re: Do you think the Allies would have won WWII if Russia has sided with Germany?

Anything is possible, but wasn't Barbarossa sort of part of Hitler's original plan? As in, him taking over West Russia? Either way, I don't think the Germans were prepared for the Russia winter...

Alternate history has to at least be plausible.

This is not a plausible scenario.

Germany and Russia had competing territorial desires and opposing sociopolitical philosophies. They wouldn’t have EVER been allies.

The very best case for Germany was a non-aggression pact, which they had.

THE reason why Germany invaded Russia was to seize the Caucasus oilfields. Germany was running dry on oil. They had none of their own (they made synthetic fuel from coal) and their Romanian supply was insufficient. They wouldn’t be able to carry on, much less invade Britain, without an oil supply. The original plan was to quickly encircle and annihilate the main body of Russia’s then current military forces west of Moscow then throw up a defensive line to shield the flank and dive SE for the oilfields in Maikop, Grozny, and Astrakhan, which would get THEM the oil AND force the Russians to capitulate.

It was a hail mary to begin with because the Germans were already limited on fuel and faced other major supply problems. They were on a tight timeline before they ran out.

When the Russians played cat and mouse and successfully retreated avoiding total annihilation, they stretched out the German supply lines beyond what they could handle and drug out the timeline beyond the oil supply collapse deadline.

It wasn’t the winter. It wasn’t Stalingrad. It was the successful Russian retreat destroying the timeline.

The Germans tried to push on to Grozny and Astrakhan the next summer. This was called Fall Blau - it was THE eastern offensive of 1942. They actually alllllmost made it, but sputtered out just short, as their high command had predicted, due to the inability to adequately supply that far afield AND because they literally just ran out of gas.

It’s very accurate to see Barbarossa as Germany’s equivalent of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Both were ultimately unsuccessful Hail Marys forced by an oil supply weakness that threatened to shut down each nation’s war fighting capability. Both were successful in their opening but eventually fatal, though you could say neither nation strategically had any other choice.

Hitler wasted so many resources on Norway. I was just watching one of those Nazi megastructure shows. If they would have diverted half of those wasted resources they could have probably extended the war for a few years.

quote:

---

You don’t think that if the Germans would have just pressed on to Moscow rather than splitting forces, they would have beaten the Russians?

---

No. Absolutely not. Just as with their war against Napoleon, the Russians had already evacuated their government and industry from Moscow. Moscow was symbolic only. Review of Russian documents by modern western historians has shown conclusively that Russia not only had the means to fight on and that they had made the decision to fight on, but also that they had essentially ACCEPTED the loss of Moscow. Their plans actually had it factored in as a quasi inevitability. Due to the mass relocation of all essential war industry to the Urals and the material supply from the US, they absolutely had the means to do it.

The only scenario where Russia loses after they slipped the noose in the opening month of Barbarossa and strategically retreated is if Germany could have taken Astrakhan. No more Astrakhan would mean no more oil supply AND no more US supply up the Volga River. They would have capitulated after that as they would’ve lost their ability to make war.

The REAL essential city to take was not Moscow at all - it was Astrakhan. The SOVIETS realized this and thought the main German war aim was the Caucasus. They were actually surprised by the focus on the Moscow drive because they thought the Germans realized that it was strategically of little consequence.

And actually Hitler DID realize that. His orders were countermanded in the field by his generals who were stuck in the continental mindset of “take the capital, win the war”, which IS true in France, but NOT true in a maneuver war with almost endless room, like Russia.

1984 is about as plausible as it gets with territory split up in alternate post WWII.

As long as we had the UK a Eurasian invasion is doable but inadvisable.

It it's lost frick it we got south America. Duke it out with East Asia for the occasional island chain and Australia. Wave our dicks at the germanoslav uppercrust as they deal with Africa and Muslims.

quote:

---

When the Russians played cat and mouse and successfully retreated avoiding total annihilation, they stretched out the German supply lines beyond what they could handle and drug out the timeline beyond the oil supply collapse deadline.

It wasn’t the winter. It wasn’t Stalingrad. It was the successful Russian retreat destroying the timeline.

The Germans tried to push on to Grozny and Astrakhan the next summer. This was called Fall Blau - it was THE eastern offensive of 1942. They actually alllllmost made it, but sputtered out just short, as their high command had predicted, due to the inability to adequately supply that far afield AND because they literally just ran out of gas.

It’s very accurate to see Barbarossa as Germany’s equivalent of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Both were ultimately unsuccessful Hail Marys forced by an oil supply weakness that threatened to shut down each nation’s war fighting capability. Both were successful in their opening but eventually fatal, though you could say neither nation strategically had any other choice.

---

Here’s my German what if:

In 1941, the Germans move the bulk of their surface fleet along the coast line under cover of air and U-boats to the Mediterranean. Sure they get some sunk, but the Channel Dash proved it could be done. Even if they draw the British Home Fleet out, under superior German air power - and over the Channel the Bfs aren’t range limited - they could inflict massive losses on the Royal Navy that the Brits may not risk. Once in the southern French ports (who cares about Vichy concerns?), the Kriegsmarine combined with the Italian Navy could have eliminated the big thorn in their side, Malta. Once they did that, walling off the Mediterranean at the Straits of Gibraltar with the navy and air in North Africa. With the severe restriction in British supply, the Afrika Korps takes Egypt. German oil concerns are greatly reduced.

Really, what strategic bang for the buck did Germany get from the Tirpitz, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, et al bottled up in North Sea and Norwegian harbors? Why not roll the dice and cash them in on something truly useful?

The only question is, if this pushes Barbarossa to 1942, does an extra year of Soviet mobilization/industrial output outweigh the strategic benefit of the Middle East oil?

quote:

---

You don’t think that if the Germans would have just pressed on to Moscow rather than splitting forces, they would have beaten the Russians?

---

The Germans didn't have enough oil to successfully defeat Moscow. The battle for Moscow would have been Stalingrad times 10. The reason they split there forces was to occupy all the oil fields in the caucuses, thus giving the Germans enough oil to launch a large scale attack of heavy artillery on Moscow

I haven't read the thread but they were completely on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

They were both trying to buy time

I don't think he gets that the what if doesn't work in this case, because there isn't an alternate political earth where the german and the russian weren't mortal enemies except for Napoleon's brief march.