Do you really feel that Russia could single handedly take on Hitler without the allies' help in WW2?

Question

As what the russians claimed?

gregtkt i am so sorry for giving u a thumb so. press the wrong key! while wanting to scroll down. i appreciate your point of view :)

Answer 1

Yes. Even without the Lend-Lease Bill, the Russians can surely beat the Germans in the very end (the Lend-Lease Bill is only a factor that helped Russia to beat the Germans sooner and attributed to less Russian soldiers killed). A couple of years (1942) before the Allied landings at Normandy (1944), the Germans were already beaten at Stalingrad and Moscow and were on the retreat. A year before the Allied landings at Normandy (June 1944), the Germans were beaten in the greatest tank battle in history (Battle of Kursk, July 1943) with the loss of more than 3,000 German tanks. The Germans had never recovered from this loss. The Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, Heinz Guderian stated at the time: "This war is lost!", although he didn't dare say that to Hitler (else, he will get executed by the Gestapo for defeatism). A year later, by the time the Normandy landings start to take place, the Germans were pushed back by the Russians as far back as Poland (the same starting point where the Germans began to stage their invasion of Russia back in June 1941). It's just a matter of time when the Germans will be pushed back from Poland too, and right into the Vistula River on the German-Polish border (just 45 miles east of Berlin).

Russia's strength only began to become clearly apparent after World War II, when it emerged as an undisputed superpower in competition with that of America's own military might.

Answer 2

It's hard to tell for certain. A good look at history suggests that the Germans could not have beat the Soviets even without Allied help for the Soviets. The Germans' best chances for a win were blunted in 1941 at the gates of Moscow by the Soviets with little Lend-Lease in the pipeline. And the final blow to the German advance, Stalingrad, was won on the ability of the Soviets to dig in and suffer whatever losses were necessary to win.

That said, beating the Germans at their own game, fast and powerful offenses, did require Allied assistance. So, I think it's fair to say that the Soviets could take on the Germans single handed but that Allied assistance greatly sped up the process.

Any second fronts opened by the Allies in North Africa, then Italy, and finally France, also sped up the inevitable defeat of Germany, but none of them determined the course of the war on the Eastern Front.

Answer 3

No

The Soviet Union. through rich in natural resources and strategic material was not able to exploit these resources fast enough on it own until 1943. It was buying raw materials from other countries, oil from Mexico via Sweden etc. It was able to buy these materials because the US gave them 700 million in US 1942 dollars in gold.

The west even through on a smaller scale than the eastern front did tie up valuable troops that might have tipped the balance. Were it not for Britain Rommel's Africa corp would have been able loose on eastern front.

Had Britain and the US come to the same terms that Stalin and Hirohito did in the east then all of the German Ground sea and Air Forces woul dhave made short work of Stalin Army.

In WW2 as Churchhill said "War makes strange bedfellows."
The USSR needed the west as much if not more than the west needed the USSR.

The difference is that while Stalin was only fighting the Germans the British & the US were also fighting the Japanese. there are Austrailian soldiers that had the pleasure of killing both German & Japanese during the war.

Answer 4

Hell no! The Japs kicked the Russians butts in 1905, and that was before the Russian Revolution, and Stalinist purges wiped out the experienced (and supposedly better) military officers! Russia won mainly because Hitler faced a two front war and couldn't mass all his troops on the Russian lines, and the Russian winter, the same weather that defeated Napoleon. Hitler had anticipated a short fight, and so never issued German troops any winter gear because the fighting was supposed to be over by then. Between the two, Hitler sealed his country's fate, and the Russians were able to delcare victory, practically by default!

Answer 5

Absolutely not. If the Germans had been able tot focus all of there men and material against Russia alone, there's no doubt in my mind that Russia would have lost. There were dozens of divisions, both infantry and armor, who along with more air assets would have been able to succeed in the drive on Moscow in late 1941. If that hadn't been enough to force the Russians to sue for peace, then certainly with the extra might, the German offensive in southern Russia in 1942, Case Blue, would have dealt Russia a crippling blow. Admittedly, Russia's forces were primarily the reason the Germans were eventually defeated in WWII, but without that second front, it is doubtful that they would have succeeded alone. Just my opinion.

Answer 6

i admire what ifs. Germany fantastically much fairly could have defeated Russia or England on my own. They did defeat France and England grew to become into almost so. could u.s. have stood via and watched England's defeat? no longer likely. If Germany had allowed Rommel to triumph over Egypt and the Mideast oil fields till now attacking Russia What could have happened? without North Africa or England as bases it could have been fantastically much impossible for u.s. to invade Europe. What could have happened if the jap had invaded Russia in stay overall performance with Germany as a replace of attacking u.s. by fact the army needed to do? so some distance as getting bitten, we did. We could have been bitten worse if Germany had won. All activities effect different activities. exchange one and that all of them exchange. as an occasion, if German plane advances had prolonged the conflict, the 1st Atom Bomb could have been dropped on Germany as a replace of Japan. Or the aforementioned advances could have prevented it from being brought to all.

Answer 7

I am sure that the Russian people would have eventually found a way. Hitler's big mistake was creating a two front war. If Hitler would have made a commitment to one direction.....I'm just glad that he was a self-deluded ideologue that while being able to manipulate the masses, he lacked the patience and foresight to make his evil empire a reality, good thing, huh.

Answer 8

Well the Russian winter did quite a number on the Germans. But the Russians did need help. My father-in-law got a medal from the Russians because he was one of the men that ran supplies to Minsk.

Answer 9

Keep in mind there was no western front from 1940 to 1944. The Soviets turned back the Germans at Moscow and at Stalingrad before the US and UK landed at Normandy. The western front shorted the war, D-Day was the last straw but the Soviets won the war.

Answer 10

No one could have taken on Hitler by themselves. It was a team effort. The USSR fighting on the eastern front distracted the Germans long enough for the allies to make a continental landing, which in turn distracted the Germans in the west and south so the Russians could regroup and march towards Berlin.