Started By
Message

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

Posted on 7/25/18 at 8:06 pm to
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17109 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 8:06 pm to
quote:

THE reason why Germany invaded Russia was to seize the Caucasus oilfields. 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.


This is false. The reasons for attacking the USSR were multiple, but a necessity to attain the oilfields of the Caucasus or else the Germans would be incapable of successfully prosecuting the war against Britain is false.

First of all, obviously carrying out a war against the USSR would only stretch German oil supplies even thinner, along with putting tremendous strain on their manpower and equipment and would severely limit their operations against the British during the time such an invasion was being carried out. Also, as we know, the Germans did not acquire the oilfields of the Caucasus yet were still able to very capably attack and resist on multiple fronts even from June of 1941 through April 1945 (duration of war with Soviets). Thus if they had adequate oil supplies to conduct the entirety of their fighting in the Second World War without acquiring any Caucasus oil, it is rather presumptive and counterintuitive to suggest that they didn't have adequate oil supplies to carry on a limited war against the British Empire after knocking out one of their most feared foes, France, in just 6 weeks and thus preserving tremendous resources and manpower in the process.

Germany invaded the USSR because Hitler's ultimate ambitions were always Eastern expansion at the expense of the USSR and the Slavs. Part of the reason was simply Hitler's view of a German Empire in the East. Politically, this allowed for the destruction of Bolshevism, which likewise served the ideological ends of Hitler and the Nazi philosophy. Thirdly, it would solidify Germany's access to foodstuffs as well other natural resources, oil included. Manpower from forced labor could be allocated. But perhaps most practically for the current war aims, eliminating the USSR in one fatal blow would effectively eliminate all hope in British political circles for a victory over Germany and would force them to reach a settlement. Hitler had little ambition to destroy the British Empire and always preferred a settlement in which both coexisted as the major European hegemonic powers.

quote:

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.


What was their timeline exactly? How were they threatened after the fall of France, timeline wise, by a shortage of oil such that they were running out of time to fight the British?

quote:

they stretched out the German supply lines beyond what they could handle and drug out the timeline beyond the oil supply collapse deadline.


Which could have been avoided entirely by not invading the Soviet Union, which indicates that the rationale for doing so was something other than an imminent, desperate, and suicidal drive for oil. They only served to deplete their supplies more so as well as losing equipment and men to both breakdowns, destruction, and death as well as strategic consumption necessary to occupy, control, and maintain supply lines across such mass expanses as the USSR. Again, it's counterintuitive to do all this simply to drive on Soviet oil deep in the Caucasus. All this to prosecute a war against the British in North Africa and the British Isles?

quote:

The Germans tried to push on to Grozny and Astrakhan the next summer.


Yes, now that the Germans had embroiled themselves in a massive, drawn out, two front war in which they now faced the entire might and resources of not just the Soviet Union, but now the United States as well. Now their limited oil supply was REALLY a strategic problem, whereas in July/August of 1940, when only the British Empire stood as Germany's wartime foe, it was of minimal strategic threat to the German war economy.

Also, the fact that these oil fields were not a principal objective in the initial Barbarossa campaign but were only the objectives of the following year's campaign indicates that securing oil in order to bolster desperately low supplies as a necessity to continuing any prosecution of the war was NOT the motivating factor of launching the invasion of the USSR. Otherwise, not acquiring them in the initial campaign would have caused an imminent collapse of the German war machine. It of course didn't.

quote:

though you could say neither nation strategically had any other choice.


Strategically, the Germans had MUCH better choices than invading the USSR to bolster oil supplies. The primary "strategic" reasons to invade the USSR in 1941 were 1) to stave off a potential Soviet invasion of Germany and her eastern allies while tied down fighting the British (a situation in which the USSR could have ACTUALLY crippled Germany's oil supplies by taking the Romanian oilfields) and 2) as a means to knock out the only remaining European state that could potentially join the war effort and fundamentally threaten Germany's strategic advantage over the British Empire given the fall of mainland Europe. Bolstering oil and other resource acquisition was secondary to these first two, primary strategic concerns.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the invasion of the USSR was entirely rational and justifiable on the basis of preventing a sudden Soviet attack which could have instantly threatened Germany's entire position in the war. Even as favorable as it appeared to be at that time, Germany's strategic position was highly vulnerable in the East given Soviet proximity to Germany proper as well as the Ploesti oilfields. Hitler's reasoning though, as mentioned above, was multiple. It certainly wasn't necessary for the Germans to secure their strategic wartime positioning against Great Britain. The British were in very poor shape to conduct much more than defensive operations against the Germans at this time.
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
83226 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 8:33 pm to
Russia pretty much took over our country in 2016, and that’s without Germany help.
Posted by Man4others
Member since Aug 2017
2467 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 8:34 pm to
There is a YouTube video describing what would happen if USA vs Russia fought right after Germany fell and the US eventually won. Army would take losses but Air Force wins it eventually
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:26 pm to
quote:

Cooter Davenport


Posted by PawnMaster
Down Yonder
Member since Nov 2014
1663 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:27 pm to
quote:

ChewyDante


I always Get excited when I see you and Darth’s Signature images in WWII related threads. You guys know your stuff!
Posted by PawnMaster
Down Yonder
Member since Nov 2014
1663 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:32 pm to
quote:

primary strategic concerns


What was Germany’s primary strategic concerns for declaring war on the US?
Posted by go ta hell ole miss
Member since Jan 2007
14572 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:33 pm to
Not a chance.
Posted by JohnnyBgood
South Louisiana
Member since May 2010
4436 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:38 pm to
General Patton always said the real enemy was the Commies, and the US should attack them while the Army was in Europe, thus avoiding a 30 year Cold War. And of course Patton was killed not long after that.
Posted by ZappBrannigan
Member since Jun 2015
7692 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 9:47 pm to
Honestly, none. By the pact they made with Japan they didn't have to declare war since it was supposed to be defensive in nature.

Japan and Germany never really had a grand unified strategy. Japan never pressured Russia or interdicted convoys of supplies intended for it. Germany had a surface vessels trapped in the Pacific and the occasional uboat but never anything staged for an offensive.

Really the only thing that the countries shared was being prepared for their initial land grabs with no ability to sustain and being far away enough from each other that they weren't eyeing the same land. Like Russia and Germany with Poland.
Posted by Champagne
Sabine Free State.
Member since Oct 2007
53696 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 10:01 pm to
Eva Braun said that she didn't want Hitler to last longer because her pussy was quite worn out by 1945.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17109 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 10:15 pm to
quote:

What was Germany’s primary strategic concerns for declaring war on the US?


Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. was his most inexplicable blunder IMO. The strategic advantages appear clearly to me to be outweighed by the strategic disadvantages. Of course I have hindsight to pass such a judgment and perhaps the United States would have found reason to enter the war absent German declaration, as it did in WWI. Also, political rhetoric from the United States was taking on a form similar to before U.S. entry in the First World War. The United States was openly engaged in sending war aid to Germany's enemies. American ships and German U-boats were engaging one another in isolated actions in the Atlantic. If you were inclined to fear the United States was planning entry into the war, the context around you could very reasonably offer credence to those concerns.

I would start with Hitler's speech to the Reichstag in which he lays out his public rationale.

Hitler's speech on declaration of war against United States

The German navy was chomping at the bit to start attacking U.S. shipping in the Atlantic, which was a lifeline to both the British and the USSR. Hitler appeared to believe that U.S. entrance into the war was inevitable and that postponing open hostilities served Germany's enemies more than Germany. If war was inevitable then wasting time by not engaging American shipping was hurting Germany's war effort.

I believe Hitler secretly held out hope that this would also encourage the Japanese to lend assistance against the Soviets in the East. If the war with the USSR could successfully be concluded prior to the amount of time it would take the United States to deliver troops and war material to the European theater then Germany's situation would be greatly secured, or so the thinking goes.

I believe he also underestimated the shear capacity of the United States to fundamentally tip the scales against them. Hitler at this time still believed the war could be settled through terms and that Germany needn't achieve some actual conquest of the United States or British Empire. In this, he was wrong. With the United States having the British Islands as a staging ground for air, sea, and ground power, it ensured that Germany would now be effectively incapable of forcing Britain out of the war through leverage. The upside was far outweighed by the downside and it was the most decisive moment in deciding Germany's fate in the war, IMO.

Appreciate your kind words.
Posted by Moot Point
Georgia
Member since Feb 2009
230 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 10:43 pm to
quote:

the nuke came towards the end of the war. without germany fighting russia there is a good chance that britain would have already fallen and there may have been a german invasion of the US starting already. We were also worrying about the japanese


Sorry, but the Germans were not even capable of organizing an invasion of Great Britain across the English Channel in 1940 when they held all the cards, so it is ridiculous to think they could pull off an invasion of the U.S. They lacked the Naval Resources.
Posted by redbaron
Member since Aug 2011
754 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 10:51 pm to
My grandpa agreed with this sentiment.

Apparently they were in Japan after VJ day, burning ammo. He quipped that they needed to go north and turn left.
Posted by Ancient Astronaut
Member since May 2015
37154 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:22 pm to
Let’s ask Dan Carlin aka redneck history messiah
Posted by Rudy40
Baton Rouge,La
Member since Jan 2007
3073 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:29 pm to
Wondering what would have happened if Germany doesnt invade Western Europe and say invades the USSR in early May of 1940? Do they take Russia if they invade 2 months earlier than they did in 1941?
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
175903 posts
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:32 pm to
How do the allies invade western Europe through Italy or France with 4 million more German troops stationed in those areas? If Germany doesn't have to worry about the eastern front I don't see how the allies penetrate into western Europe.
Posted by Wild Thang
YAW YAW Fooball Nation
Member since Jun 2009
44181 posts
Posted on 7/26/18 at 12:22 am to
quote:

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.


This is my recollection of the events as well. I believe their trains/tanks ran out of fuel about 100 miles from their mark. Or something like that.

They were fricked from that point on
Posted by Vlatket
Member since Oct 2016
7475 posts
Posted on 7/26/18 at 2:08 am to
quote:

The USSR was going to strike Germany if Germany didn't strike first. Stalin got screwed when France caved in so quickly otherwise he would have grabbed most of Europe while Germany was tied up in the West and before the US entered the war.

No scenario would have had Germany and the USSR actually being compatible.
.


What? The USSR had a non existent army and Stalin gave specific orders not to do anything that would anger Hitler. Stalin purged a huge chunk of the Red Army during the Great Purge and was in no position to invade a far more advanced German force. Operation Barbarossa was meant to be a quick campaign as they planned to overwhelm a weak Soviet defense before they could build up their forces. The Germans were steam rolling the Eastern front until Hitler ended up delaying the push on Moscow because the genius thought securing Kiev and Stalingrad first was more important.
This post was edited on 7/26/18 at 2:11 am
Posted by celltech1981
Member since Jul 2014
8139 posts
Posted on 7/26/18 at 4:28 am to




jeeze man can't you have some fun?
Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
35092 posts
Posted on 7/26/18 at 5:19 am to
quote:

The US dominated the seas, especially in the Atlantic..



That’s cool to hear. My granddad was captain of a destroyer escort in the Atlantic during WW2. I think all you hear about is pacific theatre though. Any good sources for Atlantic naval operations?
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram