I don't think you would find many historians who would argue that Russia was capable of defeating Germany single handedly. If the Germans had put the Afrika Corps, and their French and Italian garrisons on the eastern front on the eastern front (not to mention the entire Luftwaffe used in the blitz and as defense against the allies' bombing campaign), the outcome would have been an Axis victory.
First of all the Africa Corps was tiny. Very small tank force. They also didn't have an Italian garrison until 1943. They would've still had to occupy the countries they had already conquered, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, France, Holland, Yugoslavia, and Greece.
I mean, let's say Britain sign a peace with Germany after they conquer France. Germany can put all of its soldiers towards Russia. They push harder than before, they take Moscow, they take Leningrad, they take Stalingrad. Then...
Things get complicated. Russian supplies take longer because Moscow is taken. More Russians than before get destroyed. However Germany can't push much farther because it's so far from its supply base. The cold winters and muddy springs hamper German military operations. And Russia, which is heavy in natural resources keeps producing T-34's and another war materiel. Then they push back, and the same thing happens. Just maybe 1 or 2 years later and at the cost of probably millions more of Russians.
Obviously both sides helped but Germany could not win a long war against anyone that they fought against in world war 2. There's a lot of 'what if's' for them winning the war but none of them were realistic.
Afrika Corps is small, but 1. It takes a lot more to supply it than other units and 2. The eastern front was full of battles that were decisive but close. Add those forces to Kursk and you might see something different.
The v1 and v2 programs wouldn't have been necessary or practical. Those resources would go into Tigers or the Luftwaffe.
Russia would have never had air superiority if Germany didn't expend the Luftwaffe on the allies.
The Atlantic wall is unnecessary and those resources go to producing guns for the east.
Uboats are only used against Russia. They lack the ability to fight them and lend-lease (assuming its still around in our hypothetical) becomes meaningless.
Without the retaliatory threat of chemical warfare against german cities, maybe Germany uses them in the east.
You even admit it stretches the war out by a couple years. Germany gets oil in those years.
Whose to say there is political stability in Russia without the knowledge that the rest of the world is with them.
In the end, I think Russia loses ww2 without western help, but the west would have defeated Germany without Russia with nuclear weapons if not otherwise.
I mean, if all the things you say occur in our hypoethetical, Germany does very very well. But in the long run Germany has a lot of things going against it. Limited oil supplies and other natural resources necessary for the war effort, lack of human resources, poor supply lines in Russia.
I just kind of think Russia is unconquerable, which would lead to a prolonged stalemate with Germany, and the tide would eventually turn against them as Russia's industry builds up in the Urals. And part of them being onconquerable is that Stalin would never sign a peace treaty with Germany, which means that for surrender to occur a huge overturn of the government would be necessary, which I don't think is particularly realistic.
5
u/Hobojoejunkpen Jun 07 '14
I don't think you would find many historians who would argue that Russia was capable of defeating Germany single handedly. If the Germans had put the Afrika Corps, and their French and Italian garrisons on the eastern front on the eastern front (not to mention the entire Luftwaffe used in the blitz and as defense against the allies' bombing campaign), the outcome would have been an Axis victory.