Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union

  • 2007 AAR League

    Write why you KNOW so…

  • 2007 AAR League

    The divisions in Africa and in the rest of Europe would have helped to punch deeper holes, capture Stalingrad and besiege Moscow, but Russia could always move back, refit and counterattack, as Germany was at its full potential.

  • 2007 AAR League

    germany reached its full potential in 1943.

    it invaded in 41.  and if it took ALL of its forces east b/c it wasnt at war with US, UK, and european nations, it would have smashed right into moscow.

    people would have given up on the soviet government.  its not like the gov’t ever did anything good to the soviet people.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Yeah, lets say they did invade in 1943. Russia would have been stocking up us well…

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    So i assume England would have surrendered and Germany spent 1941 taking out the Suez and British colonies.  with an additional 50 divisions and 30-35% of additional Luftwaffe available. I can see no issues with a complete collapse of the Soviet Union. Plus control of the Suez would allow the attack against the Caucasus from the Russo-Persian border and possible Turkish intervention. Turkey was leaning toward the Axis anyway and wanted to regain her lost territory after UK took it in WW1.

    It would have led to Iraq as a minor axis ally.

    Also, Italy need more time to prepare for total war. Control of  the Suez would have given Mussolini more prestige and leeway with the king of Italy to make a larger commitment for the war effort.

    I think turning the Medd in an axis lake would have brought Spain in the fold…another buffer against the Americans

  • 2007 AAR League

    IL, I think your argument assumes too much.  First, that England would have surrendered.  That seems very unlikely.  After Hitler broke all of his previous treaties and promises by invading Poland, what assurance could Britain reasonably have that he would honor any armistice Britain could agree to?  Absolutely none.  Vichy France negotiated because, after all, what choice did they really have?  With Britain, on the other hand, Hitler either needed to commit to a full-scale invasion and put the USSR on the back burner, or vice versa.  He could not realistically do both.  Absent an invasion of England, actual or realistically threatened, I don’t think England would have surrendered.

    Your argument also assumes that England (and the US) would have stood idly by while Germany smashed the Soviet Union.  Even as much as the USSR and Stalin were distrusted back before WWII, did they trust Hitler any more?  Would having Hitler control all of Europe (save Britain) AND Russia have been acceptable to the US and Britain?  I hardly think so.  Britain would have found some pre-text to re-enter the war, even if she had signed an armistice.

    Finally, regardless of whether the USSR government collapsed, I don’t think Nazi Germany could have held all of that territory for more than a few years at most.  Look how difficult it has been for us to occupy Iraq!  There were already resistance movements in the Balkans and in France.  Certainly, guerrilla resistance fighters would have sprung up all over the former USSR.  I don’t think the Krauts would have had a moment’s peace until they finally withdrew from Russia and the surrounding countries.  That was just WAY too much territory to occupy against a hostile population.  There is a reason almost no modern ruler has aspired to world domination – BECAUSE IT’S CRAZY!  It’s way too easy for civilians to resist foreign occupiers.


  • Germany came sooo close it’s scary. If Germany had only fought the USSR, they would have had a much larger number of troops available. They also still would have had their finest pilots since they would not have been lost in the battle for Britain. And then there is the man considered as the finest German commander of the war. Rommel repeatedly licked competent British commanders, and even gave Patton trouble. Can you imagine Rommel fighting against incompetent Soviet political generals?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    IL, I think your argument assumes too much.  First, that England would have surrendered.  That seems very unlikely.  After Hitler broke all of his previous treaties and promises by invading Poland, what assurance could Britain reasonably have that he would honor any armistice Britain could agree to?  Absolutely none.  Vichy France negotiated because, after all, what choice did they really have?  With Britain, on the other hand, Hitler either needed to commit to a full-scale invasion and put the USSR on the back burner, or vice versa.  He could not realistically do both.  Absent an invasion of England, actual or realistically threatened, I don’t think England would have surrendered.

    Your argument also assumes that England (and the US) would have stood idly by while Germany smashed the Soviet Union.  Even as much as the USSR and Stalin were distrusted back before WWII, did they trust Hitler any more?  Would having Hitler control all of Europe (save Britain) AND Russia have been acceptable to the US and Britain?  I hardly think so.  Britain would have found some pre-text to re-enter the war, even if she had signed an armistice.

    UK would not have surrendered, but Germany would still have taken the alternative advocated by Admiral Raeder which was to go after British colonies and take Gibraltar and Malta effectively turning the Medd under total axis control.

    WE CAN assume the Germans get 1 year to fool around and theirs little doubt that Turkey would be encircled by axis puppet states forcing them to sign on as allies.

    England would have fought from Canada trying to get back England… rather than worry about France or any German success in Russia

    German control of both Persia and England would have meant no aid going to the Soviets

    Hitlers plan was to either defeat the Soviets forcing the British to come to terms and allow Germany a free hand in Europe… or a direct attack on England.

    Remember Hitlers actual intention was to defeat the Soviets so England would come to her senses… USA only got in the action after Dec 7th… w/o that FDR could not convince the Americans to save Europa a second time even if England fell. Im sure that after about a year of more incidents American propaganda may have produced a limited war, but not before the Soviet would have fallen.


  • Had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. Germany still could’ve won the war while fighting on two fronts against only England and Soviet Russia.

    You have to remember that Rommel was on the verge of having total control of North Africa until the U.S. got involved. Had Rommel only the British to oppose him, he would’ve driven over the Suez, turned North into Turkey, and then connected with the Southern Armies on the Russian front perhaps even creating another Russian pocket while capturing vital oil fields in the spring of 1942. The next logical move for Rommel would’ve been to press Eastward and if not seize or destroy the Russian industry, cause enough of a hiccup in the supply lines to the Russian front that not enough ammunition, fuel, parts, or equipment would be available on the Russian front to stop a hard-pressed general advance against the Soviets.

    One of the most fatal flaws on the Russian front was the destruction of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. In terms of manpower it was severe, but the magnitude of the effect on the morale of the German soldiers dwarfed the physical loss of Stalingrad and Field Marshall Von Paulus’ army.

    Most incriminating to the Germans however, was the rampant behavior of rape, murder, and all-out thuggery of the SS divisions. Their absence would’ve greatly benefited the Germans with a fresh suply of willing peasants who will fight for the Germans against the Soviets and would be willing subjects after the Soviet Union was dissolved.


  • But you see, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, to help his buddy Stalin, so it would have happened eventually.

    And I do believe the Tommies whipped Rommel all by there lonesome at El Alamean, though it is doubtful such success would have lasted once he got back to Tunisia and was reinforced.

    The 6th Army. Yes, it was a significant number of men. A quarter of a million Germans is nothing to sneeze at! Personally, I don’t think moral is a factor in modern warfare, at least it isnt in the Corp, but you may be right there as well. It is reasonable to assume that the German soldiers are different from U.S. Marines, and are still affected by moral.

    Rampant behavior of rape and murder? I am certain SS divisions maintained their dicipline in Russia, it was not until after the fighting had ended in an area and the soldiers had moved on than Himmler would move in with his death squads. The men of the SS where fine soldiers, do not label all of them barbarians for the actions of Himmler. Perhaps you have information that proves otherwise? Well, despite Himmler’s ruthless treatment of Russians, many Russians still did side with the Germans.


  • @M36:

    Rampant behavior of rape and murder? I am certain SS divisions maintained their dicipline in Russia, it was not until after the fighting had ended in an area and the soldiers had moved on than Himmler would move in with his death squads. The men of the SS where fine soldiers, do not label all of them barbarians for the actions of Himmler. Perhaps you have information that proves otherwise? Well, despite Himmler’s ruthless treatment of Russians, many Russians still did side with the Germans.

    yeah, i do they were effin nazis. enough proof for me. but anyway to day on the good side of england America then was to not to invade africa. england also would never submit to france binging wiped of the map. therfore i think germany would of had to hope france didn’t attack them while they invaded russia. russia would of been suspicious because they way hitler explinaed the massive build up before the invasion was they were binging moved out of the way of english bombers. he wouldn’t of had that excuse. russsia would of been ready and massive. there would be no way of keeeping every one at perace while germany and russia fought for world supremacy.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I agree that if the Nazis would’ve played the role of liberators it would’ve helped A LOT in eastern europe


  • @AJ:

    I agree that if the Nazis would’ve played the role of liberators it would’ve helped A LOT in eastern europe

    :? :? :? what are you replying to?


  • Western nations had no love of the USSR, they would have not helped in a German war against just Russia.

    And “effin Nazis” is not a credible response. How incredibly open minded you are! :roll: Most German soldiers where just average people, who had no plans of extermination or new world orders, they where simply fighting because their country needed them.


  • @M36:

    Most German soldiers where just average people, who had no plans of extermination or new world orders, they where simply fighting because their country needed them.

    That is definitely true.  Only the people higher up in the National Socialist food chain knew what was really going on.  I don’t think that every soldier in the German army at the time would’ve just been “all for it” if they found out that their high-end political/military leaders were commiting genocide and other such atrocities.

    I’ve said before (and I hope M36 will back me up, even though he’s a marine, and I’m navy) that Erwin Rommel was one of my most influential leaders.  I just like the way that he led his army.  He got into more disagreements with his senior officers than he did with his grunts who were doing the fighting.  He often went right up there with them and gave them pats on the back, saying “Hey, you’re doing a great job, keep it up, your country needs you,” etc.  In my opinion, that is a bad-a$$ CO.

    Rommel may have been powerful, in that he commanded troops and their respect, but he lacked TRUE power.  By this I’m referring to the “tall throne of judgment” inhabited by Hitler and his cronies."  As long as the German people believe they are fighting for something worthwhile, and have no idea of what’s going on behind their backs, then we can do whatever we want!  Let’s start by exterminating all the Jews, since they are the source of much of the corruption in our society."  Isn’t that the M.O. that motivated Hitler?

  • '19 Moderator

    I’ll back you up; Rommel was definitely not a model Nazi, plotting to assassinate the boss kinda counts you out there.  He also had his faults, but he could have cause us allot more problems unleashed.

  • Customizer

    The behaviour of Soviet troops AND the following NKVD units was at least as bad as that of the Germans.  Something like 1 million Soviet citizens joined the German forces in some capacity, despite the appaling treatment of Soviet citizens.  Hitler’s great folly was not recognizing national aspirations of Soviet republics, particulary in the Ukraine.  It was only when the war was effectively lost that he authorised the establishment of even a puppet Ukraine government. 
    Nevertheless, various national resistance movements in Ukraine and Poland continued fighting the Soviets well into the 1950’s, ignored by the west.  These were not Nazis, indeed were often the same people who’d fought the earlier German occupation.

    As to the question of a German victory in the east, it depends how you assess the importance of western aid to Russia in terms of food, vehicles, clothing etc. (they didn’t need inferior western tanks or aircraft).  The Soviets could quite happily trade losses with the Axis at 1-1 and still come out massively ahead in sheer numbers. But when you consider the large number of divisions and air units held down in the west guarding France, Norway, Italy/North Africa it’s hard not to see these units making the difference in Russia, especially if Hitler had concentrated on specific goals instead of dividing his forces.


  • Exactly. If the Germans had harnessed the manpower of the Soviet Union instead of oppressing it, things would have gone differently.

    And Agent Orange, you have my approval, even though you are a lazy ass sailor. 😉


  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf

    Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.


  • @Yahoshua:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf

    Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.

    thank you. some one with some sense. all nazzi’s are evil. anyone who commits or supports genocide is evil. communist russia was 200 times better than germany. the still wouldn’t be able to take over such a large country.


  • Stalinist Russia was far worse than Nazi Germany.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The Soviet Union could outprodce Germany anyday in the war. Here is an example: Summer of 1942, German production of tanks was 500/ month. Russian tank production was 1200/ Month. The difference only keeps getting bigger from there. How can any nation win against an enemy that can outproduce them and have an endless amount of manpower? Stalin would not have surrendered… Ever. In the long run, Russia would have won the war of attrition and taken Berlin.


  • @cyan:

    @Yahoshua:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf

    Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.

    thank you. some one with some sense. all nazzi’s are evil. anyone who commits or supports genocide is evil. communist russia was 200 times better than germany. the still wouldn’t be able to take over such a large country.

    That’s not what we’re saying.  The important thing to note is that they were fighting merely for country.  If genocide was taking place at the hands of their country, but without the typical soldier’s knowledge, then how can you say that ALL their soldiers were evil?  While some of the “death squad” types were in the know about these horrible things, I highly doubt that the ENTIRE German army knew about it, and thus, can’t be held ENTIRELY accountable.


  • @AgentOrange:

    @cyan:

    @Yahoshua:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf

    Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.

    thank you. some one with some sense. all nazzi’s are evil. anyone who commits or supports genocide is evil. communist russia was 200 times better than germany. the still wouldn’t be able to take over such a large country.

    That’s not what we’re saying.  The important thing to note is that they were fighting merely for country.  If genocide was taking place at the hands of their country, but without the typical soldier’s knowledge, then how can you say that ALL their soldiers were evil?  While some of the “death squad” types were in the know about these horrible things, I highly doubt that the ENTIRE German army knew about it, and thus, can’t be held ENTIRELY accountable.

    line up those citizensn and shoot them. line up those jews and gas them. it would be amazing how someone so stupid could live in the army getting shot at every day.  i think most still supported it because its was the only way for them to get ahead. they were conditioned to kill, and eventually submitted to what every reason. probably not out of hatred but out of what they thought was necessity. guessing  thats the mentatilty the french had also so they  out right rebel when paris was surrendered. maybe the air froce, and the tank crews didn’t know but most of the german infantry must of known.


  • @cyan:

    @AgentOrange:

    @cyan:

    @Yahoshua:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf

    Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.

    thank you. some one with some sense. all nazzi’s are evil. anyone who commits or supports genocide is evil. communist russia was 200 times better than germany. the still wouldn’t be able to take over such a large country.

    That’s not what we’re saying.  The important thing to note is that they were fighting merely for country.  If genocide was taking place at the hands of their country, but without the typical soldier’s knowledge, then how can you say that ALL their soldiers were evil?  While some of the “death squad” types were in the know about these horrible things, I highly doubt that the ENTIRE German army knew about it, and thus, can’t be held ENTIRELY accountable.

    line up those citizensn and shoot them. line up those jews and gas them. it would be amazing how someone so stupid could live in the army getting shot at every day.  i think most still supported it because its was the only way for them to get ahead. they were conditioned to kill, and eventually submitted to what every reason. probably not out of hatred but out of what they thought was necessity. guessing  thats the mentatilty the french had also so they  out right rebel when paris was surrendered. maybe the air froce, and the tank crews didn’t know but most of the german infantry must of known.

    OK, point taken there, but even so, not every one of 'em agreed with the morality of it all.  There are some on this very forum (myself included) who are in the military, but we don’t always agree with the moral/ethical ramifications of the decisions made numerous levels above our paygrade.  Do members of the military have the right to disobey orders?  Only the unlawful ones.  In Nazi Germany’s case, it apparently wasn’t considered “unlawful” to line up and subsequently murder innocent civilians.  But still, there must’ve been those who couldn’t even stomach the idea.  Of course, the Fascist ideal was that “our nation has the God-given right to trample whoever we choose, simply because we are stronger than they are.”  So even the guy who never wanted to kill innocent people may get forced to do so because that is what his nation/military might expect of him.

    War brings out the worst in people, and in some cases, makes them monsters.  I think it could easily be compared to peer pressure.  Kids try smoking pot all the time, and a lot of them may not actually want to do it for themselves, but more so because they want to “fit in” or “be part of the cool crowd”.  Whatever.  I know that when it was offered to me, I had no reservations; I was just curious, and the rest is history.  I can’t do it now, because that could cost me my job.  But I firmly believe that it is not the “soul-crushing narcotic” it’s made out to be in Reefer Madness; people just need to be made aware of what it can do.

    …but as I digress…
    The point I’m trying to make with the peer pressure thing is that sometimes people lose sight of what they truly believe in, just so that their friends/coworkers/comrades-in-arms won’t call them a pu55y, or maybe even because they fear retribution of some kind.  But the big question is:  If you don’t want to try smoking pot, or you don’t want to shoot a defenseless human being in the head, then WHO F**KING CARES?  The truly strong would have some damn conviction and stand by their beliefs, and I guarantee that this fits a few of 'em.

Suggested Topics

  • 104
  • 7
  • 10
  • 255
  • 29
  • 2
  • 7
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts