It wasn't really a mistake. There was no good causus belli to go to war with the Soviets so quickly, and there was certainly no way that the US could have reached Moscow, let alone the Ural Mountains. We got as far as we were going to get.
All we would have needed to do was stop shipping the Soviets arms and ammo on D-Day. By the time we reached Berlin, their own industry would have still been too far behind to put up an effective resistance.
The only reason the russians were able to produce something like 35k tanks is because they literally didn't have to produce anything since it was all coming from the US.
The Soviets wouldn't have been stupid enough to have assumed that wasn't anything except an act of aggression to halt the Soviet advance. I think you are grossly underestimating the Soviet's industrial capacity. Even if you manage to reach Berlin, you'll never get to Moscow, and the death toll for the US will skyrocket into the millions.
The Soviets were completely dependent on nominally allied nations' exports for half the war, and relied on them to fill gaps in production until near the end.
If the US and Britain had adopted a strict policy of 'not one bean, not one bullet, not one bandage' for exports to the USSR once Hitler committed to stabbing his former ally of convenience in the back, the Soviets would have been stretched too thin to put up an effective resistance - leaving the Nazis with too much ground to effectively hold. At that point, pushing the USSR out of Poland and the rest of its non-Russian holdings would have been simpler.
With the full might of the US economy backing the Soviet military for years, Stalin had staggering casualties. Imagine doubling those and then make the argument that the few survivors would have been able to hold everything east of Berlin.
I think you're grossly over-estimating American supplies to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was still a massive industrial giant with enormous natural resources. The Arctic convoys were helpful, but they weren't the only thing keeping the USSR afloat.
If not one thing had been sent to the USSR, which is different than what you originally said, it's possible that the Wermacht would have gotten a little further, or the Collapse of the German line would have been a little slower, but the Soviet Union still wins, and might even make it to Berlin before the US.
Imagine doubling those and then make the argument that the few survivors would have been able to hold everything east of Berlin.
I don't think that Russian casualties would have doubled. Not by a long shot. Maybe you get an extra million or two. There's no way the Germans are so successful that they kill 40 million Soviets. That would have depleted pretty much the entirety of their manpower supply.
It wasn't really a mistake. There was no good causus belli to go to war with the Soviets so quickly, and there was certainly no way that the US could have reached Moscow, let alone the Ural Mountains. We got as far as we were going to get.
All we would have needed to do was stop shipping the Soviets arms and ammo on D-Day. By the time we reached Berlin, their own industry would have still been too far behind to put up an effective resistance.
The only reason the russians were able to produce something like 35k tanks is because they literally didn't have to produce anything since it was all coming from the US.
The Soviets wouldn't have been stupid enough to have assumed that wasn't anything except an act of aggression to halt the Soviet advance. I think you are grossly underestimating the Soviet's industrial capacity. Even if you manage to reach Berlin, you'll never get to Moscow, and the death toll for the US will skyrocket into the millions.
The Soviets were completely dependent on nominally allied nations' exports for half the war, and relied on them to fill gaps in production until near the end.
If the US and Britain had adopted a strict policy of 'not one bean, not one bullet, not one bandage' for exports to the USSR once Hitler committed to stabbing his former ally of convenience in the back, the Soviets would have been stretched too thin to put up an effective resistance - leaving the Nazis with too much ground to effectively hold. At that point, pushing the USSR out of Poland and the rest of its non-Russian holdings would have been simpler.
With the full might of the US economy backing the Soviet military for years, Stalin had staggering casualties. Imagine doubling those and then make the argument that the few survivors would have been able to hold everything east of Berlin.
I think you're grossly over-estimating American supplies to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was still a massive industrial giant with enormous natural resources. The Arctic convoys were helpful, but they weren't the only thing keeping the USSR afloat.
If not one thing had been sent to the USSR, which is different than what you originally said, it's possible that the Wermacht would have gotten a little further, or the Collapse of the German line would have been a little slower, but the Soviet Union still wins, and might even make it to Berlin before the US.
I don't think that Russian casualties would have doubled. Not by a long shot. Maybe you get an extra million or two. There's no way the Germans are so successful that they kill 40 million Soviets. That would have depleted pretty much the entirety of their manpower supply.