Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 5th, 2011, 04:05 AM   #341

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

"Could World War 2 have been won by the allies without the Soviet Union?"

The answer to this question depends on the fate of the Soviets. Are we to presume that the US does not threaten Japan and the Soviets are defeated? Had the Japanese fought their war in China and not sneak attacked the US - then the million or so of Stalin's Siberian troops would have been held in the Far East of Russia to guard for their possible northern thrust. Following Pearl however, Stalin knew that the Japanese would not fight on two fronts and invade the Soviet Union. He moved almost a million of his Siberians into their Western lines to defend, amongst other cities, Moscow. This was one of the most important turning points on the Russian Front, indeed of the whole war. It was possible, had Hitler not vacillated on the invasion and micromanaged his generals, that the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow and then anything could have been possible... even the defeat of the Soviet Union and hence the invasion of Britain and even the US (with the help of millions of the defeated Russians). Britain, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, then the USA and South America.

Perhaps the question should have been "Could the Allies have won the war without Japanese Bushido?"
rehabnonono is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 5th, 2011, 07:05 AM   #342

Fire_Raven's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 2,025

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
"Could World War 2 have been won by the allies without the Soviet Union?"

The answer to this question depends on the fate of the Soviets. Are we to presume that the US does not threaten Japan and the Soviets are defeated? Had the Japanese fought their war in China and not sneak attacked the US - then the million or so of Stalin's Siberian troops would have been held in the Far East of Russia to guard for their possible northern thrust. Following Pearl however, Stalin knew that the Japanese would not fight on two fronts and invade the Soviet Union. He moved almost a million of his Siberians into their Western lines to defend, amongst other cities, Moscow. This was one of the most important turning points on the Russian Front, indeed of the whole war. It was possible, had Hitler not vacillated on the invasion and micromanaged his generals, that the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow and then anything could have been possible... even the defeat of the Soviet Union and hence the invasion of Britain and even the US (with the help of millions of the defeated Russians). Britain, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, then the USA and South America.

Perhaps the question should have been "Could the Allies have won the war without Japanese Bushido?"
Slight correction. Richard Sorge advises Stalin in Sept of '41 that Japan wouldn't attack the USSR unless 3 specific conditions were met. So he was able to begin moving troops west prior to Pearl Harbor
Fire_Raven is offline  
Old February 6th, 2011, 09:49 AM   #343

Aspartam's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Moscow oblast
Posts: 913

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiades View Post
<...>
2)If the Soviets are completely removed from war,it is EXTREMELY dubios if even 2 dropped A-bombs would have forced Germany to surrender(what with Germany having millions of more soldiers than they historically had by 1945)
Alcibiades
I think that in case of the total German domination in Europe the USA would not drop an A-bomb on Germany; in this case they (the USA and Germany) would strike a certain mutually beneficial bargain.
The USA took part in the war in Europe for to take the place of the weakened super-powers (UK, France) and defeated Germany. It is hardly probable that States would continue their struggle against powerful Germany.
Aspartam is offline  
Old February 6th, 2011, 09:53 AM   #344

Aspartam's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Moscow oblast
Posts: 913

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
<...>
In the War in the Pacific, the Soviet contributed nothing to the defeat of Japan. The Invasion of Manucharia, begun just after the first atomic bomb was dropped, was the Soviet Union's last chance to declare war on Japan and grab some territory before Japan surrendered. (The Soviet still has the Kuril islands they captured during literally the last days of the war.). Germany had surrendered 4 months earlier, and the Soviet's had plenty of time to get into the Pacific War, and they did not.
<...>
The USSR undertook to begin the war against Japan in 3 months after the capitulation of Germany. So Soviet Union did; Americans were aware of Soviet planes. In reality Soviet Union did not begin invasion in Manchuria after the first bomb was dropped, but the first bomb were dropped ahead of time, before the Soviet offensive.
Hirosima was frightening show not only for Japans, but also for Soviet Union.
Aspartam is offline  
Old February 6th, 2011, 06:09 PM   #345

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Fire_raven makes a good point about Sorge and he wasn't the only informant Stalin heard from regarding Japanese aspirations. However Stalin wasn't the type of leader to take information at face value and move a million men off his borders. True he moved as many as he thought he could at a very tough time for the Soviets... but only felt confident of moving most of his reserve after Pearl.

Oh and while we are on the what ifs... my position on the Wehrmacht successfully invading North America could only have been possible of course had they been able to fight their way through to California pre-1945. Big ask, even with the Russians and Japanese on the Pacific side and enough U-Boats in the Pacific to make it a fight.

With the fall of Moscow and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union we can play out all types of horror scenarios.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old February 7th, 2011, 10:30 AM   #346

whig's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Satellite of Love
Posts: 8

Incorrect. Hitler was the biggest factor in turning the tides of war, not the Soviet Union.

Hitler did too many things at once. Had he just declared war solely on the Soviet Union instead of taking on several nations at once he would have easily of crushed the Soviets.

Soviet military tactics were not that great and the soldiers were ill-equipped. Victory should have been easy for Germany, but, as history has shown they didn't win.

Without US involvement the war would have still been won by the Allies, this much I am certain. Without the Soviet Union the same could be said. Hitler's downfall, due to his personal problems, is what led to his downfall and not a single nation.

Hitler had become hooked on drugs which severely affected his decision making. He became dependent. There were several battles in World War II which could have easily went his way late in the war but didn't because he was growing increasingly slow and aging faster than normal.

Here is Hitler in 1938 with Neville Chamberlain.

Click the image to open in full size.

By 1945 he had withered away and within 7 years appeared to have aged 20.

Click the image to open in full size.

His downfall was because of himself and not the Soviets. He was doomed to fail.
whig is offline  
Old February 7th, 2011, 10:44 AM   #347

serhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: Podolia
Posts: 885

Quote:
Originally Posted by whig View Post
Incorrect. Hitler was the biggest factor in turning the tides of war, not the Soviet Union.

Hitler did too many things at once. Had he just declared war solely on the Soviet Union instead of taking on several nations at once he would have easily of crushed the Soviets.

Soviet military tactics were not that great and the soldiers were ill-equipped. Victory should have been easy for Germany, but, as history has shown they didn't win.

Without US involvement the war would have still been won by the Allies, this much I am certain. Without the Soviet Union the same could be said. Hitler's downfall, due to his personal problems, is what led to his downfall and not a single nation.

Hitler had become hooked on drugs which severely affected his decision making. He became dependent. There were several battles in World War II which could have easily went his way late in the war but didn't because he was growing increasingly slow and aging faster than normal.


His downfall was because of himself and not the Soviets. He was doomed to fail.
You counterpose one person, even a great leader to the whole nation, the country. Position that one person can win a war is fatally flawed. We also present the view that Stalin won the war. Personally, I believe that the Soviet Union won not because of, but rather in spite of Stalin. Tens of millions of victims of proof. Hitler and Germany were doomed not 44 or 45 year, and at 39 when he started the war.
serhi is online now  
Old February 7th, 2011, 10:55 AM   #348

whig's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Satellite of Love
Posts: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by serhi View Post
You counterpose one person, even a great leader to the whole nation, the country. Position that one person can win a war is fatally flawed. We also present the view that Stalin won the war. Personally, I believe that the Soviet Union won not because of, but rather in spite of Stalin. Tens of millions of victims of proof. Hitler and Germany were doomed not 44 or 45 year, and at 39 when he started the war.
I still disagree. There were many points in the War where Germany could have turned it around and crushed the Soviets but didn't. The biggest reason why was because of Hitlers warped mind. He was a dictator after all.

One of the biggest points was where Hitler didn't aid his soldiers in Russia with the proper winter equipment. He easily could have. It was the environment that got to the Nazis after all.

That was one crucial turning point in all of this.

Another mistake Hitler made was not defending the homefront. He went completely offensive and left Germany more or less undefended.

Another mistake came in the summer of 41 where Hitler had the chance to take Moscow but didn't. Instead he waited till September when it was too late. I would say 1941 may have been the beginning of the end for Germany, not 1939.

Hitler dropped the ball 1 too many times.
whig is offline  
Old February 8th, 2011, 08:18 AM   #349

OtherElse's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Eurokleptocracy
Posts: 101

Siberian troops was taken from East not only because of Sorge but also because of problems which japs has in China.
Japanese couldnt find oil in China or couldnt take it from the underground. Oil was the main aim of Jap expansion. And they knew that in Siberian oil didn`t exist.
Soviets gave arms and amunitions to chinese-kommunistic-party. Japs also remembered the totals of two attacs on the Soviet (at the east Russia and in Mongholia)
so 04/14/1940 was signed the agreements covered the asian side of SU
----
Quote:
With the fall of Moscow and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union we can play out all types of horror scenarios.
russians has been losted their capital some time in history.
germans could fight at Moskow and it would been the worst scenario because of sprained flanks, difficulties of the provision and deficit of motor transport. if In the Current History germans crawled away, in the "Captured Moskow" scenario they would came to encirclement like stalingard and would lost much more.
----
untill feb 1942 soviets didn`t got any efficient helps from the allies. But in feb 1942 Moscow problem has been solved.

winter 1941/1942 germans got heavy losses of trucks and losted ability for deep maneuwral operation. So since than they might get successes in Russian bud couldnt win.
---
real important help from allies was medicines especially antibiotics, aluminium and rubber
OtherElse is offline  
Old February 8th, 2011, 12:53 PM   #350

serhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: Podolia
Posts: 885

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Yes, the US could have won the war without the Soviet Union, but it would have been more difficult.
hard to win the war, the more so as an all-out World War II knowingly without sacrificing many lives.
The Soviet Union as the air was needed second front is not in 1944, and in 41-42 years. At 44, he already could do without it, but allies of political expediency finally deigned to take something ...
serhi is online now  
Closed Thread

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
allies, soviet, union, war, won


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why didn't Britain/France declare war on the Soviet Union? celtman European History 20 September 14th, 2009 03:20 AM
Italy for the Allies kevinthecool Speculative History 2 December 25th, 2008 03:32 PM
Soviet Union collapse Jazze History Book Reviews 8 September 22nd, 2008 06:33 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.