Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Would the Soviets still conquer Nazis without USA?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Would the Soviets still conquer Nazis without USA?
    Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:18
Originally posted by Bobby

Originally posted by Nick1986

Ivan's own vehicles weren't bad either. Vast quantities of T-34s were manufactured in factories beyond the Urals that ultimately overwhelmed the Huns
True, the T's coming off the lines in Russia were impressive. But I think what ultimately overwhelmed the 'Huns' was their overreach. Too many fronts, the inability to kill Russia quickly, England's will to fight, backed by her Empire, weak allies in the European theater, and of course America's decision to fight with the allies. The T-34's were mopping up.
 
That said the Russian people were instrumental in destroying the two great tyrants of modern European history. The cost to Napoleonic and Nazi armies in trying to subdue the Great Bear was catastrophic strategically. Hitler didn't know his Napoleon, or perhaps he wanted to surpass him. The Russians didn't care either way, they just took care of business.


The Soviets themselves have always given credit for defeating both Napolean and Hitler to their two "Generals" - General Mud and General Winter.

Had Hitler settled for conquering the Ukraine and the Balkan nations, plus the Caucusus oil fieldsand solidified his position, Russia would have been left with a fait accompli.

Hitler over-reached, and that never ends well, but Hitler defeated himself due to his insistence on fighters and fighter-bombers.  Without a long-range, strategic bomber, the Reach couldn't reach those factories in the Urals.  The He-177 Grief was a poor design prone to engine fires.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:22
Originally posted by Mountain Man

Originally posted by Bobby

Originally posted by Nick1986

Ivan's own vehicles weren't bad either. Vast quantities of T-34s were manufactured in factories beyond the Urals that ultimately overwhelmed the Huns
True, the T's coming off the lines in Russia were impressive. But I think what ultimately overwhelmed the 'Huns' was their overreach. Too many fronts, the inability to kill Russia quickly, England's will to fight, backed by her Empire, weak allies in the European theater, and of course America's decision to fight with the allies. The T-34's were mopping up.
 
That said the Russian people were instrumental in destroying the two great tyrants of modern European history. The cost to Napoleonic and Nazi armies in trying to subdue the Great Bear was catastrophic strategically. Hitler didn't know his Napoleon, or perhaps he wanted to surpass him. The Russians didn't care either way, they just took care of business.


The Soviets themselves have always given credit for defeating both Napolean and Hitler to their two "Generals" - General Mud and General Winter.

Had Hitler settled for conquering the Ukraine and the Balkan nations, plus the Caucusus oil fieldsand solidified his position, Russia would have been left with a fait accompli.

Hitler over-reached, and that never ends well, but Hitler defeated himself due to his insistence on fighters and fighter-bombers.  Without a long-range, strategic bomber, the Reach couldn't reach those factories in the Urals.  The He-177 Grief was a poor design prone to engine fires caused by coupled two engines inside each nacelle.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Toltec View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Shape Shifter

Joined: 12-May-2011
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1748
  Quote Toltec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 13:39
Originally posted by Mountain Man

[
The Soviets themselves have always given credit for defeating both Napolean and Hitler to their two "Generals" - General Mud and General Winter.

they have indeed but I would disagree with the Soviet assessment of both campaigns. Napoleon invaded in summer and lost all his troops marching to Moscow in good weather. It was logistics that broke his army. Also with the Germans, on paper they had mobile divisions but overwhelmingly the supplies for these divisions were horse drawn carts. A divisions of panzers bursting through Russian lines may look great on paper but when the fact they would then have to stop and wait for horse drawn carts to catch up to resupply and fuel them, it's not so impressive. 

I would say distance destroyed both the French and Germans. this can be seen in the Crimean War where Britain and France used distance against Russia. Russia had terrible problems getting armies to the Crimea.


Edited by Toltec - 28-Sep-2012 at 13:43
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

History Planet Website
<br /
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 20:26
Toltec is right. Not only were Russia's cities separated by many miles, but the railways were a different gauge to the rest of Europe to prevent enemy armies using them
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:19
Originally posted by Nick1986

Toltec is right. Not only were Russia's cities separated by many miles, but the railways were a different gauge to the rest of Europe to prevent enemy armies using them


Interestingly, the railway gauge difference wasn't that significant.  Germany has Railway Pioneer battalions that specialized in re-gauging the rails to Standard European Gauge, which is 4 ft 8.5 inches, same as ours.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10108
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:56
I think Toltec hit on something that has always stood out in my mind.  It appears that the German Army was only half modernized.  They had the most advanced Artillary pieces, but in most cases used horses to pull them.  Lack of long range planning? Or just not enough resources?
 
 
Back to Top
Toltec View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Shape Shifter

Joined: 12-May-2011
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1748
  Quote Toltec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 00:20
I tend to think lack of long range planning. Germany went to war with Russia early, its economy didn't even go on a war footing till 1943. Hitler's illness as pointed out above coupled with a misguided belief in what they labelled 'psychological warfare' a fallacy the Germans invented in their own minds after the fall of France, that a major army would be defeated if armoured units could burst through the lines. They burst through Russian line a couple of dozen times, the Russian army didn't collapse, they burst through the US army at the Bulge, no effect again. It was a misguided analyses of France's collapse and led them to believe they could get a quick victory over Russia they way they did Poland and France. Many of the top German planner even realised if they failed to get a quick victory they would lose a prolonged war, Ribbontrop said as much.

Edited by Toltec - 03-Oct-2012 at 00:23
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

History Planet Website
<br /
Back to Top
nickherc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2014
Location: Slovenia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
  Quote nickherc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2014 at 05:06
I think Germany would triumph if it weren't for the USA aid. From boots to cans of food, there was a lack of everything. German military really kicked the door hard. The Germans should have been a lot nicer to Ukrainians and mobilize them to fight the Russians.
D day didn't determinate anything.  
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2014 at 09:49
I would advise not voicing that sentiment to any remaining survivors or their family members.

You might not be welcomed to the next picnic or tour of the Normandy American Cemetery.

And any free beer at any VFW is out.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
J.A.W. View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320
  Quote J.A.W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2015 at 02:57
Hitler fought his WW 1 infantry combat career in the West..

Germany lost in the West in WW1, but won against Russia.

The strategic bomber,  D-day invasion & Ardennes offensives saw the best Panzer/Luftwaffe units
expended fighting the Western Allies, if these forces had sole responsiblity for the East,
Red Army advances likely would've been checked..

Churchill foolishly sacrificed Singapore to supply Stalin instead, & IMO - it'd have been better
all round to allow the two vicious dictators to have at it, & look after Britain's interests instead..


Edited by J.A.W. - 07-Apr-2015 at 02:58
Back to Top
Andrew Roosevelt View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14-Mar-2015
Location: Reading
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Andrew Roosevelt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2015 at 06:53
Originally posted by heyamigos

When the American forces landed on Normandy, the Soviets were already on the offensive against the Nazis.  One can argue, that had the Americans and British not got involved on the western front, the Soviets themselves may have singlehandedly defeat the Nazis or forced them into a hasty surrender?
 
But, the British victories in Northern Africa were factors too. 


I don't think so for several reasons. To start with the Soviets were not even in position to defend themselves when the Hitler gave the go for Operation Barbarossa on Dec-1941.
  • No Bombing of Germany
  • No Supplies for USSR
  • No Lend Lease Program for USSR
  • No Allied Information
  • No Dispersal of German Troops across Africa or Italy (later)
  • And More

To me the most important contribution US made to USSR's War effort is bombing of Germany, once Germany lost it's Industrial Power the chances of out producing USSR (via Quality to Quantity basis) was almost impossible. Western Allied Bombing also diverted considerable amount of man and material to Anti-Aircraft defense for the Home Land (Germany) which would other wise be available on the eastern front (were they were needed the most).

Lend Lease Program: US also sent a massive amount of material aid for USSR, although later USSR was able to develop it's own industries in a massive way, during the initial stages the US aid was more than important for USSR's war effort.

Information and Secret Codes: Apart from actively fighting, and providing financial aid for USSR the US and the western allies also provided crucial information about German plans and strategies as the western allies had cracked both German and Japanese codes.

Troop Dispersal: Since US and British forces fought the Germans (although in very little number compared to what the Soviets faced) they did helped to Disperse the German troops and the focus of the High command to some degree. 

Engaging The Japanese: Adding more to that, if US didn't join the war, the chances are the Japanese factor would have remained and Stalin would not have had a free hand in bring the Siberian reserves.

Without all these factors the USSR would have faced several handicaps against the Nazi war machine, USSR would have still managed to defend itself, but pushing the Germans back would have never been possible.

I am not a Business Acumen expert, I just share what little I know.
Back to Top
J.A.W. View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320
  Quote J.A.W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2015 at 22:55
Fair summary, A.R..

Hitler did not hesitate to use his best available fighting formations & equpment against the West,
& it was recognised that, climate/infrastructure issues apart, the actual combat was much tougher there..
Be Modest In Thyself..
Back to Top
Drang nach Osten View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jan-2015
Location: Wladiwostok
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
  Quote Drang nach Osten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2015 at 12:56
 Without the US fighting Japan Japanese would've made "Siberian campaign" and cooperated with the Nazi.
There is nowhere to retreat - Moscow is ahead of us!
Back to Top
J.A.W. View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320
  Quote J.A.W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2015 at 17:33
Likely that would've been better for both of them..
Except that the US was determined to have/provoke war..
Be Modest In Thyself..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.