• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question for the WWII buffs, if Germany hadn't invaded USSR, how would the US have done fighting a true two-front war?

glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
For sake of argument, let's say that Hitler was somehow talked out of conducting Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of the Soviet Union), and that the USSR had remained tacitly neutral. With the Soviets left out of the fighting, the U.S. would have been the primary Allied ground combatant left on both the European and Pacific fronts. How would the U.S. have fared given such a scenario?
 
Probably a statlemate because i think the Germans would have been stronger than the allies without the soviet union in the mix. Also they would have lost alot less men and equipment had they not invaded USSR, so they could have easilly pushed back the allied invasion, but they still had nothing to take the war to the USA or britain. Maybe if hitler would have made britain a priority instead of attacking USSR there would have been no staging point for an allied invasion..... You can see where im going.
 
I doubt that before Germany attacked them they almost had nothing to fight with.... When they got suplies from The US is when they started to push the germans back attacking germany would have been suicidal for anyone at that point in time.
 
i didn't give a time frame. but it would be most probable that stalin would have invaded germany.
 
Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
I doubt that before Germany attacked them they almost had nothing to fight with.... When they got suplies from The US is when they started to push the germans back attacking germany would have been suicidal for anyone at that point in time.
Click to expand...

The Lend-Lease equipment from the Allied (USA was not the only one providing equipment) did help early on, but Soviet production soon kicked in to high-gear and signifigance of Lend-Leace was reduced.

Had the Allied tried invasion of Europe without Eastern Front, it would have been a massacre for the Allied. One must remember that any point during the war, Germans had at least 70% of their troops in the Eastern Front. Without Eastern Front, those men would have been in Africa and West. Along with powerful Luftwaffe (most of Luftwaffe was wiped out in the Eastern Front). I would say that it would have ended in short-term stalemate, long-term German victory. Short-Term stalemate because Germany lacked the means to invade UK, And the Allied would have been unable to invade Europe. But Germany would have gained those means in few years, and they would have invaded UK. After that, invasion of Europe would have been practical impossibility (US and remaining Commonwealth forces invading from across the Atlantic? I would like to see that happening...)
 
It would have taken longer. By 1944 American production was in full war manufacturing mode and the german navy was largely neutralized. Germany would not have been able to match production of war machines.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
It would have taken longer. By 1944 American production was in full war manufacturing mode and the german navy was largely neutralized. Germany would not have been able to match production of war machines.
Click to expand...

How would you go about using those warmachines? With UK out of the picture (Germany WOULD have invaded them), where would you launch your bombers? Where would you launch your invasion? Without Eastern Front, Germany wouldn't have the need to build as much ground weaponry since there would be no front eationg them up as fast as they could built them. They could spend those extra resources building U-boats and airplanes. How to get across Atlantic Ocean that's infested with German u-boats? U-boats almost killed UK, with extra resources to build them, they would rule the Atlantic.
 
Had Hitler not made the decision to invade the Soviet Union, I'm guessing right now there would be the "United States Of America" and the "European Republic of Germany". The allies had their hands full fighting the Germans, even though the Germans suffered devastating loses fighting the Soviets. Think of all those tank divisions, airplanes etc that Germany had to shift to the east front -- imagine what they could have done with vastly superior numbers in the west and north africa... Scary thought. At certain points, the allies outnumbered the Germans 3-1 in certain areas, but the Germans had superior weapons (Tiger and Leopard tanks for example), and were able to give the allies all they could handle. Now imagine if instead of being outnumbered 3-1, the Germans actually outnumbered the allies!!

Had there not been an eastern front battle, the Germans would have taken England, the US and allies would not have had a 'staging' area for any significant attack, and would not have been able to stop the German occupation of western europe. Once that happened, the Germans would have had the time and resources to perfect 'new' devastating technolgies that the allies did not have yet, such as the jet fighter, rockets (newer than the V1 and V2 etc), and perhaps even the A-bomb. That would have essentially made them a 'third superpower' along with the soviets and US. Yipes!
 
Also they would have fortified their controll over their resources. Part of the reason they were failing in the end of the war is their factories and their resources were in the combat zone or cut off from them limiting their production capabilities. With a reinforced conquere west europe there would be no way to cut the off from their resources so they would have kept production/resserch and developpment going easilly.

EDIT
I just read the last post and if germany would have became a third superpower there would surely have had a 3rd world war(nuclear) seing as how Germany would have had to fight USSR some time, even if it was to be 20 or 30 years after WW2.
 
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: charrison
It would have taken longer. By 1944 American production was in full war manufacturing mode and the german navy was largely neutralized. Germany would not have been able to match production of war machines.
Click to expand...

How would you go about using those warmachines? With UK out of the picture (Germany WOULD have invaded them), where would you launch your bombers? Where would you launch your invasion? Without Eastern Front, Germany wouldn't have the need to build as much ground weaponry since there would be no front eationg them up as fast as they could built them. They could spend those extra resources building U-boats and airplanes. How to get across Atlantic Ocean that's infested with German u-boats? U-boats almost killed UK, with extra resources to build them, they would rule the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

THe uboats were systematically hunted and destroyed, Germany had no navy. Hard to invade the UK without a navy with that little channel of water in the way. Had the tunnel been there at that time, there would have been a problem.

By 1944 the US had about 40+ carriers in the navy and we were capable of launching b-29s from them. Heck the US had 300+(approximate ship count of our current navy) naval ships around one of the islands in the pacific. You are seriously underestimating the capabilities of US manufacturing.

 
I think we still would have won. Germany first, with Japan more or less on the back burner, as it were. Germany probably would have received the nukes, though.

We were no where near a 100% war footing. The US had a lot of industrial capacity left that wasn't dedicated to the war effort. The american way of life didn't change a heck of a lot during the war, unlike the uk, germany, etc.

Interesting question.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
THe uboats were systematically hunted and destroyed, Germany had no navy. Hard to invade the UK without a navy with that little channel of water in the way. Had the tunnel been there at that time, there would have been a problem.
Click to expand...

Like I said, had the Barbadossa not happened, Germany could have concentrated fully on invading UK. Also, the need for ground weaponry wouldn't be as great, so they could focus on Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe more. That would have caused some serious problems. You seem to think that everything else would have proceeded like it did, even if there were no Eastern Front. War against USSR was THE biggest undertaking Germany did, it consumed VAST amounts of recources (alot more than all the other fronts combined). Had that war not happened, those resources would have been used elsewhere.

By 1944 the US had about 40+ carriers in the navy and we were capable of launching b-29s from them. Heck the US had 300+(approximate ship count of our current navy) naval ships around one of the islands in the pacific. You are seriously underestimating the capabilities of US manufacturing.
Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating US capabilities, but you are underestimating German capabilities. Germany came really close of strangling UK to death with u-boats. And that was while their focus was elsewhere. In this alternative history, there wouldn't be any distractions. They would have ruled the Atlantic. While doing that, their tanks would invade Suez canal, sealing off mediterranean. Invasion of UK would be just a matter of time. After USA had defeated Japan (it would also be more difficult, if Japan didn't keep over 1 million men in Manchuria against Soviets), do you think they would be willing to start even costlier invasion of fortified Europe? Those B-29 would be facing extremely strong luftwaffe, and the carriers that launch them (Carrier-launched B-29's??? Really?) would be sailing in waters that are full of u-boats.
 
In a lot of ways the Allies were lucky that Hitler was such a maniac. Invading Russia right before winter has to go up with the dumbest tactical moves of all time - right next to "never start a land war in Asia", and "never gamble with a Sicilian when death is on the line." 😛
 
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: charrison
THe uboats were systematically hunted and destroyed, Germany had no navy. Hard to invade the UK without a navy with that little channel of water in the way. Had the tunnel been there at that time, there would have been a problem.
Click to expand...

Like I said, had the Barbadossa not happened, Germany could have concentrated fully on invading UK. Also, the need for ground weaponry wouldn't be as great, so they could focus on Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe more. That would have caused some serious problems. You seem to think that everything else would have proceeded like it did, even if there were no Eastern Front. War against USSR was THE biggest undertaking Germany did, it consumed VAST amounts of recources (alot more than all the other fronts combined). Had that war not happened, those resources would have been used elsewhere.

By 1944 the US had about 40+ carriers in the navy and we were capable of launching b-29s from them. Heck the US had 300+(approximate ship count of our current navy) naval ships around one of the islands in the pacific. You are seriously underestimating the capabilities of US manufacturing.
Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating US capabilities, but you are underestimating German capabilities. Germany came really close of strangling UK to death with u-boats. And that was while their focus was elsewhere. In this alternative history, there wouldn't be any distractions. They would have ruled the Atlantic. While doing that, their tanks would invade Suez canal, sealing off mediterranean. Invasion of UK would be just a matter of time. After USA had defeated Japan (it would also be more difficult, if Japan didn't keep over 1 million men in Manchuria against Soviets), do you think they would be willing to start even costlier invasion of fortified Europe? Those B-29 would be facing extremely strong luftwaffe, and the carriers that launch them (Carrier-launched B-29's??? Really?) would be sailing in waters that are full of u-boats.
Click to expand...

Germany did not have a serious navy before they started WWII. They had a couple large battleships which they tried to keep hidden most of the war. Invasion of the UK is quite unlikely for that reason.


That was supposed to b-24s, not b-29s. The Dolittle raids on Tokyo were b-24s launched from a carrier.

 
why is everyone ignoring the most plausible alternate history of the soviets invading germany? the russians would not have sat around when they had designs on eastern europe as well.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why is everyone ignoring the most plausible alternate history of the soviets invading germany? the russians would not have sat around when they had designs on eastern europe as well.
Click to expand...

Why is it "the most plausible"?

The Soviets were allied with the Germans until Hitler invaded . . . . what makes you think that the Soviets would have screwed the Germans like the Germans did to them? Something I read (can't remember where) comes to mind: "Trains full of grain were heading west into Germany as the first Nazi tanks rolled past them and over the Russian border."
 
Even in 1944 during the invasion of D-Day, most historians agree that if Hitler moved his Panzer divisions from Calais to Normandy at the first sight of Allied warships heading to Normandy, that D-Day would've failed even at that time.

I think you guys are missing a key aspect to World War II. That aspect is OIL!! Oil is needed to power the heavy machinery (1 mile per gallon tanks). Oil hindered many Axis operations during the middle and late war. Had Germany concentrated more troops in Africa, they would've been sucessful in capturing the Middle East, with a long term supply of a lot of oil. It would've been near impossible to land in Europe itself and very hard to land in Africa, where it was dominated by Lt Gen Rommel before he ran out of oil.

Then theres the a-bomb, but you guys have to remember that Germany air power technology was superior in everyway, especially starting 1945. Germany had JET planes capable of flying cirles around US/British propeller fighters. If german industry was left untouched, they could have ramped up Messerschmidt 262 production, it would be nearly impossible to drop an a-bomb in a half decent location without dominating the skies first. If you mix JET BOMBERS which are capable of outrunning propeller based fighters, than it gets a little difficult for the allies to stop Germany bombing raids (especially since they need little or no fighter cover). Not to mention that Germany was developing long range ballistic missiles to be much more efficient (v2's).

In the long run however, since Stalin and Hitler hated and mistrusted each other. I think Stalin would've broken the treaty given time (before the ten years, but not as quickly as Hitler) and invaded Germany. From my perspective, the Western Allies CAUSED the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact because they alienated the Soviets in every way possible while appeasing Hitler. Since Stalin considered the west an enemy, an enemy of an enemy (Hitler) was a friend. Although it works the other way around if you really look at it, but the West wasnt talking to him and Hitler was all ears.

People say that USSR needed US help, but that was not the case. Read any real history book. US aid never topped more than 3% of the total USSR output. It was just too hard for convoys to enter the frigid Soviet waters (Leningrad/St.Petersberg was in siege, and ArchAngel was iced all but 3 months of the year) and avoid U-Boats at the same time.

IMO, basically Stalin was in shock that Hitler invaded so early. I think he was in a state of denial (didnt issue any retreat orders so the Soviet army just stood there staring each other). He was like wtf? From what I recall, the USSR lost over 2million men, 10000+ tanks, and 2000+ aircraft during the first few weeks of Barbarossa. It was not until the Germans were knocking at Moscow did Stalin accept the situation and finally started issuing orders and building city defense lines and rebuilding factories out of German reach. More meaningful, he also pulled in his elite winter fighting force from Siberia (number well over 1 million troops) into Moscow.
 
I think that north africa, the middle east (oil) and the UK would have fallen without a problem. I think the war *might* have ended then. The US would not have even attempted to invade europe, not would germany have tried to invade the US. Japan...that I don't know about. I do think the war would have ended after that, since the US could not possibly hope to go against both Japan and Germany (which would control tons of resoruces) alone without any allies.

But as this points out, Barbarossa was inevitable:

Since the end of the World War II and the Eastern Front Campaign, some historians and military enthusiasts alike have perpetuated the idea that Germany committed a fatal mistake in invading Soviet Russia. The points and counter-points are many indeed, but the facts remain unchanged. Germany invaded Russia to win and conquer, before the onset of winter in 1941. It must be stressed however, that there were no two actual fronts in 1941. Although the battle of Britain had been decided and thus the preparations for Operation Sealion (The invasion of England) were put on hold indefinitely, the U-Boat war on the Atlantic hardly qualifies as a second front. In the case of the North African Campaign, the defeat at El Alemein was in fact a turning point of the war in the west. Not until July 1943 did the Germans face a second front in Italy by the Allied invasion of Sicily. What can be cataloged as a true second front is the invasion of Normandy on June 1944. The Eastern Front was in fact World War two and the main reason for Germany's war of conquest.
Click to expand...

 
I think if germany had fortified their hold over western europe that they would have had enough production to fight Stalin well enough if ever he diceded to attack germany. Of course when you factor in superior german technology and superior everything at that time it's easey to say Germans would have resisted easilly any assault from the USSR.
 
Originally posted by: Xerox Man
In a lot of ways the Allies were lucky that Hitler was such a maniac. Invading Russia right before winter has to go up with the dumbest tactical moves of all time - right next to "never start a land war in Asia", and "never gamble with a Sicilian when death is on the line." 😛
Click to expand...

Germany made a handful of "what if's" that could have put them over, that being just one. Rather than giving up on air raiding Great Britian and going for the USSR, it could just as easily be said that going for Stalingrad (St. Petersberg) instead of straight for Moscow was the dumbest move. Making better use of their Enigma machines, waking up Hitler from his beauty sleep during the D-Day invasion, ect. all were small things that could have won them the war.

Just curious, did anyone catch on the history channel the other day Rolls-Royce role in WWII? It was quite interesting.

To answer the original question, I'd have know whether or not the Soviet Union was fighting the Japanese at the same time. Most likely, the USSR wouldn't have sat idly by, while the Empire of Japan was dominating Asia. In that case, the U.S. wouldn't have been as involved in the pacific, thus dedicating more recources to the Atlantic.

Another baffling thought, is why on earth the German's didn't develop an atomic bomb? They were years ahead of anyone else in the 1920's, yet didn't have one even close at the end of the war. Did the German physicists underestimate the power of such a weapon, or just the motivation (at least until it was too late)?

Oh well, just my random thoughts regarding WWII.
 
charrison

You are wrong with regards to Germany and the navy.. I know not the numbers of their navy post WW2, but during the early 1900 during the "Great Naval Race" Germany was the third strongest competitor, and if it hadn't been for the Juggernaut, Germany's metal boats would have overcome.
 
if Germany hadn't invaded USSR, how would the US have done fighting a true two-front war?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I can't think of such a scenario. But to come to think of it... The USSR invasion was Hitler's biggest tactical mistake. He could have conquered most of Europe in a no-time, but he didn't have enough resources to conquer the entire USSR, let alone the USA hadn't the Soviets participated in the war. Of course, Japan was a serious ally for Hitler to consider, but I don't think they could deploy enough troops in Europe. All this WWII madness looks like a huge tactical mistake now. Hitler just physically couldn't conquer the entire world. WTH was he thinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top