just focus on the lend-leese-thingy. Without it, as far as I know, you'll basically have a Red Army without trucks, canned food, boots and radios. They'll also lack some planes and tanks, but the trucks and radios are more important. An army that is none-motorized and lacking command and control (radios) would have been devoured by the German veterans of 1940-41.
It really dosn't matter much the USSR attack or not. If Stalin, however, orders an attack on Germany, as Willis states, the poor Soviets grunts get killed even faster. Attack demands more control and skill than digging-in on the Rodina's holy soil and defending, something which the Red Army do not have at this time - yes, yes there's a Zhukov somewhere, but one swallow does not make a summer.

Regards and all!

- B.

 

[Redbeard]

If England loses and the USSR fights Germany, I doubt that the Japanese would bother with America; Japan is likely to get Hong Kong and other British holdings in SE Asia, and thus gets what it wants without having had to invade them (which the US had threatened war over). Expect it to launch an attack on Stalin's flank if and when Stalin pulls his strong Siberian troops to continue the fight against the Germans; and if he doesn't, then Germany will have that much of an easier time wiping out the Red Army.

If UK is out of the European war, but with a reasonably intact navy (might be the reason for not being invaded) and industrial capacity the British Empire actually have a very good chance of defending themselves against the Japanese. UK alone had a warpotential some three-four times bigger than Japan.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Valamyr]

Crushing German victory by the end of 1942, IMO.

 

[B_Munro]

The Soviets lose lendlease, but they are not caught by surprise and retain areas with extensive manpower, resources, and industry quickly overrun in our TL. Russian military production is considerably higher, and they can hold onto more food-producing areas. I'd say it about balances out, and the war grinds on untill either the Soviets or Germany runs out of warm bodies, somewhere in '45 or '46. No compromise peace: neither side is willing to allow the other to survive as a strong threat while they are winning. I'd give roughly 60-40 odds in the Soviet's favor, depending on how well or badly they do in the first year of fighting: if the Soviets manage not to lose too much territory in the first 12 months, they can probably win it, although at human costs possibly exceeding our TL. (Note the lendlease pipe to the Soviets didn't really start to flow in quantity until late '42, by which they had stopped the Germans cold in spite of being seriously caught with their pants down).

The Japanese might intervene on the German side, but if the Germans seem to be winning, why suffer terrible losses against an enemy with crushing superiority in tanks, etc. to gain some frozen wasteland? And if the Germans seem to be losing, why suffer terrible losses against an enemy with crushing superiority in tanks, etc. and possibly get driven off the mainland altogether? (Even in '41, before the undoubtedly grotesque buildup that would occur during the war, only a small percentage of the Soviet army is needed to effectively stop any japanese advance into eastern Siberia cold. Repeat after me: The Japanese have _nothing_ resembling heavy armor. Japanese tanks are dinky little things with thin armor designed to chase lightly armed Chinese resistence through rice paddies).

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

The Soviets lose lendlease, but they are not caught by surprise and retain areas with extensive manpower, resources, and industry quickly overrun in our TL. Russian military production is considerably higher, and they can hold onto more food-producing areas. I'd say it about balances out (...)

Well, the Soviets might not be surprised or they might! That's hard to tell, I'd say! In OTL they should have known the Germans were about to invade, but more or less didn't do anything! Still the Red Army of 1940-41 would have been run over by the Germans no matter what they did! They did OTL, why would that change? Fixed defenses are simply not good, when your opponent uses the kind of mobile warfare the Germans did! The Red Army was just not geared for this type of combat at the time, since most of the capable officers had just been shot, the army itself badly mauled by the Finns, and the mobile units lacked vehicles and radios!

The Soviets fear and respect of and for the Germans would be even higher with Britain knocked out of the war! The Germans would seem truely invincible in this ATL! The poor Soviets would be scared to death be the prospect of facing the Germans, while the Germans would be even more confident than in OTL!

(Note the lendlease pipe to the Soviets didn't really start to flow in quantity until late '42, by which they had stopped the Germans cold in spite of being seriously caught with their pants down).).

That's not my impression. Late in 1941 (28/10), President Roosevelt approved the appropriation by Congress of an additional $6 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union. I btw wouldn't say the Germans was stopped cold by late '42. Anyway that's in OTL, not in this ATL! Remember, the British are done for. The Germans will have far greater resources committed to the Eastern Front!

Regards and all!

- Bluenote.

 

[sikitu]

There is yet another point here...if Germany attacked Russia earlier in 1940, say in April, they probably would not be stopped by the extreme winter before reaching Moscow. I seriously doubt that Russia would have been able to survive as a country had they lost Leningrad and Moscow early in the war. Certainly, there would have been a lot of guerilla warfare, but actually that would mainly have meant more civilian killings by the Nazis.

My estimate is that in a war Germany- SU starting in 1940 and without allied support for the Soviets, would be over as a war in 1942 at the latest...