Is the "strengthen Germany" setting more fun?

[Micky Luv]

Germany was not anywhere close to 'evenly matched' with the Soviet Union in 1942 by any objective numerical measure.

Better commanders? Probably. Better equipment? Sometimes. Evenly matched? No.

 

[Skjuld]

That's quite debatable.
Did the SU have much greater resources in terms of raw materials, manpower or industrial potential ? For sure. Did it translate directly in terms of front-line troops numbers ? Not really. (plus they were badly trained and poorly trained for the first years of the war)
In 1942, the ratios were not much worse for the Wehrmacht than they were in 1941. In absolute numbers, the Wehrmacht peaked in 43.

The main problem was that Germany was overly focused on tactical and operational victory and didn't care much about strategy. Evertything was geared towards winning war fast by Clauzewitzian decisive batlles. Logistics, maintenance, production were all geared toward short wars.

And "winning" a war means you've a clear strategic objective to attain and have the means to do so. Barbarossa was basically (to paraphrase hitler) "Kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down".

 

[walt526]

One of Germany's strategic blunders was how they treated the Ukrainians when they invaded. Without getting into specifics, they treated them even worse than the Russians and the Russians treated them pretty damn badly.

Anyway, as the war went on, manpower and supply lines limited Germany's ability to achieve victory in the Eastern front. Had they made friends of the Ukrainians rather than brutally subjugating them, they would have had volunteers and civilians would have hindered rather than helped efforts to disrupt supply lines.

In the context of HOI IV, that means that you should be allowed to puppet Ukraine as a stand-alone country after you control all of its provinces. Same thing with Belarus and the Baltic states, assuming the USSR has already absorbed them.

 

[Constans]

One of Germany's strategic blunders was how they treated the Ukrainians when they invaded. Without getting into specifics, they treated them even worse than the Russians and the Russians treated them pretty damn badly.

Anyway, as the war went on, manpower and supply lines limited Germany's ability to achieve victory in the Eastern front. Had they made friends of the Ukrainians rather than brutally subjugating them, they would have had volunteers and civilians would have hindered rather than helped efforts to disrupt supply lines.

In the context of HOI IV, that means that you should be allowed to puppet Ukraine as a stand-alone country after you control all of its provinces. Same thing with Belarus and the Baltic states, assuming the USSR has already absorbed them.

Well, had they been "nice" to the Ukrainians then they wouldn't have been Nazi Germany.

I think such options for cooperation with the Ukrainians/Poles/Baltics against the USSR should only be possible if you go a different route as Germany other than Fascist. Could be a cool position as a Democratic or Monarchist Germany.

 

[Gyrvendal]

The Germans never had a chance against the USSR with or without USA's help. There is no historical proof that the Germans were ever winning the war or ever could have won in the east. By the time the Normandy landings occured, Germany was already retreating from Soviet attacks all across the Eastern Front.

It's highly debatable. It depends if you assume the USA is simply not entering the war but still sending lend-lease or no intervention at all. If the USA had not intervened at all, it seems probable that Germany would have won or at least reached a stalemate with the Soviets. Stalin threatened the Allies to make a separate peace with Hitler if they didn't open a Western Front, so he might have been willing to peace out against Hitler with minor territorial concessions if no help was forthcoming from the West.

 

[walt526]

It's highly debatable. It depends if you assume the USA is simply not entering the war but still sending lend-lease or no intervention at all. If the USA had not intervened at all, it seems probable that Germany would have won or at least reached a stalemate with the Soviets. Stalin threatened the Allies to make a separate peace with Hitler if they didn't open a Western Front, so he might have been willing to peace out against Hitler with minor territorial concessions if no help was forthcoming from the West.

What Germany really needed was for the Japanese to open a second front against the USSR. Maybe that was Hitler's rationale for declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor?

 

[walt526]

Well, had they been "nice" to the Ukrainians then they wouldn't have been Nazi Germany.

I think such options for cooperation with the Ukrainians/Poles/Baltics against the USSR should only be possible if you go a different route as Germany other than Fascist. Could be a cool position as a Democratic or Monarchist Germany.

They could have used them as the Romans did with non-Roman allies: find willing volunteers and use them as front line infantry where they suffer massive casualties. Then after the war is over, conquer their former allies (whose numbers of fighting age men have been thinned from the previous war).

 

[ArmChairAttila]

It really is not highly debatable. We know exactly what happened. History does not change. If you want to play hypotheticals, well we can do that until the end of time. Any chance the fascist had at winning WWII is akin to saying Santa Clause would snowboard out of Norway, annex Finland, create a army of reindeer and sled into Moscow conquering the Russians, it's unlikely but possible.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

What Germany really needed was for the Japanese to open a second front against the USSR. Maybe that was Hitler's rationale for declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor?

Yes, I believe it was.

 

[ArmChairAttila]

The Japanese were terrified of the Russians for good reason. The Russian Manchurian offensive at the close of WW II proves just how out matched the Japanese were. I can not think of a more smoothly run operation in the entire war. Read about it, that operation was a thing of beauty.

I know that conditions would have been different, but I can just as easily argue that if Japan opened a Russian front they could collapse within months opening a even faster demise for the Germans.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I know that conditions would have been different, but I can just as easily argue that if Japan opened a Russian front they could collapse within months opening a even faster demise for the Germans.

The Soviet Army of '44 was not the Soviet Army of '41/'42. But no one is arguing that a Japanese front is supposed to beat the Soviets. Rather it is just a mean of draining resources away from the German front. But things like that are why we wargame.

 

[walt526]

The Soviet Army of '44 was not the Soviet Army of '41/'42. But no one is arguing that a Japanese front is supposed to beat the Soviets. Rather it is just a mean of draining resources away from the German front. But things like that are why we wargame.

Exactly.

 

[Vampiresoap]

It really is not highly debatable. We know exactly what happened. History does not change. If you want to play hypotheticals, well we can do that until the end of time. Any chance the fascist had at winning WWII is akin to saying Santa Clause would snowboard out of Norway, annex Finland, create a army of reindeer and sled into Moscow conquering the Russians, it's unlikely but possible.

In case you haven't noticed, this whole game centers around the concept of "what if". We can agree to disagree on a lot of things, that's okay, but what I don't get is why you speak with such certainty in your tone of voice. It's as though you already ran a ton of simulations on the "US non interference" scenario and have gotten your experimental result by compiling and analyzing your countless trials...Don't be that guy.

 

[NightRider]

That, or I play France and beat them despite the boosts.

Had the same experience in my France game. AI seems unable to deal with something as simple as level 4 forts. The AI seems incapable in general.

 

[Otto of england]

I think we have two distinct scenarios of no US involvement:
1) the US gives no lend lease, no loans, no aid to anyone.
2) the support the UK and USSR with lend lease, loans, and other assistance

I think the latter ends in a German defeat assuming nothing wild happens, but takes 2-3 years longer (Operation Torch, Overlord, and Invasion of Italy much slower, and much less bombing occured). Its possible then that the USSR would be completely crippled after WW2 after having taken millions more military and civilian losses because of the drawn out war and having to expend much more resources as well.

The first scenario though goes much differently. Namely without lend lease the USSR is massively deficient on trucks, boots, and trains (also alot less tanks in 43 and 44) forcing less production into tanks, artillery, and planes. Additionally the civilian population is now in a famine by 43 after the Ukraine and West Russia fell. I think given those deficiencies Germany wins 1944, or 1945 because the USSR cannot do the following:
A) feed its civilians
B) supply its army at the front as well
C) conduct offensive operations as well since it has a critical shortage of trucks and trains

Germany also has more resources since the UK alone cannot win North Africa as fast, nor take out Italy as fast, nor invade France as fast. Id estimate 6-24 month delay on those. So torch by mid 1943, invasion of italy by mid to late 1944, and invasion of france by late 1945 or early 1946.
E) Less bombing raids leaching production. I estimate roughly 1/3 of what happened irl.

The delayed schedule arguably makes overlord impossible since the beaches would be even more heavily defended, and the reduction in bombing allows more ammunition and better equipment for the defenders. Furthermore, the allies have only 2/5 of the manpower to draw on and lack air supremacy, though perhaps still have the advantage in the air.

Nikita Krushev also suggests that Stalin privatly said they would have lost the war without US aid.

Lend lease numbers:
~420,000 less trucks and jeeps, ~2,000 less train engines, ~11,000 less train cars, ~2,000,000 less boots, ~12000 less armoured vehicles(including ~7000 tanks), ~11,000 less planes, ~58% of aviation fuel, ~2,500,000 tons less petroleum, ~4,500,000 less tons of food, ~33% of ammunition

Can we let the meme die that the USSR could win ww2 without the allies? They would have been crippled with the USA never joined the war or amended the Neutrality Act.

 

[Micky Luv]

That's quite debatable.
Did the SU have much greater resources in terms of raw materials, manpower or industrial potential ? For sure. Did it translate directly in terms of front-line troops numbers ? Not really. (plus they were badly trained and poorly trained for the first years of the war)
In 1942, the ratios were not much worse for the Wehrmacht than they were in 1941. In absolute numbers, the Wehrmacht peaked in 43.

The main problem was that Germany was overly focused on tactical and operational victory and didn't care much about strategy. Evertything was geared towards winning war fast by Clauzewitzian decisive batlles. Logistics, maintenance, production were all geared toward short wars.

And "winning" a war means you've a clear strategic objective to attain and have the means to do so. Barbarossa was basically (to paraphrase hitler) "Kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down".

Yes, everything is debatable I agree, but to to suggest things were 'equal' in 1942 is the same as saying the result is in the balance. Logically, if things on both sides are equal, then either result - a Soviet or German victory is viable. Germany was screwed by 1942. I just want to clarify that this is my opinion only and I don't want it to sound like a statement of fact. As you rightly pointed out, there are many factors to consider, but the evidence does point strongly to a successful Soviet outcome post Barbarossa. Again, I want to stress we're looking at this with perfect hindsight. The German Army was still very dangerous to the Soviets of course, but incapable of mustering enough strategic initiative to deliver a knockout blow after the initial invasion.

Second Kharkov is a case in point. Now it's just a footnote to the Stalingrad campaign. In actuality it was a crushed offensive which resulted in enormous Soviet casualties. About the same number of German troops were lost at Stalingrad. The difference between them was that for the USSR Second Kharkov was a learning experience (especially for Stalin to trust his high command); for Germany Stalingrad was the harbinger of doom. Those two events were separated by a period of only 7 months.

About that famous Hitler quote. I've always thought of the "edifice" as the Communist Party apparatus. Hitler believing a traumatic enough "kick" from the armed forces being enough to bring it down by causing catastrophic internal conflict. Otherwise the final objectives of Barbarossa were disconcertingly vague. I personally believe that the first week or two of Barbarossa was when that had to happen, if Germany was to stand any chance. When command paralysis was at its highest level. It didn't, and Stalin didn't have a nervous breakdown either.

 

[WeissRaben]

I think we have two distinct scenarios of no US involvement:
1) the US gives no lend lease, no loans, no aid to anyone.
2) the support the UK and USSR with lend lease, loans, and other assistance

I think the latter ends in a German defeat assuming nothing wild happens, but takes 2-3 years longer (Operation Torch, Overlord, and Invasion of Italy much slower, and much less bombing occured). Its possible then that the USSR would be completely crippled after WW2 after having taken millions more military and civilian losses because of the drawn out war and having to expend much more resources as well.

The first scenario though goes much differently. Namely without lend lease the USSR is massively deficient on trucks, boots, and trains (also alot less tanks in 43 and 44) forcing less production into tanks, artillery, and planes. Additionally the civilian population is now in a famine by 43 after the Ukraine and West Russia fell. I think given those deficiencies Germany wins 1944, or 1945 because the USSR cannot do the following:
A) feed its civilians
B) supply its army at the front as well
C) conduct offensive operations as well since it has a critical shortage of trucks and trains

Germany also has more resources since the UK alone cannot win North Africa as fast, nor take out Italy as fast, nor invade France as fast. Id estimate 6-24 month delay on those. So torch by mid 1943, invasion of italy by mid to late 1944, and invasion of france by late 1945 or early 1946.
E) Less bombing raids leaching production. I estimate roughly 1/3 of what happened irl.

The delayed schedule arguably makes overlord impossible since the beaches would be even more heavily defended, and the reduction in bombing allows more ammunition and better equipment for the defenders. Furthermore, the allies have only 2/5 of the manpower to draw on and lack air supremacy, though perhaps still have the advantage in the air.

Nikita Krushev also suggests that Stalin privatly said they would have lost the war without US aid.

Lend lease numbers:
~420,000 less trucks and jeeps, ~2,000 less train engines, ~11,000 less train cars, ~2,000,000 less boots, ~12000 less armoured vehicles(including ~7000 tanks), ~11,000 less planes, ~58% of aviation fuel, ~2,500,000 tons less petroleum, ~4,500,000 less tons of food, ~33% of ammunition

Can we let the meme die that the USSR could win ww2 without the allies? They would have been crippled with the USA never joined the war or amended the Neutrality Act.

If the USSR had been given time enough, they could have won even without Western help... but they wouldn't be. That's the whole problem - the Soviets would need time to gear up their production, but have no time to gain that very time. Now, excluding every kind of Western help to the USSR is hard, extremely hard, with the war going like it did up to 1941, so the discussion is purely academical - you should have an enormously more isolationist US and Japan not putting its fingers into the cake, both quite difficult to achieve. Ironically, the best way for the US to stay out of it is with Germany doing worse - have Gamelin go for Plan E over Plan D, beef up a mobile reserve with the troops he has saved, and he now has a way to blunt the (quite inevitable) breech at the Ardennes. Germany needed a decapitation strike against France - the German economy was already starting to overheat, and wouldn't survive much longer without the loot from Western Europe to help. If France doesn't instantly fall, Germany is in for a world of hurt - which cancels Barbarossa entirely.

TL;dr: the SU would go down without Western help, but the only plausible way for it to not get Western help is for Germany to be weaker to begin with, which negates the whole matter.

 

[Otto of england]

If the USSR had been given time enough, they could have won even without Western help... but they wouldn't be. That's the whole problem - the Soviets would need time to gear up their production, but have no time to gain that very time. Now, excluding every kind of Western help to the USSR is hard, extremely hard, with the war going like it did up to 1941, so the discussion is purely academical - you should have an enormously more isolationist US and Japan not putting its fingers into the cake, both quite difficult to achieve. Ironically, the best way for the US to stay out of it is with Germany doing worse - have Gamelin go for Plan E over Plan D, beef up a mobile reserve with the troops he has saved, and he now has a way to blunt the (quite inevitable) breech at the Ardennes. Germany needed a decapitation strike against France - the German economy was already starting to overheat, and wouldn't survive much longer without the loot from Western Europe to help. If France doesn't instantly fall, Germany is in for a world of hurt - which cancels Barbarossa entirely.

TL;dr: the SU would go down without Western help, but the only plausible way for it to not get Western help is for Germany to be weaker to begin with, which negates the whole matter.

I agree with you that if the timeline is the same up until 1939 then the USSR will get western help. Regardless if the US joined the war they would have given lend lease to the UK and the USSR, since the Neutrality Acts had already been amended. Though this whole discussion got brought up because someone earlier mentioned a game where the USA does exactly nothing, and thats precisely the state that gives the USSR no US lend lease and, then the USSR losses as previously outlined.

 

[Skjuld]

Yes, everything is debatable I agree, but to to suggest things were 'equal' in 1942 is the same as saying the result is in the balance. Logically, if things on both sides are equal, then either result - a Soviet or German victory is viable. Germany was screwed by 1942. I just want to clarify that this is my opinion only and I don't want it to sound like a statement of fact. As you rightly pointed out, there are many factors to consider, but the evidence does point strongly to a successful Soviet outcome post Barbarossa. Again, I want to stress we're looking at this with perfect hindsight. The German Army was still very dangerous to the Soviets of course, but incapable of mustering enough strategic initiative to deliver a knockout blow after the initial invasion.

Second Kharkov is a case in point. Now it's just a footnote to the Stalingrad campaign. In actuality it was a crushed offensive which resulted in enormous Soviet casualties. About the same number of German troops were lost at Stalingrad. The difference between them was that for the USSR Second Kharkov was a learning experience (especially for Stalin to trust his high command); for Germany Stalingrad was the harbinger of doom. Those two events were separated by a period of only 7 months.

About that famous Hitler quote. I've always thought of the "edifice" as the Communist Party apparatus. Hitler believing a traumatic enough "kick" from the armed forces being enough to bring it down by causing catastrophic internal conflict. Otherwise the final objectives of Barbarossa were disconcertingly vague. I personally believe that the first week or two of Barbarossa was when that had to happen, if Germany was to stand any chance. When command paralysis was at its highest level. It didn't, and Stalin didn't have a nervous breakdown either.

Oh, I DO agree with your conclusions. What I didn't agree with was expressing it as "not close to evenly matched". I took that as an expression of a force ratio, which is what it sounds like.
It seems we agree on the situation and probable outcome, but I tend to see it more as a matter of strategy. The Germans were not really thinking strategically (beyond clauzewitzian "decisive" battles), whereas the Soviets, after the initial shocks, were able to apply good strategic planning. And given the difference in potential, that sealed Barbarossa's outcome.

About lend-lease, I don't see how the UK would not have done it. US contribution, while extremely substantial, came mostly after the strategic initiative had shifted. Without US Lend-Lease, I don't think Germany would have won, but the war would have been even more of a bloodbath and left the USSR bled dry. But that's just an opinion.

 

[Telenil]

Worthy of note is that the German went for the Caucasus oil fields *because* the war with the West was going to be a long one. They wanted these resources to fight the American (before they got sidetracked and piled their troops in Stalingrad, that is).

If the US were completely isolationnist, it would be a very different 1942. Germany would still be unlikely to achieve complete victory, but even in the "real" 1942, its primary goal was to get land and resources for a long war, not to destroy the USSR in the sense the 1941 campaign was. Some sort of stalemate favoring the German is at least conceivable.