How would World War II Have Gone had The US and Britain not helped the Russians at all?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
Not accepted them as allies against Nazi German and, not give given any aid or supplies . How would have the war have likely progressed had that happened ?
 

HareBrain

Smeerp of Wonder
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
11,954
Location
West Sussex, UK
I suppose it might have hampered the Soviet war effort to the extent that the western allies would have been able to capture all of Germany. Whether they would have done so, or held it, I'm not sure, as that would have left the USSR with no buffer and heightened tensions above what they actually were in the Cold War.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
I suppose it might have hampered the Soviet war effort to the extent that the western allies would have been able to capture all of Germany. Whether they would have done so, or held it, I'm not sure, as that would have left the USSR with no buffer and heightened tensions above what they actually were in the Cold War.

I think possible that without US and UK aid , Russia collapses and by that , I mean that they lose Moscow , Leningrad , Stalingrad and very possibly the Caucus oilfields and with the old whatever mechanized forces they have would run out of fuel . They don't surrender but, continue to fight from more distant regions of the USSR. In that scenario , moving their factories further east wouldn't help because the German movie ht bomber further afield which mean they knock out theses Russian factories and further Hamper the Russians . Joseph Stalin would not be in charge of what's left because very likel, the politburo would have taken that opportunity to have him shot. This scenario would have also have some dire strategic consequences for the US and the UK .
 

reiver33

Only Forward
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
1,774
Location
Dumfries
I agree with HareBrain that it would have retarded the Soviet comeback by 1 or even 2 years, but the German high-water mark (Stalingrad) predates the major influx of aid. Trucks are the biggie - they primarily served to enhance the Soviet mechanised corps that tore the front apart in 1944, at last giving them a logistical 'tail' and increasing their operational endurance. If The Soviets are slow off the mark in late 43/44, then that gives the Germans time to bolster the West pre-Normandy. The Germans still lose big, unless Hitler lets his Field Marshalls fight unfettered (eventual Allied victory but take a lot more casualties), but it would slow the advance through France to a crawl.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
I agree with HareBrain that it would have retarded the Soviet comeback by 1 or even 2 years, but the German high-water mark (Stalingrad) predates the major influx of aid. Trucks are the biggie - they primarily served to enhance the Soviet mechanised corps that tore the front apart in 1944, at last giving them a logistical 'tail' and increasing their operational endurance. If The Soviets are slow off the mark in late 43/44, then that gives the Germans time to bolster the West pre-Normandy. The Germans still lose big, unless Hitler lets his Field Marshalls fight unfettered (eventual Allied victory but take a lot more casualties), but it would slow the advance through France to a crawl.

But with the Russians on the ropes , the German can redirect military assets to both Salerno and Normandy. This could potentially enable them to block the landings at both those places thus keep allies off the Continent for lander period of time . That might give time to further refine p some of their super weapons like the V2 and Jet fighters. The war drags on till 1947 or 48 and by that time the US has amassed a stockpile atom bombs and starts targeting German cities.
 
Last edited:

Venusian Broon

Defending the SF genre with terminal intensity
Supporter
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
4,889
Location
Edinburgh
But with the Russians on the ropes , the German can redirect military assets to both Salerno and Normandy. This could potentially enable them to block the landings at both those places thus keep allies off the Continent for lander period of time . That might give time to further refine p some of their super weapons like the V2 and Jet fighters. The war drags on till 1947 or 48 and by that time the US has amassed \a stockpile atom bombs and starts targeting German cities.

Nope, the German logistic chain had essentially broken down by the end of 1941 in Russia. It took a superhuman effort and a still disorganised enemy to attempt Case Blue and they failed on the River Volga and Stalingrad. As reiver points out that high water mark of November 1942 predates most of the aid.

Thus the Germans, smarting from the defeat at Stalingrad would still have to commit to a summer offensive against the Russians in 1943. So they attempt Kursk - which you note, is not a grand strategic operations to take vast amounts of Russia, but an opertion to merely reduce a salient in the Russian line. The German army by this stage had more or less spent its ability to go on the strategic offensive. And this too was a failure and they went onto the defensive.

I don't think Russia would have been on the ropes, as you say.

When 1944 comes around, the Battle for the Atlantic had been won and the Luftwaffe was effectively smashed. Yes, the Germans try their best to crush Normandy, but the air superiority and Western Allies logistics and numbers are too great. Add to this the inevitable collapse of Army Group Centre by the Russians in Bagration.

Now at this point, perhaps if there had been no aid, there might have been an effect, as this may have hampered the Soviet armies in this operation and slowed them down in their successes. But I don't think it would have added another year to the war.

Also, Baylor, why do you keep going on about these "Wonder" weapons :). They weren't.

The V2 wasn't going to help them militarily and therefore essentially a waste of time and resources. The jet fighters they produced were good, but also unreliable and fuel guzzlers. But the main problem that the Luftwaffe wasn't planes, it was that they weren't producing enough pilots, or they weren't living long enough to maintain a deep pool of experienced pilots.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
Nope, the German logistic chain had essentially broken down by the end of 1941 in Russia. It took a superhuman effort and a still disorganised enemy to attempt Case Blue and they failed on the River Volga and Stalingrad. As reiver points out that high water mark of November 1942 predates most of the aid.

Thus the Germans, smarting from the defeat at Stalingrad would still have to commit to a summer offensive against the Russians in 1943. So they attempt Kursk - which you note, is not a grand strategic operations to take vast amounts of Russia, but an opertion to merely reduce a salient in the Russian line. The German army by this stage had more or less spent its ability to go on the strategic offensive. And this too was a failure and they went onto the defensive.

I don't think Russia would have been on the ropes, as you say.

When 1944 comes around, the Battle for the Atlantic had been won and the Luftwaffe was effectively smashed. Yes, the Germans try their best to crush Normandy, but the air superiority and Western Allies logistics and numbers are too great. Add to this the inevitable collapse of Army Group Centre by the Russians in Bagration.

Now at this point, perhaps if there had been no aid, there might have been an effect, as this may have hampered the Soviet armies in this operation and slowed them down in their successes. But I don't think it would have added another year to the war.

Also, Baylor, why do you keep going on about these "Wonder" weapons :). They weren't.

The V2 wasn't going to help them militarily and therefore essentially a waste of time and resources. The jet fighters they produced were good, but also unreliable and fuel guzzlers. But the main problem that the Luftwaffe wasn't planes, it was that they weren't producing enough pilots, or they weren't living long enough to maintain a deep pool of experienced pilots.
At beginning of The Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe was the most powerful Air Force in the world , Fighter Command and the RAF severely mauled the Luftwaffe , costing them 3000 of thei best pilots and aircrews . That was slow beginning go the end of the Luftwaffe which never real recovered. The Germans made lots mistakes with regard to Russia , the biggest of which was invading them in the first place. Russia bled Wehrmacht dry. Russia swallowed men and equipmnet and resources

Most of the V2's didn't work , exploded on the ground, malfunctioned in flight and crashed more offend than not , or didn't find their targets at all. Their gyroscopic navigation systems were not up to the task because technological limitations and sabotage by prisoner working on them. It is possible with more time they might have corrected some of those flaws but not with the allies closing in on them and destroying the production facilities. The ME 262 was also vulnerable when it was taking off and landing and, could be dispatched by P51 Mustangs . Also , it arrived way too late to make any kind of a difference. Their super tanks like the King Tiger were devastating when they worked which was more not than often. These tanks were slow and broke down because their engines and transmissions were not up to the task driving the 68 ton tank and they , used massive amount of fuel and they were took expensive to produce and could could not be produced in sufficient numbers , could not be easily served or repaired the battlefield. l Also the too many competing weapons in production and weapons programs eating up valuable resources.
 

psikeyhackr

Physics is Phutile, Fiziks is Fundamental
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
1,429
As an American who took history in the 60s, this is an embarrassing question. I remember a question on a test, "What General said 'Nuts!' to the Germans rather than surrender at the Battle of the Bulge?"

I didn't know the answer and thought it was a stupid question because of its unimportance.

The Russians hardly existed in my so called history of WWII. We rescued the British even though they gave us technology for RADAR and proximity fuses.

Nobody else matters in American history.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
As an American who took history in the 60s, this is an embarrassing question. I remember a question on a test, "What General said 'Nuts!' to the Germans rather than surrender at the Battle of the Bulge?"

I didn't know the answer and thought it was a stupid question because of its unimportance.

The Russians hardly existed in my so called history of WWII. We rescued the British even though they gave us technology for RADAR and proximity fuses.

Nobody else matters in American history.
The British also gave us access to Frank Whittles jet engine technology .
 

psikeyhackr

Physics is Phutile, Fiziks is Fundamental
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
1,429
I only got C's in history because it was so obviously just propagandistic bullsh**. I don't really have a clue how much aid England and the US gave to the Russians. It probably wasn't until watching the History Channel that I had any idea how many Russians died in WWII.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
I only got C's in history because it was so obviously just propagandistic bullsh**. I don't really have a clue how much aid England and the US gave to the Russians. It probably wasn't until watching the History Channel that I had any idea how many Russians died in WWII.

In 1937, Stalin being the paranoid criminal incompetent stooge that he was, purged all his generals and officers and pretty mush destroyed the effectiveness of his military. He bares a good part of the responsibility for the high Russian causalities because he weakened the Russian state with his stupidity . In the days leading up to the to invasion , his spy networks got wind of what the Germans were planning to do and he ignored them. And worst of all , he trusted Hitler.

As for Stalin the great war leader, that one is another myth. The main reason the Russian soldiers fought for him was not so much for patriotism but out fear, he had special units of soldiers who were ordered to shoot anyone who wouldn't fight or tired to retreat.
 
Last edited:

jjcomet

Active Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
26
One thing to add for the Russian stability is the UK provided them intel. from Benchly Park with the Enigma machine, informing Stalin the Japanese had no intention of invading from China. So that provided Zhukov with almost a million troops to throw against Stalingrad.
The Eastern Front would have been a drawn out battle. Though Hitler constantly splitting his forces did not bode well.
The Germans had limited oil supply and their synthetic supply became a depleted fact with allied bombing. They would have taken the Caucasus and kept the war effort operational for perhaps another year. I also do not think their V weapons or Jets would have made a great impact. Too many irons in the fire was Hitler's problem - Bigger is Better.
Overall I see it as Russia able to hold on through manpower but the western allies would have taken Germany and there would not have been a Soviet Block.
 

jjcomet

Active Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
26
The Studebaker truck is was really helped the Russians take back their lost country. The Stalin Organ may not have been accurate so they compensated with sheer volume. The food rations and ammo provided by the US led Russia to their victory. So without the western allies aid Russia would have survived but barely. Way too much land for Germany to control with the US and UK storming in from the west.
 

psikeyhackr

Physics is Phutile, Fiziks is Fundamental
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
1,429
It was Major-General Anthony McAuliffe that replied "Nuts!"
LOL

I could easily have looked it up in almost 50 years but I still consider it a stupid question for a teacher to ask about a subject as important as WWII.

I have seen film of proximity fuses used in artillery on the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge. It is quite possible that proximity fuses used against Japanese aircraft affected how long it took Americans to fight across the Pacific and get within range to drop the atomic bomb.
 

psikeyhackr

Physics is Phutile, Fiziks is Fundamental
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
1,429
I would probably get B's in history today because it would be so easy to find YouTube videos about whatever time period the teacher was covering. But then I might get D's because I would pay attention to stuff that contradicted the opinions of the teacher.
 

Robert Zwilling

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
839
Nuts was from The Battle Of The Bulge. It was an important battle, largest and worst casualties for Americans in WWII, and it started out by catching the Americans completely by surprise and at first poorly positioned to do anything about it. Because of bad weather the US Air Force was unable to do very much. The situation changed radically when the weather cleared up.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,486
Nuts was from The Battle Of The Bulge. It was an important battle, largest and worst casualties for Americans in WWII, and it started out by catching the Americans completely by surprise and at first poorly positioned to do anything about it. Because of bad weather the US Air Force was unable to do very much. The situation changed radically when the weather cleared up.

Two of My Uncles fought in the battle of the Bulge, They never talked about it. Didn't want to.
 

CupofJoe

Some medals you wear on your heart not your sleeve
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
763
One thing to add for the Russian stability is the UK provided them intel. from Benchly Park with the Enigma machine, informing Stalin the Japanese had no intention of invading from China. So that provided Zhukov with almost a million troops to throw against Stalingrad.
The Eastern Front would have been a drawn out battle. Though Hitler constantly splitting his forces did not bode well.
The Germans had limited oil supply and their synthetic supply became a depleted fact with allied bombing. They would have taken the Caucasus and kept the war effort operational for perhaps another year. I also do not think their V weapons or Jets would have made a great impact. Too many irons in the fire was Hitler's problem - Bigger is Better.
Overall I see it as Russia able to hold on through manpower but the western allies would have taken Germany and there would not have been a Soviet Block.
I have a friend that maintains that the most important moments of WWII were the Battles of Khalkhin Gol across the summer of 1939. They completely removed the threat of a Japanese attack in the East, so that Soviet Russia only had to deal with Germany in the West... well... I say only....
As for the OP. I tend to think that it would have taken longer and been far more bloody than it was, but the result would have been the same, a Nazi defeat... Now would a protracted war in Western Europe have made the US/Allies drop the atomic bomb on Germany? I don't know, but that was what they were designed to before I thought I read.
 

Foxbat

None The Wiser
Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Messages
8,883
Location
Scotland
I think a more pertinent question would be: could the allies have won if Russia had never been invaded?

The deaths in WW2 were around 55 million. Around 27 million of those were Russian. It’s simply staggering that even losing that number of people, the Soviet Union still took the fight right into the streets of Berlin.
 

Similar threads


Top