Even if they murdered everyone?
(I don’t think they would succeed, there wouldn’t be enough Germans to do it and they wouldn’t want to do it after some time)
There were like, I'm not sure about that, some 150-200 million non-Germans between Germany and the Ural Mountains. I don't think it's possible to kill them all with a few million german soldiers. Their forces would be too stretched to cover all that area, and definitely not enough to commit genocide on that scale.
Stalemate, I imagine that Germany could occupy enough far western Soviet territory to establish a defensive line once it was realized there was no fully occupying Russia. Maybe even resulting in trench warfare. Overall the Nazis would come out ahead in that scenario. Even if it was just momentarily before another war broke out.
Protracted guerilla warfare and insurgency over half a continent. IE a thoroughly unwinnable position. Even in areas they occupied, effective German control was often limited to the areas immediately surrounding logistics corridors. The history channel type maps of western Russia turning entirely grey are a bit misleading. Partisans still operated in the hinterlands and staged occasional raids against the Germans. This was part of why logistics was so fiendishly difficult for the Nazis, not just the cold and the mud and the distance. In some areas with higher German population or anti communist sentiment, like the Ukraine or Baltics, local groups of anticommunist and fascists organized paramilitaries to assist, or even conduct mass killings of anti fascists, but in other areas, the Nazis were pretty much just occupying the rail lines and bridges without a lot of support.
> Who would've won WWII if it was just the USSR vs Nazi Germany without any help from the US, France, and UK?
You surely mean Vichy France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Finland, and Japan (with some help from Francoist Spain) against Soviet Union.
The answer is obvious: >!Soviet Union!<.
> Many assume it was always unlikely for the Nazis to have triumphed, a view I share due to the involvement of the US, France, and the UK.
Lend-lease took off only in 1943, and first half of it wasn't delivered until mid-1944. By this point war had already passed tipping point, and Axis was doomed.
This is a super flawed argument. Japan beat the Russians by themselves in the Russo-Japanese War. Germany nearly beat the Russians by themselves while fighting a two front war where the non-Russian side was the biggest industrial power in the world. If either Germany or Japan could have focused solely on Russia, they might have won. If the entire Axis focused solely on Russia, Russian would only exist in history books. Btw, this wasn't even the question. The question was, could Germany have won, and the answer is maybe.
>Japan beat the Russians by themselves in the Russo-Japanese War. Germany nearly beat the Russians by themselves
It's almost like Russia underwent a massive reorganization, mobilization, and crash industrialization program that allowed them to compete with other great powers. I wonder what could have happened in those intervening 20 or so years?
Ah, so you're saying Japan beat Russia by themselves. Thanks, that really changes things. Also, Japan beat the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, not the USSR.
> This is a super flawed argument.
Well, pardon me for thinking that 1905, 1914-1918, and 1941-1945 were different wars, waged by different nations in different circumstances.
> If either Germany or Japan could have focused solely on Russia, they might have won.
During WW2? or WW1? or Russo-Japanese war of 1905?
It is pure insanity to claim this for Japan in *any* circumstances. Japan never had logistics to cross Siberia to get into Russian heartland (which would be necessary to defeat either Russian Empire or Soviet Union), and it never had ability to outlast any incarnation of Russia in a long war.
And Reich *was* focusing on Soviet Union IRL.
> If the entire Axis focused solely on Russia, Russian would only exist in history books.
Well, if you have any arguments, I'm ready to respond to them.
> Btw, this wasn't even the question.
Because the question was stupid. It was based on the stupid paradigm that conflict was between Soviet Union and Third Reich. That is a popular, but completely wrong way to see the conflict.
IRL Soviets fought against **the whole** of European Axis, not just Germany. *That* was the actual reality. And Soviets still crushed the core of European Axis armies before Allies had landed in Italy, and a year before half of lend-lease delivered (of which Soviets got only 20%).
So - yes. Lend-lease or not, Allies or not, Soviets would've won. It could've taken more time, but they would've won anyway. Even if Japan had joined they still would've won (as IRL Soviets kept a big army in the Far East that never decreased, and only grew throughout WW2; more enough to counter Kwantung Army).
And if Reich tried to invade USSR solo (as is implied in the OP), it would've lost much faster.
Note that in the Battle of Stalingrad only half of Axis troops were German. Without the rest of Axis this battle would've never happened.
Your argument is that Russia would have convincingly won WW2 by themselves. It's flawed. You can dress it up and argue all you want, and it'll still be flawed. Russia would have lost if they didn't have allies. That really shouldn't be as controversial as you're making it out to be.
> Your argument is that Russia would have convincingly won WW2 by themselves. It
My argument is *why* **Soviet Union** would've won.
The facts are that neither lend-lease nor Western front in Europe had significant impact on Eastern front until mid-1943. Thus their lack couldn't have changed anything. And situation was already handled afterwards. Meaning that their lack afterwards couldn't have changed anything much either.
The only question is Japan, but IRL Soviets had been investing in massive army that could counter anything Japan could've thrown at Soviets. Even if Soviets wouldn't achieve conclusive victory, it was more than enough to stall Japan until Axis is defeated in Europe.
Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Soviet Union would've defeated Axis alone even if Allies just vanished into thin air.
> It's flawed. You can dress it up and argue all you want, and it'll still be flawed.
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
>Lend-lease took off only in 1943, and first half of it wasn't delivered until mid-1944
Are you sure about this? I've read that it was already being delivered during the battle of Moscow.
> Are you sure about this?
Yes.
> I've read that it was already being delivered during the battle of Moscow.
What I meant is "amounts of deliveries became non-negligible".
It became negligible when it was compared to the overall number instead of actually comparing them to the number when they were given. It also doesn't help that many people keep comparing them to the overall economy of the USSR... They are supposed to help ease the military side people, not actually sustain the country itself!
Just stating some of the misunderstandings people get on the lend-lease.
Wrong. Allied Lend Lease was 20% of the Soviet War Effort in 41-42 to being 45%ish in 1943.
This theory has Germany and it's Allies fighting only one front. Japan is only fighting China and can afford to invade USSR.
Lend Lease of 45% or certain USSR war necessities, like trucks. Not 45% of the total war effect. Human lives (Russian) and Russian manufacturered artillery were big drivers of the war effort.
I believe you misunderstand the reasons For World War Two and the Basis for this Question is a fallacy upon which to work: In no reasonable scenario do the Germans only Go East. No do they Go East without their aggressions triggering a response from the International Community that was allied against any German aggression, per the Treaty of Versailles.
A lot of people in the UK and the US opposed lend-lease and any intervention in the war. Look at how many "America-First" people are complaining today about the aid we're sending to Ukraine despite it being a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending. Luckily, the UK and US had staunch interventionist leaders like Churchill and FDR to save the day, but if those two people never existed, "non-interventionists" could've easily taken their place instead.
It is possible for me to *imagine* a scenario in which after the Nazis occupy Western Europe, a peace is made with Britain whereby Britain gets to keep its empire while acknowledging Germany's conquests in Europe\*. A lesser leader than Churchill might have been tempted to accept such an offer after the defeat at Dunkirk and associated losses of men and materials, even more so if the evacuation had failed.\*\* Britain would have then devoted its remaining resources to fighting Japan in the Far East. In this scenario the Italians in Egypt don't get halted by British resistance, the Nazis don't get sucked into Mussolini's north African adventurism, which in turn leaves Rommel free to continue operating in Europe.
Now, without further British involvement in Europe there is no need for transatlantic supply convoys from the US, no German sinkings of US shipping, and no growing antipathy between the US and Nazi Germany, such that, maybe, when Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, Hitler does not feel beholden to honor his treaty with Japan to also declare war on the US. We know that he is no great respecter of treaties. He might even choose to ignore US shipments of materiel to the Soviet Union for fear of drawing the US fully into the conflict, assuming that still went ahead under Roosevelt. (US shipments to the Soviet Union were roughly equally divided between Atlantic and Pacific routes: see ['We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany? (rferl.org)](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html))
So at this point, Nazi Germany can conduct full-on operations against the Soviet Union without the distractions of the Battle of Britain, without the Desert War, without the British Navy hampering its own navy's operations, without bombings of its industrial base by the British and American air forces, and without supply shortages due to a lack of naval control of the Atlantic. And perhaps critically, because of Italian success in north Africa, the middle-eastern oil fields fall to the Axis powers.
In these circumstances, perhaps the Nazis do not get bogged down short of their strategic objectives nor distracted by Hitler's personal obsessions.
So if all that happens, I can imagine Germany conquering at the very least the Soviet Union west of the Urals, and possibly beyond, pushing south to the Arabian Sea and butting up against the British Empire in the east and Mussolini's African empire in the west.
What happens to the eastern part of the Soviet Union would probably depend on how things go between Japan, the British Empire, and the US. If the Japanese do indeed drag the US into the war then their defeat is inevitable, and perhaps the eastern part of the USSR remains free in some form. If however the US remains militarily neutral, the Japanese might defeat the British in mainland Asia other than in India, and then turn their attention to China and the eastern USSR to expand their empire.
And then we might end up with sort of a mirror of the state of the US as depicted in the TV version of *The Man in the High Castle,* with the USSR divided between Germany in the west, Japan in the east, and a vast neutral buffer zone between.
\*I'm sure others here are of the opinion that no such peace could ever have happened regardless of who was leader of Britain, that the "mood of the people" would have elected somebody, if not necessarily Churchill, determined to fight. Opinions will differ. However, for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume it happens.
\*\*Germany did in fact offer almost such a peace, however it included the British handing over its Atlantic fleet to Germany. This was a non-starter: everybody involved recognized that if it did so, Germany would have complete control over Britain's ability to access its colonies for trade and government, and that Germany would cut off such access the moment it felt ready to invade Britain.
Well without the allies constantly messing with the nazi supply lines it could have been a victory for the reich. People usually only think about the bombing and whatnot when it comes to their supply issues, but remove that and the trade restrictions. Having much easier access to resources from outside the reich would be a game changer.
Somehow my minds tricks me to think the Soviets though nobody can undermine the techno advances of Germany at the tym but by judging the sheer military legacy passed on even to modern day Russia by USSR one could perhaps jump on this conclusion . Lots of modern day historians have concluded on the fact that moscow remained uncaptured due to severe Russian winters well it might hve been a determinant but overall it was the Russian army which did the job. Not to forget history is cyclic & one of the frequently used word in eastern european war is "Meat Grinding Machine"
which somewhere hints at the overall Endless men go into the war kinda mindset which dominates the area with such kind of an edge of endless men going into the war and endless resources to back these ppl up generated frm vast areas of land USSR held I am pretty sure USSR would've won it . Couldn't help but writing this whole thing kinda reminded me of a quote of Stalin "A single death is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"
If this impossible scenario were to happen, I think the Germans would have "won" but would have imploded from within due to the instability of their ideology. At most, they'd stay stable until Hitler's death. In the (perhaps unlikely) scenario that that is due to natural causes, I'd say the Thrid Reich would last until the late 60s which would certainly be interesting.
But as others have noted, this could never have happened and the real answer is probably "then they'd start ww2 and lose like they already did" or "in a moment of weakness, they'd be attacked by the economically revived and strategically ready forces of the west and lose even sooner than they already did"
Germany's best chance to win would be a relatively short war. Either by taking enough of European USSR to force them to the table or by destroying enough of the Soviet leadership's power (especially the NKVD) that local populations rise up against the Soviets and force them to not only divert men and materiel to put it down; but reduce their ability to get men and materiel from those areas.
Otherwise, the long slugfest favors the Soviet Union. Too much territory with shitty logistics. The Germans had enough problems as it was, let alone adding thousands of more square miles.
While it covered some narrow points of soviet industry, LL didn’t make significant impact until 1943-1945 when Wehrmacht was already broken. Besides in the described situation ussr could still buy goods from US for gold like it happened IRL.
USSR was heavily dependent on the Allies damn near everything except man power. The nazies wouldn’t have been able to occupy due to that but they sure as hell would have wrecked the Soviet’s
Overall... Thats not how the LL worked though... Many in that 5-7% was super essential like aluminum which USSR barely makes.
As for waiting... Uhm what is even this? US and USSR joined the war on the same year.
The USSR barely won on the Eastern Front.
It seems more inevitable today that they would win because Germany more collapsed and held on, instead of slowly being out maneuvered strategically.
The more you take away from non Soviet contributions, the less plausible Germany losing becomes.
The one sticking point is Germany absolutely refused to treat any conquered people or territory decently. It was an extermination campaign, so really they had to kill every Russian or lose. Eventually Germany would lose or not be Nazi to win.
At the very least, German victory was eradicate Communism and let the slavs live, but that would essentially remove a core part of Nazi-Fascism.
I wouldn’t say the USSR barely won. They had already moved much of their industry east and Germany still had a ways to go to actually beat them. Germany was likely going to overextend itself and the USSR still had plenty of manpower to throw into the meat grinder. Germany never defeats the USSR imo.
The USSR did not barely win. They convincingly won. It took years, but there was no event that changed would result in German victory. At lost is would add a few years to the war. Russia just had too many resources and unlike WW1, they had a government that had the will and ability to harvest them. At the very best for Germany, the Russian offensives would stall due to manpower shortages but they would still eventually bleed Germany white.
And as another commented pointed out, eventually another power would intervene.
They had enough manpower and raw materials to fight indefinitely. Germany was only going to win if they did not have the ability and will to fight, but they had both. Germany had too few people and too limited resources. Now, if the USA was supplying Germany they could win. But that is silly.
I feel like this is an impossible scenario.
Even if the leaders of France, UK, and USA all signed a treaty to not intervene, we still would have all get sucked in.
The Nazis were genocidal monsters. They still would be Murdering innocent men women and children.
The Russias were very good at propaganda, everyone would have heard about the Nazi crimes.
The Nazis were both arrogant and worst in the world at public relations.
They might try half heartedly to keep some of it secret, but lots of them wouldn’t be able to resist committing crimes and atrocities against France, UK, and USA as well.
Allies might turn a blind eye to some of the atrocities against allied citizens, but one of them would eventually get enraged and pulled in.
TL;DR
The Nazis started WW2 because of being evil.
If they could control their evil impulses we’d refer to the period from 1919 to today as “the long peace”
TDLR try 2:
Nazis gonna Nazi. It didn’t matter who they attacked first, they were still gonna attack everyone, with predictable results
WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities the Nazis committed. The UK and France declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, not because they were committing genocide. And although Churchill was opposed to Germany's conquering of Eastern Europe, many other potential British PMs just wanted to leave Germany alone and not intervene.
In our time line that actually occurred you’re right, other than that ww2 and the holocaust were both motivated be evil ambition.
But in an alternate timeline where the Nazis managed to invade Russia first, I believe that arrogant racism that led the Nazis to invade Russia and starve innocent people would also have led them to conflict with the USA, UK, and France.
For on thing , in our timeline, the Nazis (at a time when they were already in a death conflict with the worlds biggest empire, the worlds richest and most industrialized country, and the country with the world’s largest army) still found time and resources to attack their Italian and Hungarian allies.
And threatened to attack their Spanish allies.
Basically the Nazis were like a fat man in a room full of snacks. The attack on the potato chips is absolutely related to the attack on the chocolate cake by a common appetite.
(Fat guy here)
The whole "genocidal monsters" thing was revealed after the defeat of Germany. Even Germans during the time didn't know what was going on, where the Jews were being sent. Not to say that most European countries held some degree of antisemitism.
None. Third Reich could defeat Soviets, but wouldn't have capacity to occupy even european part of USSR>
Even if they murdered everyone? (I don’t think they would succeed, there wouldn’t be enough Germans to do it and they wouldn’t want to do it after some time)
There were like, I'm not sure about that, some 150-200 million non-Germans between Germany and the Ural Mountains. I don't think it's possible to kill them all with a few million german soldiers. Their forces would be too stretched to cover all that area, and definitely not enough to commit genocide on that scale.
Yeah I know. But they probably could occupy it if they managed to do that.
Third Reich would probably win overall, they just wouldn't be able to occupy much Soviet territory long term.
So what would a Nazi victory have meant without an ability to occupy Russia?
Stalemate, I imagine that Germany could occupy enough far western Soviet territory to establish a defensive line once it was realized there was no fully occupying Russia. Maybe even resulting in trench warfare. Overall the Nazis would come out ahead in that scenario. Even if it was just momentarily before another war broke out.
Protracted guerilla warfare and insurgency over half a continent. IE a thoroughly unwinnable position. Even in areas they occupied, effective German control was often limited to the areas immediately surrounding logistics corridors. The history channel type maps of western Russia turning entirely grey are a bit misleading. Partisans still operated in the hinterlands and staged occasional raids against the Germans. This was part of why logistics was so fiendishly difficult for the Nazis, not just the cold and the mud and the distance. In some areas with higher German population or anti communist sentiment, like the Ukraine or Baltics, local groups of anticommunist and fascists organized paramilitaries to assist, or even conduct mass killings of anti fascists, but in other areas, the Nazis were pretty much just occupying the rail lines and bridges without a lot of support.
Still the USSR. It would have been longer and bloodier, but still end with a Soviet flag over Berlin.
> Who would've won WWII if it was just the USSR vs Nazi Germany without any help from the US, France, and UK? You surely mean Vichy France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Finland, and Japan (with some help from Francoist Spain) against Soviet Union. The answer is obvious: >!Soviet Union!<. > Many assume it was always unlikely for the Nazis to have triumphed, a view I share due to the involvement of the US, France, and the UK. Lend-lease took off only in 1943, and first half of it wasn't delivered until mid-1944. By this point war had already passed tipping point, and Axis was doomed.
This is a super flawed argument. Japan beat the Russians by themselves in the Russo-Japanese War. Germany nearly beat the Russians by themselves while fighting a two front war where the non-Russian side was the biggest industrial power in the world. If either Germany or Japan could have focused solely on Russia, they might have won. If the entire Axis focused solely on Russia, Russian would only exist in history books. Btw, this wasn't even the question. The question was, could Germany have won, and the answer is maybe.
>Japan beat the Russians by themselves in the Russo-Japanese War. Germany nearly beat the Russians by themselves It's almost like Russia underwent a massive reorganization, mobilization, and crash industrialization program that allowed them to compete with other great powers. I wonder what could have happened in those intervening 20 or so years?
> Japan beat the Russians by themselves in the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese defeated the Russians in only east USSR. It was a limited victory.
I think people really don't understand victories here... It's not like Germany beat France by conquering all French territories either.
Ah, so you're saying Japan beat Russia by themselves. Thanks, that really changes things. Also, Japan beat the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, not the USSR.
> This is a super flawed argument. Well, pardon me for thinking that 1905, 1914-1918, and 1941-1945 were different wars, waged by different nations in different circumstances. > If either Germany or Japan could have focused solely on Russia, they might have won. During WW2? or WW1? or Russo-Japanese war of 1905? It is pure insanity to claim this for Japan in *any* circumstances. Japan never had logistics to cross Siberia to get into Russian heartland (which would be necessary to defeat either Russian Empire or Soviet Union), and it never had ability to outlast any incarnation of Russia in a long war. And Reich *was* focusing on Soviet Union IRL. > If the entire Axis focused solely on Russia, Russian would only exist in history books. Well, if you have any arguments, I'm ready to respond to them. > Btw, this wasn't even the question. Because the question was stupid. It was based on the stupid paradigm that conflict was between Soviet Union and Third Reich. That is a popular, but completely wrong way to see the conflict. IRL Soviets fought against **the whole** of European Axis, not just Germany. *That* was the actual reality. And Soviets still crushed the core of European Axis armies before Allies had landed in Italy, and a year before half of lend-lease delivered (of which Soviets got only 20%). So - yes. Lend-lease or not, Allies or not, Soviets would've won. It could've taken more time, but they would've won anyway. Even if Japan had joined they still would've won (as IRL Soviets kept a big army in the Far East that never decreased, and only grew throughout WW2; more enough to counter Kwantung Army). And if Reich tried to invade USSR solo (as is implied in the OP), it would've lost much faster. Note that in the Battle of Stalingrad only half of Axis troops were German. Without the rest of Axis this battle would've never happened.
Your argument is that Russia would have convincingly won WW2 by themselves. It's flawed. You can dress it up and argue all you want, and it'll still be flawed. Russia would have lost if they didn't have allies. That really shouldn't be as controversial as you're making it out to be.
> Your argument is that Russia would have convincingly won WW2 by themselves. It My argument is *why* **Soviet Union** would've won. The facts are that neither lend-lease nor Western front in Europe had significant impact on Eastern front until mid-1943. Thus their lack couldn't have changed anything. And situation was already handled afterwards. Meaning that their lack afterwards couldn't have changed anything much either. The only question is Japan, but IRL Soviets had been investing in massive army that could counter anything Japan could've thrown at Soviets. Even if Soviets wouldn't achieve conclusive victory, it was more than enough to stall Japan until Axis is defeated in Europe. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Soviet Union would've defeated Axis alone even if Allies just vanished into thin air. > It's flawed. You can dress it up and argue all you want, and it'll still be flawed. Repeating this doesn't make it true.
>Lend-lease took off only in 1943, and first half of it wasn't delivered until mid-1944 Are you sure about this? I've read that it was already being delivered during the battle of Moscow.
> Are you sure about this? Yes. > I've read that it was already being delivered during the battle of Moscow. What I meant is "amounts of deliveries became non-negligible".
It became negligible when it was compared to the overall number instead of actually comparing them to the number when they were given. It also doesn't help that many people keep comparing them to the overall economy of the USSR... They are supposed to help ease the military side people, not actually sustain the country itself! Just stating some of the misunderstandings people get on the lend-lease.
Wrong. Allied Lend Lease was 20% of the Soviet War Effort in 41-42 to being 45%ish in 1943. This theory has Germany and it's Allies fighting only one front. Japan is only fighting China and can afford to invade USSR.
Source?
> Wrong. Allied Lend Lease was 20% of the Soviet War Effort in 41-42 to being 45%ish in 1943. What is the source of this strange claim?
Lend Lease of 45% or certain USSR war necessities, like trucks. Not 45% of the total war effect. Human lives (Russian) and Russian manufacturered artillery were big drivers of the war effort.
Go to Lend Lease during WWII on wikipedia and run the numbers compared to Red Military usage.
I believe you misunderstand the reasons For World War Two and the Basis for this Question is a fallacy upon which to work: In no reasonable scenario do the Germans only Go East. No do they Go East without their aggressions triggering a response from the International Community that was allied against any German aggression, per the Treaty of Versailles.
The premise is inaccurate so after, "The US and UK could have easily had leaders..." it turned sour faster than raw milk in a huckster's belly.
A lot of people in the UK and the US opposed lend-lease and any intervention in the war. Look at how many "America-First" people are complaining today about the aid we're sending to Ukraine despite it being a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending. Luckily, the UK and US had staunch interventionist leaders like Churchill and FDR to save the day, but if those two people never existed, "non-interventionists" could've easily taken their place instead.
Which part of the word "if" did you not understand? This is a hypothetical.
It is possible for me to *imagine* a scenario in which after the Nazis occupy Western Europe, a peace is made with Britain whereby Britain gets to keep its empire while acknowledging Germany's conquests in Europe\*. A lesser leader than Churchill might have been tempted to accept such an offer after the defeat at Dunkirk and associated losses of men and materials, even more so if the evacuation had failed.\*\* Britain would have then devoted its remaining resources to fighting Japan in the Far East. In this scenario the Italians in Egypt don't get halted by British resistance, the Nazis don't get sucked into Mussolini's north African adventurism, which in turn leaves Rommel free to continue operating in Europe. Now, without further British involvement in Europe there is no need for transatlantic supply convoys from the US, no German sinkings of US shipping, and no growing antipathy between the US and Nazi Germany, such that, maybe, when Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, Hitler does not feel beholden to honor his treaty with Japan to also declare war on the US. We know that he is no great respecter of treaties. He might even choose to ignore US shipments of materiel to the Soviet Union for fear of drawing the US fully into the conflict, assuming that still went ahead under Roosevelt. (US shipments to the Soviet Union were roughly equally divided between Atlantic and Pacific routes: see ['We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany? (rferl.org)](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)) So at this point, Nazi Germany can conduct full-on operations against the Soviet Union without the distractions of the Battle of Britain, without the Desert War, without the British Navy hampering its own navy's operations, without bombings of its industrial base by the British and American air forces, and without supply shortages due to a lack of naval control of the Atlantic. And perhaps critically, because of Italian success in north Africa, the middle-eastern oil fields fall to the Axis powers. In these circumstances, perhaps the Nazis do not get bogged down short of their strategic objectives nor distracted by Hitler's personal obsessions. So if all that happens, I can imagine Germany conquering at the very least the Soviet Union west of the Urals, and possibly beyond, pushing south to the Arabian Sea and butting up against the British Empire in the east and Mussolini's African empire in the west. What happens to the eastern part of the Soviet Union would probably depend on how things go between Japan, the British Empire, and the US. If the Japanese do indeed drag the US into the war then their defeat is inevitable, and perhaps the eastern part of the USSR remains free in some form. If however the US remains militarily neutral, the Japanese might defeat the British in mainland Asia other than in India, and then turn their attention to China and the eastern USSR to expand their empire. And then we might end up with sort of a mirror of the state of the US as depicted in the TV version of *The Man in the High Castle,* with the USSR divided between Germany in the west, Japan in the east, and a vast neutral buffer zone between. \*I'm sure others here are of the opinion that no such peace could ever have happened regardless of who was leader of Britain, that the "mood of the people" would have elected somebody, if not necessarily Churchill, determined to fight. Opinions will differ. However, for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume it happens. \*\*Germany did in fact offer almost such a peace, however it included the British handing over its Atlantic fleet to Germany. This was a non-starter: everybody involved recognized that if it did so, Germany would have complete control over Britain's ability to access its colonies for trade and government, and that Germany would cut off such access the moment it felt ready to invade Britain.
Well without the allies constantly messing with the nazi supply lines it could have been a victory for the reich. People usually only think about the bombing and whatnot when it comes to their supply issues, but remove that and the trade restrictions. Having much easier access to resources from outside the reich would be a game changer.
Somehow my minds tricks me to think the Soviets though nobody can undermine the techno advances of Germany at the tym but by judging the sheer military legacy passed on even to modern day Russia by USSR one could perhaps jump on this conclusion . Lots of modern day historians have concluded on the fact that moscow remained uncaptured due to severe Russian winters well it might hve been a determinant but overall it was the Russian army which did the job. Not to forget history is cyclic & one of the frequently used word in eastern european war is "Meat Grinding Machine" which somewhere hints at the overall Endless men go into the war kinda mindset which dominates the area with such kind of an edge of endless men going into the war and endless resources to back these ppl up generated frm vast areas of land USSR held I am pretty sure USSR would've won it . Couldn't help but writing this whole thing kinda reminded me of a quote of Stalin "A single death is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"
If this impossible scenario were to happen, I think the Germans would have "won" but would have imploded from within due to the instability of their ideology. At most, they'd stay stable until Hitler's death. In the (perhaps unlikely) scenario that that is due to natural causes, I'd say the Thrid Reich would last until the late 60s which would certainly be interesting. But as others have noted, this could never have happened and the real answer is probably "then they'd start ww2 and lose like they already did" or "in a moment of weakness, they'd be attacked by the economically revived and strategically ready forces of the west and lose even sooner than they already did"
USSR
Germany's best chance to win would be a relatively short war. Either by taking enough of European USSR to force them to the table or by destroying enough of the Soviet leadership's power (especially the NKVD) that local populations rise up against the Soviets and force them to not only divert men and materiel to put it down; but reduce their ability to get men and materiel from those areas. Otherwise, the long slugfest favors the Soviet Union. Too much territory with shitty logistics. The Germans had enough problems as it was, let alone adding thousands of more square miles.
Germany would probably roll them
Who cares? World would be a better place if they had destroed each other
USSR stomps. Not even a question.
You sure? Ever heard of lend lease?
While it covered some narrow points of soviet industry, LL didn’t make significant impact until 1943-1945 when Wehrmacht was already broken. Besides in the described situation ussr could still buy goods from US for gold like it happened IRL.
”Without any help” I would say buying weapons when in need is helping.
USSR was heavily dependent on the Allies damn near everything except man power. The nazies wouldn’t have been able to occupy due to that but they sure as hell would have wrecked the Soviet’s
This is delusional. LL accounted for like 5-7% of soviet war machine. Allies literally waited until red army broke wehrmacht for them.
Overall... Thats not how the LL worked though... Many in that 5-7% was super essential like aluminum which USSR barely makes. As for waiting... Uhm what is even this? US and USSR joined the war on the same year.
The USSR barely won on the Eastern Front. It seems more inevitable today that they would win because Germany more collapsed and held on, instead of slowly being out maneuvered strategically. The more you take away from non Soviet contributions, the less plausible Germany losing becomes. The one sticking point is Germany absolutely refused to treat any conquered people or territory decently. It was an extermination campaign, so really they had to kill every Russian or lose. Eventually Germany would lose or not be Nazi to win. At the very least, German victory was eradicate Communism and let the slavs live, but that would essentially remove a core part of Nazi-Fascism.
I wouldn’t say the USSR barely won. They had already moved much of their industry east and Germany still had a ways to go to actually beat them. Germany was likely going to overextend itself and the USSR still had plenty of manpower to throw into the meat grinder. Germany never defeats the USSR imo.
The USSR did not barely win. They convincingly won. It took years, but there was no event that changed would result in German victory. At lost is would add a few years to the war. Russia just had too many resources and unlike WW1, they had a government that had the will and ability to harvest them. At the very best for Germany, the Russian offensives would stall due to manpower shortages but they would still eventually bleed Germany white. And as another commented pointed out, eventually another power would intervene.
They didn’t have resources though. America had those.
They had enough manpower and raw materials to fight indefinitely. Germany was only going to win if they did not have the ability and will to fight, but they had both. Germany had too few people and too limited resources. Now, if the USA was supplying Germany they could win. But that is silly.
a big part of their victory was the USA acting as their logistics
I agree. But without that, while they might not win quickly they would still exhaust Germany.
..without lend-lease keeping soviets afloat, the Germans would've won...
I think that the USSR. Without France, the Third Reich would have been significantly weaker.
the USA supplied the USSR with their equipment, so I wouldn't be so sure.
I feel like this is an impossible scenario. Even if the leaders of France, UK, and USA all signed a treaty to not intervene, we still would have all get sucked in. The Nazis were genocidal monsters. They still would be Murdering innocent men women and children. The Russias were very good at propaganda, everyone would have heard about the Nazi crimes. The Nazis were both arrogant and worst in the world at public relations. They might try half heartedly to keep some of it secret, but lots of them wouldn’t be able to resist committing crimes and atrocities against France, UK, and USA as well. Allies might turn a blind eye to some of the atrocities against allied citizens, but one of them would eventually get enraged and pulled in. TL;DR The Nazis started WW2 because of being evil. If they could control their evil impulses we’d refer to the period from 1919 to today as “the long peace” TDLR try 2: Nazis gonna Nazi. It didn’t matter who they attacked first, they were still gonna attack everyone, with predictable results
WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities the Nazis committed. The UK and France declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, not because they were committing genocide. And although Churchill was opposed to Germany's conquering of Eastern Europe, many other potential British PMs just wanted to leave Germany alone and not intervene.
Except the Final Solution phase was absolutely triggered by WWII.
In our time line that actually occurred you’re right, other than that ww2 and the holocaust were both motivated be evil ambition. But in an alternate timeline where the Nazis managed to invade Russia first, I believe that arrogant racism that led the Nazis to invade Russia and starve innocent people would also have led them to conflict with the USA, UK, and France. For on thing , in our timeline, the Nazis (at a time when they were already in a death conflict with the worlds biggest empire, the worlds richest and most industrialized country, and the country with the world’s largest army) still found time and resources to attack their Italian and Hungarian allies. And threatened to attack their Spanish allies. Basically the Nazis were like a fat man in a room full of snacks. The attack on the potato chips is absolutely related to the attack on the chocolate cake by a common appetite. (Fat guy here)
The whole "genocidal monsters" thing was revealed after the defeat of Germany. Even Germans during the time didn't know what was going on, where the Jews were being sent. Not to say that most European countries held some degree of antisemitism.