What could've have happened?

[DragonBorn96]

This may seem and odd thread to make but just earlier about WW2 and more specifically the Soviet counter-offensive operations in Stalingrad and Leningrad. I was talking to my dad about what we thought could've happened if the Soviet Red Army never made the push into Nazi Germany to conquer Berlin. With the Nazi army only fighting the European front against Britain, how could've the wars outcome have changed. I see it as if this was the case, without the Nazi forces having to fight on the Eastern Front because the Red Army did not make the offensives into Germany aswell as retaking cities such as Stalingrad and Leningrad This would lead to the forces on the European theater of war having to face increased amounts of forces from Nazi Germany. I feel wierd asking this as it isn't (as far as I know) a common topic of discussion. But I would like to see what other think of this and whether or not you agree with my thought that the Allies may not have lasted and the war could've tipped in Hitler's favor. So I ask you, What could've have happened?

 

[lee1287]

You lost me. Sorry. We could have lost? Simple i guess?

 

[NeedAUserName]

We would have had our asses kicked. The Russian war effort during WWII was severely downplayed by Western Europe/America, and as such they don't always get much of a look in, but they were a massive opponent to the Nazis.

 

[Dango]

I feel as though this video is related:

So as said above, we would have gotten our asses kicked.

 

[Wade-DeadPool]

We would had been kick so hard, you would not believe it.
Nazi machine VS Commie machine did kill one another, more or less.

..IF that was the question.. The questions was" If Russia had not joined the battle, what would had happened"?

 

[Wade-DeadPool]

I feel as though this video is related:

So as said above, we would have gotten our asses kicked.

Now that is just amazing. Love Eddie

 

[Watchmacallit]

Well Britain was holding its own against the Nazis. They had control of the air and sea. Also, Russia was as pathetic as France was during that war. Only when they regrouped and struck with Guerrilla type street warfare did they push the Germans back. By that time the Germans were weakening with the winter cutting off supply lines.

Also, Germany was still gonna get it from the Americans approaching through France and Italy. Russia only aided in fighting a very weak Germany.

And if it was getting bad enough there probably would of been more than one nuke strike from America. They did it to Japan and they were winning, why not do it to the Nazis if they were losing?

 

[Athol]

I dont think the Allies would've lost outright. The Allies would have been pounded hard by the Nazis, and the war would have gone on longer, but the Nazis lacked the resources and fuel to hold out indefinatly (even if the Soviets never went on the offensive, there is no way in hell they'd let the Nazis get to the Caspian oilfields).

 

[Bobbity]

Well Britain was holding its own against the Nazis. They had control of the air and sea. Also, Russia was as pathetic as France was during that war. Only when they regrouped and struck with Guerrilla type street warfare did they push the Germans back. By that time the Germans were weakening with the winter cutting off supply lines.

Also, Germany was still gonna get it from the Americans approaching through France and Italy. Russia only aided in fighting a very weak Germany.

And if it was getting bad enough there probably would of been more than one nuke strike from America. They did it to Japan and they were winning, why not do it to the Nazis if they were losing?

No offence, but that's a load of crap. Britain couldn't have held on much longer - the entirety of the RAF was in the air at several points in time, and they only just beat back the Germans. The Germans could pretty much bomb London at will - and did so.
The massive war machine that was Russia divided the German forces by making them fight on two fronts, and killed enormous numbers of enemy soldiers. The Russians were actually the first into Berlin, and the rest of us only rocked up a couple of weeks later.
Granted, America's contribution to the war was significant, and probably would've beaten back the Germans anyway, but it would have been a very, very difficult task.
The nuke was only finished late in the war, and while it might've then been used to end the war in Europe - as was the original plan - it still would've been horrendous.

Anyways, what do you all think would've happened if Russia had not only not joined the Allies, but continued to actively aid the nazis?

 

[Watchmacallit]

If they aided the Nazis thats a different story because Germany had more munitions than they knew what to do with and could of supplied Russia.

But in all honesty Russia was a meat shield, thats all. For most of the war they were having their ass handed to them by an army with less soldiers. This happened in WW1, WW2, against Napoleon and even the Japanese in...1905 or 1906...sometime around then. They really don't have a good track record.

I admit Britain was on the verge of losing but in the end if Russia hadn't of joined in, Germany still would of been obliterated by America. The only difference would probably be Japan being scared off by the Nuke hitting Germany and instead of remembering the nuke strikes in Japan we would be remembering the Nuke strike on Berlin.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Well Britain was holding its own against the Nazis. They had control of the air and sea. Also, Russia was as pathetic as France was during that war. Only when they regrouped and struck with Guerrilla type street warfare did they push the Germans back. By that time the Germans were weakening with the winter cutting off supply lines.

Also, Germany was still gonna get it from the Americans approaching through France and Italy. Russia only aided in fighting a very weak Germany.

And if it was getting bad enough there probably would of been more than one nuke strike from America. They did it to Japan and they were winning, why not do it to the Nazis if they were losing?

What?

Britains air dominance was only over BRITAIN for the most part. Their control of the sea was in such a narrow area that they couldn't protect half their civilian fleet. They were in MISERABLE condition, and that's withe the aid of US supply. Yes, they held out, but they were scraping the bottle of the barrel.

The Russians CRUSHED some of the finest soldiers Germany could produce, along with a vast portion of their Armor. Sure, they were getting creamed pretty hard, but after Stalingrad they rolled the Germans up

Their tactics were questionable, but by the end of the War Russia was a terrifying force that had thoroughly crushed the Germans, and they deserve ever bit of credit one can give them.

Seriously, everyone had a part to play. No one, or even two, Nations could have destroyed the Nazi's empire (Unless Hitler destroyed it himself, which he seemed rather intent on in his madness).

As to the OP... I can hardly make sense of your post. I hope what I've already typed answers your question... whatever it was.

EDIT: Also, they had no more atomic bombs. It took several years of refining uranium and plutonium to make 3 of them. It is unlikely the US would have been able to make enough to make a difference in time. And you have to figure that Japan was already soundly beaten before they were bombed. It is questionable if the US would have been able to punch bombers into germany's home land without the support of both Britain and Russia.