4 ms·

Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved? And what if the US joined the Axis powers in the war?

tompazourek 6y ago
Maybe also: Would the US have won against Germany if the USSR was not involved?
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Please do recall that the USSR was effectively on the same side as Germany for the first two years of the war.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Not really. The USSR knew conflict with Germany was inevitable, Molotov-Ribbentrop was about delaying it as much as possible.
    - dimavs 6y ago
      Why delaying? USSR has the most powerful army in 1939. USSR could have occupied Ploesti oil fields in 1940 that would effectively stop the war. Creating a common border with your enemy is not a very effective way to "delay" from my point of view.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        This is really absurd. By 1939 the Red Army was massively lacking in tanks, artillery, air power, and logistics. They could not have sustained an expeditionary offensive against Germamy, even in Romania. And while Ploesti had significant oil production, by 1939 Germany had alternatives and a lower oil consumption, so this would not have stalled the offensive.
        dimavs 6y ago
        Check your numbers. Number of tanks as of June 1941. And Germany oil consumption and sources as of 1940. You'll be surprised.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The tanks the Red Army has in 1939 were of incredibly poor quality and many of them were barely even tanks by later standards. You're also changing the goalposts. We're talking about 1939, not 1941, which was after two years of herculean production. https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-war/ https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-wa... By 1939 Germany was at less than half of its peak, and only 24% (replaceable, 1936 composition) came from Romania+USSR.
    - Varqu 6y ago
      USSR backstabbed Poland and occupied it since 1939.
    - rkk3 6y ago
      The pact was hardly a delaying strategy. They had almost 2 years since Poland was invaded to prepare against Blitzkrieg tactics and didn't. Stalin even knew the exact date of Barbarossa but didn't believe it or prepare for it, because for whatever reason one of the most paranoid people ever, trusted Hitler.
saiya-jin 6y ago
Just because some specific act tips the scales doesn't make it the sole reason for win. One soldier tipping the battle isn't the (only, or main) winner. That's not about US involvement, just your specific argument. Coming form Eastern Europe, we were liberated by Soviet army, Americans never touched our soil. But it was a brutal liberation, and what came afterwards was even worse. Russians bled the most, killed the most. They wouldn't probably win if left on their own though for reasons stated by others. And that's purely Europe. Add Pacific and rest of the world and the role of US is undeniable. How difficult is it to accept that there is no single state who can claim the throne, only a joint force. More interesting question for me is, if Japanese wouldn't do Pearl Harbor, how long it would take US to engage with Nazi Germany. Maybe far too long, US wasn't very keen to start open war. Maybe a critical window would be missed and invasion could be a failure.
sudosysgen 6y ago
That's a difficult question. Without US involvement the USSR would probably have won but at an even more disastrous cost. And the war would have taken longer. But ultimately the USSR had more resources and more manpower than the Nazis so the question was moreso about when the Soviet wartime production would have finished building up. There is also the question that Soviet planning would very probably have been much more urgent if the US kept neutral.
nwallin 6y ago
> Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved? It's impossible to say for sure, but in my opinion, probably not. 1/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were built in America and supplied via lend lease, as were 1/3 of the aircraft in the Soviet Air Force. The trucks, in particular, were of significantly higher quality than native Soviet trucks. The US only provided something like 10% of the fuel used by the USSR during the war, but the fuel it did provide was of significantly higher quality. The USSR had no native production of high octane aviation fuel. All of the high quality fuel was provided by the US. Most (90%) of the tanks and guns were built in the USSR, but much of the tanks that were built were built from US raw materials. The USSR was especially poor in aluminum. Many people (myself included) are of the opinion that wars are primarily won by logistics-- by having the right people in the right place at the right time with the right stuff. If lend-lease didn't supply the USSR, they wouldn't have had the trucks for rapid mobility, they wouldn't have had the aircraft to contest the Luftwaffe, they wouldn't have had the logistic capability for an offensive war. Could they have forced a WWI Western front style stalemate? Maybe. Hard to say. > And what if the US joined the Axis powers in the war? The Axis+US definitely win. Guaranteed. Germany fights a one front war against the USSR, the USSR fights a two front war against Germany in the West and the US in the East. Lots of people have speculated that if the USSR was not able to relocate the forces guarding the East against Japan that the USSR loses the Battle of Moscow. If those Eastern divisions were required to stay in the East to fight against the US, and were additionally diverting resources that would otherwise be used to replace losses against Germany, Germany would probably have taken Moscow. US naval power by the end of '43 is enough that Britain probably loses command of the sea. Instead of Britain blockading Germany, the US is probably blockading the UK. The blockade would be much more serious for the UK than it was for Germany. A major part of why Germany lost was that it didn't have enough fuel to fight a mobilized war. Even if the US did literally nothing other than divert lend-lease from providing material to the Allies to providing fuel and trucks to Germany instead, Germany probably wins the war without a single US boot on the ground. (getting that fuel from the US to Germany would require fighting through the aforementioned British blockade)
- orwin 6y ago
  The lend-lease act was after Stalingrad. And Stalingrad was as much as a founding battle as Boridino (Moscova for French) was against Napoleon. I think the war was won there, and after that it was just a matter of time and Hitler not having the atomic bomb. Without the lend-lease, going on an offensive war would have been harder, but the Soviet tanks were better than their german counterparts (the king tiger was too expensive to produce compared to the IS-2, and while the IS-2M was not really tested in battle, it probably could have faced the king, and the Luftwaffe was tied down trying to capitulate the British. To me, the Africa campain - pre-torch - and the Stalingrad battle (plus the frontline stabilizing in the East) was enough as long a Japan did not enter the war. And the British as well as the colonies forces were fundamental at holding Africa, so its not really "USSR won alone", it was more that the US not officially entering the war would not have a huge impact on the final result. Also the passive resistance and the new management methods, pitting dissociated teams against each other was becoming a serious hindrance on innovation and lost time, as well as flawed design (think USSR quality in the 80s). I think this is inherent to this "natural strength/intuition/cleverness/[insert 'quality' here]" propaganda so used by the far right. If you're taught/led to believe "you're failing because of the jews/tzigans/communists" , when those are not here to take the blame, it become harder on your brain to justify your failures.

tompazourek 6y ago

Maybe also: Would the US have won against Germany if the USSR was not involved?

yostrovs 6y ago
Please do recall that the USSR was effectively on the same side as Germany for the first two years of the war.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Not really. The USSR knew conflict with Germany was inevitable, Molotov-Ribbentrop was about delaying it as much as possible.
  - dimavs 6y ago
    Why delaying? USSR has the most powerful army in 1939. USSR could have occupied Ploesti oil fields in 1940 that would effectively stop the war. Creating a common border with your enemy is not a very effective way to "delay" from my point of view.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This is really absurd. By 1939 the Red Army was massively lacking in tanks, artillery, air power, and logistics. They could not have sustained an expeditionary offensive against Germamy, even in Romania. And while Ploesti had significant oil production, by 1939 Germany had alternatives and a lower oil consumption, so this would not have stalled the offensive.
      - dimavs 6y ago
        Check your numbers. Number of tanks as of June 1941. And Germany oil consumption and sources as of 1940. You'll be surprised.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The tanks the Red Army has in 1939 were of incredibly poor quality and many of them were barely even tanks by later standards. You're also changing the goalposts. We're talking about 1939, not 1941, which was after two years of herculean production. https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-war/ https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-wa... By 1939 Germany was at less than half of its peak, and only 24% (replaceable, 1936 composition) came from Romania+USSR.
  - Varqu 6y ago
    USSR backstabbed Poland and occupied it since 1939.
  - rkk3 6y ago
    The pact was hardly a delaying strategy. They had almost 2 years since Poland was invaded to prepare against Blitzkrieg tactics and didn't. Stalin even knew the exact date of Barbarossa but didn't believe it or prepare for it, because for whatever reason one of the most paranoid people ever, trusted Hitler.

saiya-jin 6y ago

Just because some specific act tips the scales doesn't make it the sole reason for win. One soldier tipping the battle isn't the (only, or main) winner. That's not about US involvement, just your specific argument. Coming form Eastern Europe, we were liberated by Soviet army, Americans never touched our soil. But it was a brutal liberation, and what came afterwards was even worse. Russians bled the most, killed the most. They wouldn't probably win if left on their own though for reasons stated by others. And that's purely Europe. Add Pacific and rest of the world and the role of US is undeniable. How difficult is it to accept that there is no single state who can claim the throne, only a joint force. More interesting question for me is, if Japanese wouldn't do Pearl Harbor, how long it would take US to engage with Nazi Germany. Maybe far too long, US wasn't very keen to start open war. Maybe a critical window would be missed and invasion could be a failure.

sudosysgen 6y ago

That's a difficult question. Without US involvement the USSR would probably have won but at an even more disastrous cost. And the war would have taken longer. But ultimately the USSR had more resources and more manpower than the Nazis so the question was moreso about when the Soviet wartime production would have finished building up. There is also the question that Soviet planning would very probably have been much more urgent if the US kept neutral.

nwallin 6y ago

> Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved? It's impossible to say for sure, but in my opinion, probably not. 1/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were built in America and supplied via lend lease, as were 1/3 of the aircraft in the Soviet Air Force. The trucks, in particular, were of significantly higher quality than native Soviet trucks. The US only provided something like 10% of the fuel used by the USSR during the war, but the fuel it did provide was of significantly higher quality. The USSR had no native production of high octane aviation fuel. All of the high quality fuel was provided by the US. Most (90%) of the tanks and guns were built in the USSR, but much of the tanks that were built were built from US raw materials. The USSR was especially poor in aluminum. Many people (myself included) are of the opinion that wars are primarily won by logistics-- by having the right people in the right place at the right time with the right stuff. If lend-lease didn't supply the USSR, they wouldn't have had the trucks for rapid mobility, they wouldn't have had the aircraft to contest the Luftwaffe, they wouldn't have had the logistic capability for an offensive war. Could they have forced a WWI Western front style stalemate? Maybe. Hard to say. > And what if the US joined the Axis powers in the war? The Axis+US definitely win. Guaranteed. Germany fights a one front war against the USSR, the USSR fights a two front war against Germany in the West and the US in the East. Lots of people have speculated that if the USSR was not able to relocate the forces guarding the East against Japan that the USSR loses the Battle of Moscow. If those Eastern divisions were required to stay in the East to fight against the US, and were additionally diverting resources that would otherwise be used to replace losses against Germany, Germany would probably have taken Moscow. US naval power by the end of '43 is enough that Britain probably loses command of the sea. Instead of Britain blockading Germany, the US is probably blockading the UK. The blockade would be much more serious for the UK than it was for Germany. A major part of why Germany lost was that it didn't have enough fuel to fight a mobilized war. Even if the US did literally nothing other than divert lend-lease from providing material to the Allies to providing fuel and trucks to Germany instead, Germany probably wins the war without a single US boot on the ground. (getting that fuel from the US to Germany would require fighting through the aforementioned British blockade)

orwin 6y ago
The lend-lease act was after Stalingrad. And Stalingrad was as much as a founding battle as Boridino (Moscova for French) was against Napoleon. I think the war was won there, and after that it was just a matter of time and Hitler not having the atomic bomb. Without the lend-lease, going on an offensive war would have been harder, but the Soviet tanks were better than their german counterparts (the king tiger was too expensive to produce compared to the IS-2, and while the IS-2M was not really tested in battle, it probably could have faced the king, and the Luftwaffe was tied down trying to capitulate the British. To me, the Africa campain - pre-torch - and the Stalingrad battle (plus the frontline stabilizing in the East) was enough as long a Japan did not enter the war. And the British as well as the colonies forces were fundamental at holding Africa, so its not really "USSR won alone", it was more that the US not officially entering the war would not have a huge impact on the final result. Also the passive resistance and the new management methods, pitting dissociated teams against each other was becoming a serious hindrance on innovation and lost time, as well as flawed design (think USSR quality in the 80s). I think this is inherent to this "natural strength/intuition/cleverness/[insert 'quality' here]" propaganda so used by the far right. If you're taught/led to believe "you're failing because of the jews/tzigans/communists" , when those are not here to take the blame, it become harder on your brain to justify your failures.