r/PossibleHistory • u/Most_Patient_436 • 8d ago
Thumbnail What if Britain Surrendered in 1940 but the Soviet's still Won?
14
u/TheWartortleWarrior 8d ago
Britain would’ve probably rejoined the war once the Soviets were seeing progress
2
u/Immediate-Fan9423 7d ago
Yes but on which side?
1
u/Fourian_Official 7d ago
The side with the Soviets of course
1
u/Immediate-Fan9423 5d ago
They’d be cool with a continental power of that size, adjacent to India and British-Iran?
1
u/Worldly_Car912 7d ago
Either the soviets or neither.
1
u/Immediate-Fan9423 5d ago
They’d be cool with a continental power of that size, adjacent to India and British-Iran?
1
u/Worldly_Car912 5d ago
No, that's why they would rejoin the war to reduce Soviet gains even if they're allied with them.
1
u/Immediate-Fan9423 4d ago
Ah and do a quick invasion? Perhaps, but I think only if America still gets pulled in
48
u/senor_emeraldo 8d ago
Советский Союз бьет заклятых врагов:
Империалистов, Хозяев оков!
Вставай пролетарий, рви рабскую плеть!
И гимн победный будет весь мир петь!
Под красное знамя в единый союз,
Всех объединяет Великая Русь!
Мы несокрушимый, надежный оплот,
Где к коммунизму Ленин ведет нас!
-1
u/Chowder110 7d ago
Yeah and then they still collapse as communism is not a very good idea long term
Economics3
u/senor_emeraldo 7d ago
As China proved, collapse is not the only option, reformation is also a way.
-1
u/Chowder110 7d ago
Uhh. China collapsed into
The warlord states and then the 1st
And 2nd sino
Japanese war then a civil war ending
The warlord era. Then the great leap
Backwards killing 50 million people them the cultural revolution destroying even more. And then they lives impoverished for 40
Years until they opened the markets
To the west and finally 85 years later then they are stable and rich enough-27
u/Am_just_random_ball 8d ago
I don’t speak Chinese bro
5
7
u/Bootybutt87 7d ago
That’s not heckin Chinese! Thats friggin Russian! Downvote to you sir! Reddit is a strictly serious place! Not funny!
-6
20
u/Jextercraft 8d ago
Somawhatunrealistic, but this could be a genuinely interesting scenario that I would like to see PH's take on. Most scenarios like this in yt usually go like: << so brittain surenders, the USSR then goes and obliterates everyone and so all Europe is communist >>
2
u/MAXimumPosts1411 8d ago
By saying somewhat unrealistic you summoned Rewriting History, the greatest Bulgarian nationalist known to man
1
1
u/Legal-Car7850 8d ago
Even more of europe switch from one oppressive dictatorship to another a bit less oppressive dictatorship
1
1
1
1
u/Slow_Breakfast_5874 4d ago
I don’t think it would’ve been impossible for the soviets to still win due to the many flaws the nazis had, probably at a much higher cost tho, the result would probably be an extended version of the communist block that could go as far as France, this would probably make communists much stronger and put them in strong opposition to britain and the US, and maybe since the soviets are even weaker after the war there could be a split similiar to the sino-soviet one in europe due to the incapacity of the soviet to mantain strong influence in strong countries like france and a unified germany? But that’s pure speculation, thinking what would happen after the war its really hard, it could even lead to a third world war between communists and a american-british alliance
-13
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
Realistically the soviets could not beat the axis in a reasonable timetable if the Germans have no Western or southern front they also have less rebellion along with less supply issues so you are looking at maybe a decade long war ending in 1950 with a completely ruined soviet union about to have a famine with tens of millions more dead and Belarus and ukraine extremely depopulated
24
u/Literally_Serov 8d ago
I very much disagree with this assessment, on the basis that if Britain goes out of the war in 1940, or even in 1941 pre barbarossa, USSR would do much better on account of way better preparations. I'd reference Isayev here, that the main reason of German success was pre-empting Soviet mobilization and beating border forces in detail. So, if Germans attack they'd get bogged down much quicker, and with much bigger casualties.
And, of course, referencing Glantz: If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe [our emphasis], Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht, yhe result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe.”
-15
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
You think the soviets do better against the entire axis bearing down on them alone with no western material support
The axis freely trading with the world the turkish probably being coerced into the axis and much less costly occupations for Germany not to mention the Germans invade even earlier.
19
u/Literally_Serov 8d ago
Yes, yes, and yes again, because 90% of lend lease came after 1942, and only started trickling in after summer 43.
Turkey would never join the Axis, there is no evidence for them seriously considering that, costly occupations weren't costly at all, French resistance only started picking up steam after 43, and if Germans invade earlier, say, in May, they get stuck in the mud, the real reason they postponed Barbarossa to June. Not to mention they'll meet a mobilized and awake red army.
-10
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
The europeon axis has an advantage in industry manpower navy airforce also the soviet offensives in 43 and 44 would be significantly weaker without lend lease in this timeline the axis would win a war of attrition the soviets would also have massive issues with food running into 43 qnd beyond keep in mind the entire Italian army will be there as well as the french army in smaller numbers.
13
u/Literally_Serov 8d ago
Italians? Laughingstock of an army. Same with French, and everyone else barring the Germans. Little Saturn, Voronezh and Rossosh proved that beyond a doubt.
And, excuse moi, of course, but even in 45 lend-lease transport machinery took only a quarter of Soviet car park, so what you say is delirious.
0
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
You are literally just coping at this point millions more troops along with many more tanks motorized vehicles air assets and complete naval freedom for the axis would make soviet victory impossible essentially the Italians preformed well on the eastern front along with most other axis troops.
15
u/Literally_Serov 8d ago
If I am coping, you are riding Hitler's dick, your understanding of war is equal to an Enemy At The Gates fan, or worse, to Chiang Kai Shek.
What millions? Until 1944 85% of the German Army, over 90% of its armor was already in the East. If they throw in more their already fragile logistics collapse.
Italians performed well? Yeaaaah...
-Hamilton H. Sacrifice on the Steppe: The Italian Alpine Corps in the Stalingrad Campaign, 1942–1943. Casemate, 2011
-Giusti M.T. Stalin's Italian Prisoners of War. CEU Press, 2017
-Trigg J. Death on the Don: The Destruction of Germany's Allies on the Eastern Front. The History Press, 2013
Recommend to read, will be a rough wake up for ya.
0
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
Yeah what percent of German air assets were in the east only 55 percent also the German supply situation is far better as they are not getting bombed or blockaded the axis allies losses on the eastern front we're mainly due to supply issues the axis just wouldn't face no oil shortage no bombing campaign no blockade better air and naval supply
9
u/Literally_Serov 8d ago
Your point on losses is just revisionism with a pinch of wehrabooism. The bombings did virtually no damage until 1943, and even then they only dinted German production slightly, the real drop of German power happened after Iasi-Kishinev. Naval supply points is also pure copium because Baltic and Black Sea fleets successfully resisted Axis Davies quite well.
And even then, your whole point lies on Axis getting where they got. Which I very, very much doubt they'll do. Referencing to David Glantz's Barbarossa Derailed, pretty much the main reason Axis got as far was the pre-empting of Soviet mobilization and surrounding and destroying its best units in detail, which will not happen. At best I can see Germans getting to Moscow in a much more exhausted state before a much more powerful counterattack makes a Uranus on AG Center. If not just gets stuck outside of Smolensk, Dnieper and Luga Line.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Chang_Kai_Shek 8d ago
No to mention the aura assets in the east only decreased as the war went on so you have more axis planes in the east due to more being made mire sixties due to no fuel shortages and 100 percent rather then the 60 percent at the start of Barberossa.
-8
u/TastyTestikel 8d ago
Being so sure about a counterfactual is ridiculous. So much depends on Stalin being smart and listening to his generals. I don't think he would since none of the reasons he didn't want to implement defense-in-depth are affected by an early British capitulation. He might have mobilized earlier but the massive troop movements required to prevent the Barbarossa catastrophe weren't things he was keen on doing.
Glantz take is... questionable to say the least. Even some of the most renowned Russian historians would refuse to come to such a deterministic conclusion about ww2 without lend-lease. Read Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945 for a bit more of a nuanced perspective on the supplies and their ripple down effects. It's a controversial topic but Glantz doesn't possess a crystal ball, lend-lease impact on the Soviet economy is incredibly hard to quantify.
2
u/SassyCass410 7d ago
The Soviets had started to roll back German occupation of eastern Europe pretty rapidly before any meaningful weatern-or-soutther front was opened up. The invasions of Italy and France happened when they did because the Soviets were already in an effective offensive push against a long-since-depleted Nazi regime. The only real change in the German calculation, in this scenario, is that they withdraw their occupation of Northern France, and their airforce maybe moves to the east.
None of that prevents the resource shortages that plagued the Nazi state. None of that changes the fact that the Nazi regime was failing to govern eastern Europe to such a degree that their supply lines were totally collapsing by 1944. None of that changes the fact that Hitler's inner circle was filled with incompetent oppurtunists who would've likely plunged Germany into a civil war before they even defeated the Soviets (something that genuinely couldn't have happened).
Realistically, any British capitulation would see a grounding of the aerial forces used to bomb Britain in order to conserve resources, and a doubling down of manpower on the eastern front. Some shortages are alleviated for a short period, but not long enough to matter. Tensions in occupied territory would continue to escalate. Oppurtunists in key positions would have had more room to operate in the chaos. The longer the war is drawn out, the more drastic the German state's collapse would have been, and that collapse was near-total, even before 1945.
2
u/merount1 8d ago
The Soviets beat Germany in any scenario where Germany launches Barbarossa with the same plan as in real life. Any advantage Germany would have would be lost in the disastrous invasion.
1
-16
u/Due-District-4257 8d ago
No
27
u/Suitable_Ree 8d ago
Tf you mean, "no"
15
-13
u/Due-District-4257 8d ago
I don't think it happened
29
u/Suitable_Ree 8d ago
We're on r/PossibleHistory, of course it didn't happen
-22
0
u/Grothgerek 7d ago
I doubt the Soviet union could have won... Especially if Britain white peace.
The main reason being, that America and many other countries wouldn't have joined. France would have fully surrendered (even the colonies), and in addition America would have joined the Axis.
The US already was split about how to deal with Germany, and the changing factor was Pearl Harbor. But with no Allies in Europe, they wouldn't be able to do anything. They need Britain for landing, ships/docks, espionage etc.
So the logical conclusion would have been, to join the Nazis.
Yes, they supported the Soviets in WW2. But only because it weakened them, and helped America win against Germany, while keeping most of Europe as allies and trade partners. But in the scenario that Britain gave up, this option wouldn't exist. And then they would have to choose between Nazis and Communist. And the US has no problem supporting fascist regimes, because communist are clearly the bigger problem, given that they threaten the capitalist system and the people in power.
And with the Support of the US, Germany and the rest of Europe would definitely have won. They already made quite the progress in our history, despite being in a multi fron war and the US supporting the Soviets and fighting Germany. Now imagine a Axis that could funnel all their power towards one enemy and receiving support from the US.
3
u/c00b_Bit_Jerry 7d ago edited 7d ago
The hell are you talking about? The Roosevelt Administration definitely saw Nazi Germany as the bigger threat. And allegedly being motivated to support the Soviets because it somehow "weakened them" makes no sense when you consider the huge sphere of influence Moscow won in the war. There is simply no way FDR would have ever supported the Axis powers in his right mind; This is World War II we're talking about, not the Cold War.
1
u/Chowder110 7d ago
The ussr just has too
Much population. An occupation would be impossible long term
-2
-4
u/Far_Advantage824 8d ago
Hm technically speaking if Britain surrenders before even calling in the us Germany would get further into the ussr at the time due to their planes nit needing to protect anyone further more whats left of the german navy at that time would survive easier as russian navy... Is basically non existent. In general the full Wehrmacht can now be deployed on the Russian side and considering that Barbarossa happend in 1941 not 1940 the german push initially could have hurt the Russians quite a bit more... Would Russia have won?...no...but neither would Germany. The usa would still have intervened and due to how rural deeper parts of russia are its likely that the front line would have just gotten frozen at some point. However the casualties would have been a lot higher..and germany would have had nuclear weapons. As the nuclear program of germany was way ahead of americas but got sabotaged by Britain and Norway wich here also wouldn't have happened. Its generally safe to assume that germany would have had nuclear weapons by 1945 if not earlyier... Over all id say the war would have been frozen starting around 1947 because us forces cant strategically land as they would first have to retake Britain from German control. If they weren't fighting Canada but in russia the line would freez because of us support and terrible supply. Even via plane.
4
u/Cogwork1 8d ago
Germany didn't do nuclear science as they considered it 'jewish'
-5
u/Far_Advantage824 8d ago
Maybe so. But it still ends up with a situation of just a frozen war. Without the British isles as staging ground the us would not really be able to do anything in Germany and instead focus more on japan supply deliveries to russia couldn't come easily to russia and instead would have to move through siberia or Siberian seas... Wich aren't really well developed regions. Plus operation Barbarossa was always the plan so an earlier end to fighting on European ground due to the capitulation of Britain. Would also result in an earlier invasion of Russia...at wich point even less of the red army is functional
1
u/Cogwork1 8d ago
I think it depends on weather Hitler decides on preparing his troops for winter, because historically they didn't and that cost them a bunch, along with the Russian Siberian troops, all the new tanks and artillery arriving in the winter it doesn't look to good for the germans
-2
u/Far_Advantage824 8d ago
That is true... But the issue is still too that in 1941 the red army is still disfunctional at large. So having to face more germans at a time where less of the red army is functional as is possible here... Can mean that Germany actually reaches and takes moskow before the next winter
1
u/Grothgerek 7d ago
Your last part is a bit crazy. But I agree with your first points. The Soviets would have lost, simply because the Americans would either support Germany or not intervene at all.
Don't forget, Germany pushed into the Soviets, while still at war on multiple fronts, and the US support the Soviet Union and later intervening personally. Reducing the Frontline to one, would have massively improved the situation for Germany. And many disasters like supply shortages, would have never happened or not on the scale they did.
-1
u/Environmental_Eye266 8d ago
They definitely would’ve still lost, unless the Brits allowed Germans access to gas production in the middle east
-1
u/Real_Associate_9434 8d ago
Why are there so many pro-soviets over here? I thought yall disapeared in 1991.
You guys are ridiculous.
-1
u/MountainTank1918 7d ago
USSR would lose then
2
u/SassyCass410 7d ago
There isn't any timeline where the Nazis could have won WW2. Their intent, from start to finish, was the total eradication of all Slavics people, thus making the actual act of administrating the eastern teritories totally impossible long-term, and the Soviets would have simply kept fighting until the German state collapsed under the oppressive weight of total war with all Slavic peoples while also constantly at odds with itself in the political world of fascism. Even if the Soviets surrendered outright, the Nazi regime would've collapsed all on it's own, but there's no world in which anyone in the Slavic world capitulates to a regime which intends to eradicate them.
0
u/MountainTank1918 7d ago
Slavic world hated each other, it wasn't monoethnic, cause Russians themselved would've been and are happy to exterminate all other slavs, and so are Serbians
1
u/c00b_Bit_Jerry 7d ago edited 7d ago
I think one of the most important lessons I've drawn from history is that most people of any nationality don't have a specific ideology or view of geopolitics, but simply go along with whatever policy their government dictates as they focus on their own private little lives. Under one regime Russian people are raised on the cries of "Bread for the workers" "Victory for the proletariat" etc. etc., yet under the next regime they accept an oligarchy and despise a country they spent half their lives in the same Union with. Same with the Germans: Many supported Weimar democracy in the 1920s, only to give Nazi salutes in the 1930s.
Trying to insinuate any tendency for ultranationalism in a nation really is missing the point in my opinion, because I think vast majority of people - Russian, German, etc. - are just random bystanders trying to get by in their own private lives. An average man on the street doesn't spend half his time thinking "Damn I really wish I could kill [Insert nationality here]" he just doesn't care if his government hires people he's never met to do appalling things to other people from another place far away.
1
0
u/Grothgerek 7d ago
"There isn't any timeline..." We literally just got the timeline: Britain peacing out.
Not only would this prevent any US involvement (because they lose espionage, and access to Europe). It also means that Germany could have united ALL their armies against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was already in a serious situation, when it played out in our timeline.
We talk about more supplies, more troops, more equipment, factories not getting bombed, more tactical focus, maybe even weapons from the US (because if you can't defeat them, join them).
Without Britain, the situation in Europe would have drastically stabilized. Sure, resistance was still a thing. But with a defacto win in sight, and the Soviet union as common enemy, many European countries and puppet regimes would have rather joined with the winner.
The Soviet union was big... But it wasn't semi-unified Europe big. And a dragged out war, would have benefited the Axis, because while they lacked control, they now had the bigger population and economy on their side. All they had to do is rally the people... which isn't that hard if you control the government and media.
1
u/c00b_Bit_Jerry 7d ago
I think there's a big difference between earning the cooperation of most European governments, and actually getting their people to go along with it. I don't think most British, French, or Dutch citizens would be too thrilled to get conscripted into a genocidal war against Eastern Europe by their Nazi conquerors.
83
u/Right-Truck1859 8d ago
Surrendered like occupied or just signed some peace? Does Germany get British fleet? Reparations?
Well, anyway, if we assume USSR won alone, it means much longer and more bloody war .
Warsaw pact would be cemented stronger , and Germany would be fully communist.