Our Unholy Alliance with the Evil Empire in WW2

[Klaus]

I agree with Tom, Jim and Lancer.

without the eastern Front D Day, in my opinion, would have failed. If they would have tried such a thing in the first place. Imagine all Units from the eastern front spread throughout europe...

After the first few days it was'nt sure that Overlord would be a success.

[Egorka]

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

Sorry, a tpying error there, I originally meant that the Western Allies could have chosen not to associate themselves with the Soviets at all, but the Wehrmacht would still be heavily engaged in holding back the Soviets, and the original German strength in Normandy would be the same as historically.

K

Hello,

That is what they escensially did. They used USSR to fight Hitler and when the victory was sure they jumped in to limit Stalin's advance.
In fact allies became victims of they own policy of avoiding direct fight: if western front was opened in 1942-1943 (as american military suggested) Stalin would have got less control after the war.

best regards
Igor

[Jim O]

Igor,

I think what Kevin meant was that the US and Britain could have chosen not to ally with USSR and let Stalin fend for himself without help. USSR received a great deal of support from western allies in food, raw materials, and equipment as a result of the alliance.

But yes, the Soviets suffered the greatest number of casualties. Had Stalin and Hitler not fought, or had they made peace, the US and Britain would have had a hard time with the invasion of the European mainland, and it is questionable at best as to whether it would have succeeded.

Your analysis that they became victims of their own strategy is also spot on. One would wonder though if Stalin would not have continued the war by fighting on against the other allies should he have not gotten all the spoils that he wound up with.

[Tom Houlihan]

Originally Posted by Egorka

In fact allies became victims of they own policy of avoiding direct fight: if western front was opened in 1942-1943 (as american military suggested) Stalin would have got less control after the war.

Igor, I'm going to challenge that statement, but just a little bit.

I don't believe it was a policy of "avoiding direct fight." I think it was more a policy of "let's not do anything until we have a chance of success!" The Allies learned a very valuable lesson with the Dieppe fiasco. So, knowing they had to invade France, they didn't launch the invasion until the odds were a little more in their favor. So, rather than avoiding direct conflict (remember the Italian campaign?), they were risking fewer lives by waiting for a better chance of success.

Now, had they been able to successfully land an invasion in 42 or 43, things would have been a lot different. The German defenses probably would have been stronger, as they wouldn't have bled off so many units to the Ostfront meatgrinder. So maybe overall such an invasion wouldn't have worked in the long run?

But, just for the sake of argument, had they beaten the Germans back to the Reich in 43 or early 44, then you're right, the Russians would have occupied much less territory at the end of the war. Today's world picture would look much different!

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Intresting thing avout the USSR and the German Reich making peace there. In 'The Brandenburgers - Global Mission' by Franz Kurowski it states that from 1942 - 1943 the Soviets tried to approach the Germans for a deal via the German embassy in Sweden. However at the time the Abwehr under Admiral Canaris wanted to make peace with the Allies on the condition that after overthrowing Hitler they be allowed to continue the struggle on the Eastern Front. There was a meeting between the heads of the Intelligence Branches in Switzerland and they agreed in theory but however nothing could be changed as Roosevelt and Churchill had implemented the unconditional surrender theory. Had Canaris approached the Soviets instead he might have gotten the deal.

K

[Egorka]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Igor,

I think what Kevin meant was that the US and Britain could have chosen not to ally with USSR and let Stalin fend for himself without help. USSR received a great deal of support from western allies in food, raw materials, and equipment as a result of the alliance.

But yes, the Soviets suffered the greatest number of casualties. Had Stalin and Hitler not fought, or had they made peace, the US and Britain would have had a hard time with the invasion of the European mainland, and it is questionable at best as to whether it would have succeeded.

Your analysis that they became victims of their own strategy is also spot on. One would wonder though if Stalin would not have continued the war by fighting on against the other allies should he have not gotten all the spoils that he wound up with.

I know what Kevin ment.

The UK and US were bound to allie with USSR because they would not be able to defeat Germany, at least in short term (10 - 20 years). On top of that by avoiding alliens they would push USSR to seek agreement with Germany and this would have make Germany even stronger. So 10 - 20 years would turn to 50 or 150 easily.

On the other hand especially UK allience was in reality just political game (similar to Stalins just more selfish one). They avoided any serious actions until Red Army tanks were on the USSr border ready to roll in to Europe in April 1944.

The "lend lease" program was very usefull indeed and amounted for app 5 - 9 % of BNP in USSR. By the way the ships, as I know, were carrying row materials back to Allies.

Regarding Stalin wanting to roll further and continue war... Well what we really have is operation "Unthinkable". nd that is a fact. I assume you know what I am reffering to. USSR was very efficient war machine in 1945, but with one great problem of stressed manpower, where US just got wormed up for fight and Truman was very agresive.

Best regards
Igor Korenev

[Brett]

> The US providing the Soviets with tens of thousands
> of tanks and aircraft and other direct military aid and
> appeasing them by ceding them the eastern half
> ofEurope and northern Japan, northern Korea
> and northern China …

As I recall from my reading, the most valuable aid to the USSR was not direct military weapons, but such items as food and massive quantities of trucks, which greatly aided Soviet mobility. I think all Allied tank were inferior to the T-34, so I don’t believe any of them were put on the front line vs. Germany. They were useful in 2nd line roles such as training and deterring Japan in Mongolia & the Eastern USSR.

I have to confess my ignorance as far as what impact US aircraft had on the Eastern Front. From snatches of reading, I get the impression that the Luftwaffe was not as hard pressed against Soviets as on other fronts. I believe some 85% of German aircraft was on the Southern or Western Front from around ’43 on, and they flew obsolescent types in the East that never would have survived against the Western Allies. Whether that meant Soviets could not train enough pilots for Western aircraft, they just didn’t put the resources into air as ground, or other reasons I frankly don’t know.
(Does anyone know of a good book on the Eastern Front air war?)

As far as the US ceding territory – the Soviets gained the areas mentioned by force of arms, not because the US gave it to them. The only way to force them out would have been a war, which I don’t think anyone in the West would have supported after the long years of WWII.

> Our massive direct military support of the USSR and
> our great appeasement at Yalta was entirely
> unnecessary as the USSR would have gone on fighting
> and beating the Germans without our assistance. Had
> we not aided them, the Red Army would have advanced
> at a somewhat slower rate allowing the US and British
> armies to occupy Germany, central Europe and
> potentially much of eastern Europe in advance of
> the Soviets…

With the knowledge the West had in ‘41/’42, it was very much an open question whether the USSR would survive. Without aid, it is true the Red Army probably would have advanced at a somewhat slower rate. It is equally likely that there would have been an enormous increase in Western casualties. Plus, D-day may very well have failed if a less menacing Soviet Army allowed Germany to transfer more divisions to the Western Front. This could have meant that the Soviets would have occupied the bulk of Western Europe.