>Or was there any strategy the Axis could have done to defeat it?
Not wasting time and money on wunderwaffe
actually equipping troops for winter
not declaring war on america/distanceing themselves from japan or forcing japan to invade the soviet union form siberia
They already took the low countries and france out of the war, guaranteed that Stalin would not consider invading until the late 40's. Germany could have just easily sunk any ship coming to or leaving the British isles and continuing to bomb them back to the stone age. containing the war to France and Britain was very winnable, germany just jumped the gun again just like in WWI by getting america involved
Not while actively losing the air war, they couldn't.
And the Blitz really didn't do that much damage. At no point was there any risk of even just London, let alone the whole country being too damaged to fight.
Sure, they had “stopped” them, but do you really think a communist shithole would have been able to hold together for 4 or 5 years with its grain-growing regions occupied and most of the population working in poorly supplied factories?
Russia would have collapsed by 1943 just like it did in 1917 if not for American supplies
Their strategy was pretty solid considering the bad odds the Axis had from the beginning.
Absolutely everything in Operation Barbarossa had to go right but it was achievable. However the Axis did not succeed in securing any of the 3 large cities the army groups were assigned to.
Sure you can always make the argument that Stalin would retreat all the way until Vladivostok but eventually he would run out of territory.
The less territory he controls the fewer factories, railways, oil fields, air fields and citizens the Soviet Union has.
If the Axis succeeded in taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad there was no way the Soviet Union could have recovered. Yet in the end the Axis only ever captured one of these cities for a short while.
The USSR did not use human wave tactics. Their casualty numbers come from the German doctrine being centered around encirclement while the Soviet doctrine is a Mongol LARP that disregards the lives of your own soldiers due to moronic breakthrough attempts.
the lend lease significance is just pro-amerian propaganda, it was merely moral support to show stalin that the allies got his bak and will not just let hitler kill as many soviets and then when the reich is exhausted the allies will land and after the reich the ussr was next, in resume, the lend-lease program importance to de vitory of the soviets is an exageration to make it look like "america win the war for the russians"
Russia simply produce several times the amount of equipement roosevelt sent to him, with the exception to some oils, the lend lease would not supply /in total) the mensual production of equipement the soviets have in 1941 even.
Fact, stalin did not use any of the equipment like tanks and cars in the battle field, they were sent to garrisons and in reserves
Step 1: not be aggressively moronic
Step 2: not destroying Poland
Step 3: wait for the USSR to be the unambiguously bad expansionists (may take a while) then rally the world for the Soviet Containment War
America and Britain were literally using Hitler as battering ram against Soviets and if Japs weren't autistic with Pearl Harbor/Krauts with Blitz, the former would have sit out the war, and the latter would only barge in to try and finish off the winner.
holy copium, FDR thought that the sun shone from Stalin's dick and Churchill was a drunken lightweight that didn't care about anything beyond defeating the nearest enemy
>Step 3: wait for the USSR to be the unambiguously bad expansionists (may take a while)
Reich's economy would implode decades before that would happen.
>If they end up taking moscow I don't really see the ussr recovering
Soviets were prepared to lose it. All administration (sans Stalin) was already moved to Kuybyshev that officially became new capital of USSR in October.
You can defeat an enemy by turning them into a friend. Hitler had already accomplished this at the beginning of the war. Hitler had keen insight into the psychology of the people he negotiated with, but he didn't recognize Stalin for what he was - a fellow psychopath who had no business being in charge of a nation but was anyway, who saw it all as an exalted game.
Stalin was a Hitler stan at the beginning. The border was peaceful and they were both gobbling up weak countries and picking their fights. Conflict with the USSR had already been resolved satisfactorily.
He was a great leader who got caught with his pants down? And his great war strategy was to beg for help from allies while grinding his own people into mush to preserve the state?
If Japan had decided to invade the Russian East, it would have been curtains.
Japan was a afraid of fighting the soviets so made a non aggression pact, had japan not stretched their resources too thin in china and instead took out their expansionist policy on the soviet union in coordination with germany the soviets would have not stood a chance, if WWI and II should teach you anything its that germany has a hard time fighting a 2 front war, and that russia could barely fight a 1 front war
3 years ago
Anonymous
And why would Japan not focus on China?
Why do people assume Japan and Germany were allies in anything but convenience? Why would Japan possibly ignore their entire ideological outlook just to have another war in Russia because it would benefit the Germans? What would they gain from it? What would be their motive beyond "this althistory tard needs us to do this so Hitler would win". China was what the Japanese wanted, why would they not try to take it?
Also what would they even accomplish getting themselves into conflict with America if they began preventing lend lease?
>And his great war strategy was to beg for help from allies
Frick are you talking about lmao, 80% of German casualties were on the eastern front! Stalin certainly fricked up by appointing horribly incompetent leaders to disasters such as the battle of Kiev, but the extreme levels of light speed industrialization he oversaw in the interwar period, often referred to as one of the greatest economic leaps in history, are what provided the USSR the keys to victory, hands down, no questions asked, NOT up for debate
3 years ago
Anonymous
Rapid industrialization doesn't require genocidal communism to achieve, it happened in spite of stalin, not because of stalin
3 years ago
Anonymous
>Rapid industrialization doesn't require genocidal communism to achieve
It fricking does, when your country has CENTURY-long traditions of corruption.
>it happened in spite of stalin, not because of stalin
Yeah, that's why Russian Empire fricking imploded even from the fricking Japs.
>If Japan had decided to invade the Russian East, it would have been curtains.
I really somehow doubt that. The Japanese army was pretty dogshit at fighting the Soviets as demonstrated at Khalkhin Gol. Knocking out isolated Allied garrisons in the Pacific is one thing, but fighting a conventional war stand-up war with the Soviets is a different matter. Also look at the size and scale of the territory we're talking about. Some are imaging the Japanese marching to the Urals when the reality is them taking... Vladivostok. If the Japanese threw everything they had the USSR, then they might've reached Ulan-Ude and Lake Baikal.
3 years ago
Anonymous
>The Japanese army was pretty dogshit at fighting the Soviets as demonstrated at Khalkhin Gol
wtf are you on about
Also you forget that the Soviets would've had to split their forces up regardless, easing pressure on Germany and also demoralising soviet troops.
And don't forget that a lot of the land lease was delivered via the pacific and arctic routes. If you take or destroy the infrastructure in the eastern and northern coastal region you frick the soviets big time.
3 years ago
Anonymous
>Also you forget that the Soviets would've had to split their forces up regardless, easing pressure on Germany and also demoralising soviet troops.
What are you talking about? Soviets always kept about a million troops in the Far East, and were always increasing their numbers.
It's true. Hitler played Chamberlain, Stalin and, at the beginning, Roosevelt. He called all bluffs, broke all treaties while playing the victim, secured his eastern border, annexed Austria...
>Chamberlain
Knew Hitler was bullshitting from the start and he appeased Hitler in order to buy Britain time as they wouldn't have been prepared for a pissed off Germany right there and then. >Stalin
Stalin knew Hitler wanted to eradicate the Slavs and communism years ago, part of the reason he industrialized at such a rapid pace was to prepare for the inevitable invasion of the USSR from a Western power like Germany.
Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence that both Britain and the Soviets massively increased the sizes of their armed forces prior to being drawn into the war and they fell for Hitler's shtick hook line and sinker.
Stalin may not have wanted war with Germany, but what about the Soviet leaders that would come after him? I’m guessing Germany was thinking about that and was worried about the possibility of a future hostile USSR.
Yeah, I agree that the latest diplomatic messages from fantasyland hypothetically support your position good work you should celebrate by going to one of the fat kid boards and never coming back.
This assumes that Hitler was on the defensive and that he didn't want to invade Eastern Europe and genocide millions so that he could have it for Germans only.
Even if they co-opted the locals and didn't have partisan issues and went straight for the oil fields initially, they couldn't do it. Only plausible route would be a peace treaty with USSR and maaaaaybe spook the allies into an armistice. Even then, that is extremely unlikely
The German government now predicted the imminent capture of Moscow. On 13 October, the 3rd Panzer Group penetrated to within 140 km of the capital. Martial law was declared in Moscow. Almost from the beginning of Operation Typhoon, however, the weather worsened. Temperatures fell while there was continued rainfall. This turned the unpaved road network into mud and slowed the German advance on Moscow. On 31 October, the German Army High Command ordered a halt to Operation Typhoon while the armies were reorganized. The pause gave the Soviets, far better supplied, time to consolidate their positions and organize formations of newly activated reservists. In little over a month, the Soviets organized eleven new armies that included 30 divisions of Siberian troops. During October and November 1941, over 1,000 tanks and 1,000 aircraft arrived along with the Siberian forces to assist in defending the city. While the weather conditions had largely grounded the Luftwaffe, preventing large-scale air operations. With the ground hardening due to the cold weather, the Germans resumed the attack on Moscow on 15 November.
The Germans were 8 miles from Moscow, better weather conditions would have led to a less organised, smaller Soviet force that would have been unable to withstand the German advance. An extra month of sunshine is all it would have taken.
Why do you homosexuals always forget that if the weather is shit everyone are at a disadvantage. When the Germans were freezing the Soviets were freezing also. They are not Nords with 50% resistance to frost damage. When the Germans were advancing through mud and shit, the Soviets had to defend and retreat through the same mud and shit hellscape. It's not like they had special appendages that would help to move in the mud or anything like that.
3 years ago
Anonymous
This is true since weather happens in the same place to both armies it has the same effect on both so therefore weather has mathematically never affected the outcome of anything ever even if one army is pushing forwards into foreign territory and their supply lines are stretc unngh unngh I'm a fuuuuucking moron
3 years ago
Anonymous
Experience with cold lets you prepare better and also handle a situation better. If you experience -40°C every year you don't really mind if it's only -20°C. Also the logistics are easier if you don't have to frick with partisans and have to change every single rail behind you. Further, >what is scorched earth
Millions of Eastern Europeans welcomed Nazis as liberators against Communism. If the Nazis had not started slaughtering slavs, or at least held off until the USSR was crippled, I'm not sure if they would have won, but certainly there would have been fewer slavs rallying against the Nazis during their campaign.
Maybe for a whole 5 seconds and only in select regions. Baltic states and Ukraine were pretty much the only ones and theres no way Nazis would ever have managed to appease them enough within the constraints of their ideology to gain long time mass support.
I could see it working if >Japan invaded from the south instead of doing whatever moron island hopping shit they were doing (also don't do Pearl Harbor) >Spain Joins on the Axis side and helps Germany hold down western Europe >Mussolini stop fricking around with Africa, Greece, and all the other moronic shit he was doing and just focuses on helping Germany win
Basically, the Allies won because they were globalists. The Axis powers were all hyper nationalist. The ONLY way they could have won is if they had all agreed to put off their own ambitions and focus solely on helping Germany win the war. That wasn't going to happen though because every one had a big fascist/bushido ego and the idea of just falling in line and letting Hitler quarterback the game was out of the question.
Japan couldn't have been much help against the Soviets because Siberia is too vast. They simply didn't have to supply lines neccesary to take hold of anything of strategic value that could help Germany win.
The Japanese had their navy for that. And besides, attacking the Pacific was much more favorable for Japan as it gave them the resources of European colonies, like the Dutch East Indies, British Malaysia and French Indochina. The Soviet Far East had none of that and was much more inhospitable
Japan conquered large swathes of northern China. They definitely could have taken the eastern Russian coastline. Incidentally, a ton of US shipping was arriving in Russia from the east. If the soviets tried to split up and fight a two front war they’d be fricked, but if they just allowed japan to do what it wanted japan could take its time to develop supply lines and frick their shit up. The axis could have done a lot to improve their prospects of victory, and even a slight edge could have pushed the soviets over the limit. People underestimate how important Moscow was to the soviets as a railway hub and population centre, there is a distinct possibility that they would have surrendered if it fell.
Possibly if the Germans locked down Western Europe and forced Britain out of the war. The war gaming at each stage of planning for Barbarossa showed the campaign was going to be an absolute nightmare and most likely utterly ruinous. There was no reason to rush it when the outcome was so probably going to be shit.
Perhaps Germany should have focused on consolidating their continental gains and given more time for further development of long range weapons that could have made the ramshackle/nonexistent Russian infrastructure a nonfactor. A protracted one on one war with no intent on the German side to actually physically seize territory during hostilities but merely destroy any Soviet offensives while hammering their industry and infrastructure with long range weapons could probably force a favorable peace and possibly even destabilize the USSR. Lots of ifs in the scenario though, and Americans are going to be wildcards with Britain removed.
Even then I really doubt the clown car kleptocracy Nazi domestic administration and ideological autism leading to ethnic purges and mass migrations could effectively govern most of the continent without big chunks of it being permanently infested with partisans and resistance movements, not to mention it was 1000% guaranteed to implode when and if Hitler dies in this scenario.
If the german military intelligence and chain of command hadnt been so corrupted by plants, foreign angents, and spooks, then they could have probably pushed the USSR into a stalemate. But beating them outright i dont think is possible.
No. Hitler made two crucial mistakes that cost him the war.
1. Not invading Britain after Dunkirk. He didn't even have to conquer it just force a peace treaty so they wouldn't continue harassing him in the west.
2. Not rushing to Moscow as fast as possible. He could've gotten to it sooner but instead he decided to waste time by taking a detour and attacking Kiev. By the time he reached Moscow his forces were weakened and the cold weather set in.
>invade britain
How on Earth would they pull this off? The Kriegsmarine stood no chance, hell I'd say the Italians would have had a better chance at pulling it off if they could somehow get past Gibraltar. >rush moscow
And then what? Stalin would have bailed out of the city if it was in serious danger and outside of its rail roads it has little to no strategic value.
>How on Earth would they pull this off?
Bomb them back into the stone or blockade them or literally do anything other than leaving them alone when they are the only country left in the war at that point >Stalin would have bailed out
No it is a fact that Stalin refused to be evacuated from the city. Do you seriously believe he thought that the city wasn't in real danger when at that point the Soviets were getting flattened in every battle. The man had a literal breakdown at one point and had to be dragged back to work by the rest of the party.
1. Germany never outproduced Britain in planes or ships. They can't outtrade with Britain. 2. Strategic bombing doesn't actually work. 3. Germans suck donkey dick at urban warfare. They didn't take Leningrad, they didn't take Stalingrad, they barely took Secastopol. Reaching Moscow guarantees nothing except more overextension.
>The man had a literal breakdown at one point and had to be dragged back to work by the rest of the party.
Actual bullshit spread about by Nikita Khrushchev after Stalin died.
Stalins work diaries show he worked 168 hours during the week this supposedly happened.
>Not invading Britain after Dunkirk. He didn't even have to conquer it just force a peace treaty so they wouldn't continue harassing him in the west
Not only is this nearly impossible as the Battle of Britain proved, but conquering Britian would not guarantee the British government wouldn't continue fighting in exile from Canada.
>Just take the capital, bro, Russians will implode them
You don't even deserve a response, you flaming moron.
3 years ago
Anonymous
Not him, but you do realise that one of the most important aspects in warfare is morale? hf explaining your population that you fricking lost the capital which is lying hundreds of kilometers away from the border, despite burning down a huge deal of your own country to slow down enemy advances.
You know if you just zerg rush the capital, you win! The Soviets would've been like "ah, damn, we lost Moscow, time to pack it in." Like they didn't have backup plans at all and Stalin would've shot himself in embarrassment like Hitler in the Fuhrerbunker instead... moving to the east. Laffo.
You guys know there were whole industrial cities and armaments factories to the east, right, guys? Right?
If you can't point to Omsk on a map, you probably shouldn't be making alt-history war plans for the Nazis. Just some friendly advice because I care about my posting pals.
The more moronic aspect is even thinking theyd take Moscow to begin with and it wouldnt be a meat grinder for possibly years to bleed the Germans dry on.
>they sold them the rope to hang their fellow white germanic capitalists
thanks cuck
btw only 2% of it was during 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
>see this anon's pic
Anon's pic is moronic, as it ignores both existing supplies and the timing of their delivery. Note that I'm not even mentioning everything else (ex. counting all "vehicles" as "trucks").
No. Momentum was the key, and everything the Germans did caused them to lose it. If you give them half a second to breathe, they can recover enough to make your day very, very bad. Any hope for a formal victory would have to be incredibly swift and crushing enough to the morale of the common man. Otherwise, you're in for a long fight that can only end in perpetual conflict.
A victory would be outside the realms of practicality. Nazi Germany would either have to do things highly uncharacteristic of Nazi Germany or they would have to make near-perfect decisions with limited information. The USSR wasn't truly unbeatable, but Germany's plan was flawed at its core of "kick the door in and the whole house will fall".
If they kept America out of the war (including lend lease) the USSR would have collapsed like it deserved to and millions of lives would have been saved as a result.
The Soviet union could have been beaten by the Axis certainly. If the Nazis had come, as their propaganda suggested, as defenders of civilization against bolshevism, they probably would have gained some amount of popular support as they 'liberate' the Ukraine from the soviets.
But instead they came with their ideas of violent collective punishment and racial annihilation. Which turned the whole population against them.
>cooperate with japs to force Stalin to keep eastern reserves >try to be nicer to slavs, just genocide them later >do the invasion a week earlier, ignore Balkanoid autism >get Britain out of the war ASAP. Keeping them on their island is still too much >try to kill Stalin
If they still can’t win idk.
>>get Britain out of the war ASAP
that would happen only if they didn't attack USSR
as soon as Krauts attacked bongs would never surrender or peace out
Depends. Germanys whole strategy was not your typical Civ 5 domination victory but rather a repeat of WW1 where Russia would collapse and withdraw due to massive internal hemorrhaging.
They had underestimated Stalins Iron Grip with the perfect combination of paranoia and cult of personality gripping the people. So yeah Stalin was a PoS but he was the perfect leader for a war that eerily seemed tailored to match his cold nature while Hitler had to please his Prussian aristocrats that very much had influence.
The worst part is they just keep spamming the exact same argument in every single thread about this, and whenever they get BTFO they just show up again pretending it never happened. I guess their goal is to just spam so much that you have to dig through all their posts to find the rebuttals
Imagine the kind of people who have that much free time or devote that much time to this. Lefties are truly sick in the head
the Axis could've won if >they allowed free market >thereby creating efficient economy >probably more efficient oil and rubber synthesize program >also more efficient ways to transport logistics.
The axis probably would have been much better if they all just worked on developing the industries of their various countries. Rather than spending all their capital on invading other countries.
If Germany didn't invade Yugoslavia or if Italy didn't beg for Germany to help with Greece. These events delayed barb by 1-2 months. Given the progress made historically, it's safe to assume Moscow would've fallen if the above mentioned events did not occur.
Japan meanwhile was stuck fighting China, they'd only commit to invading Russia if "sufficient gains were made" prior to their Southward expansion. Apparently the gains made by that time wasn't enough. So with a barb invasion that had no delay, Russia would've lost Moscow and Vladivostok by the end of '41.
Could've kicked the door in. That way the whole rotten structure would've crumbled to the ground.
Damn why didn’t hitler just think of this?
Russia's the widest country in the world Stalin can move the door indefinitely.
You cant move the door (Moscow) if it's you central transport hub.
the axis could never ever in any scenario win ww2 after the invasion of poland in 1939
This is simply not true. Source: my grand strategy games.
>Or was there any strategy the Axis could have done to defeat it?
Not wasting time and money on wunderwaffe
actually equipping troops for winter
not declaring war on america/distanceing themselves from japan or forcing japan to invade the soviet union form siberia
They already took the low countries and france out of the war, guaranteed that Stalin would not consider invading until the late 40's. Germany could have just easily sunk any ship coming to or leaving the British isles and continuing to bomb them back to the stone age. containing the war to France and Britain was very winnable, germany just jumped the gun again just like in WWI by getting america involved
Not while actively losing the air war, they couldn't.
And the Blitz really didn't do that much damage. At no point was there any risk of even just London, let alone the whole country being too damaged to fight.
they didn't have logistic for that
they could not supply or feed their troops on eastern front
The USSR was incredibly beatable.
Endless American lend-lease imports + well-supplied human wave attacks are not however
t. garden variety moron
>t. Transvestite tankie
Why are you all trannies
>well-supplied human wave attacks
The absolute state of LULZ.
>
(OP)
>The USSR was incredibly beatable.
>Endless American lend-lease imports
...this.
The USSR had stopped the Nazis before Lend-Lease had an impact
Sure, they had “stopped” them, but do you really think a communist shithole would have been able to hold together for 4 or 5 years with its grain-growing regions occupied and most of the population working in poorly supplied factories?
Russia would have collapsed by 1943 just like it did in 1917 if not for American supplies
counterattack retook most of that within a year, anon
>counterattack retook most of that within a year, anon
which war are we talking about here?
this.
Anything else is troony cope
>wins eastern front on 41 and 42 without any significant LL
Their strategy was pretty solid considering the bad odds the Axis had from the beginning.
Absolutely everything in Operation Barbarossa had to go right but it was achievable. However the Axis did not succeed in securing any of the 3 large cities the army groups were assigned to.
Sure you can always make the argument that Stalin would retreat all the way until Vladivostok but eventually he would run out of territory.
The less territory he controls the fewer factories, railways, oil fields, air fields and citizens the Soviet Union has.
If the Axis succeeded in taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad there was no way the Soviet Union could have recovered. Yet in the end the Axis only ever captured one of these cities for a short while.
The USSR did not use human wave tactics. Their casualty numbers come from the German doctrine being centered around encirclement while the Soviet doctrine is a Mongol LARP that disregards the lives of your own soldiers due to moronic breakthrough attempts.
the lend lease significance is just pro-amerian propaganda, it was merely moral support to show stalin that the allies got his bak and will not just let hitler kill as many soviets and then when the reich is exhausted the allies will land and after the reich the ussr was next, in resume, the lend-lease program importance to de vitory of the soviets is an exageration to make it look like "america win the war for the russians"
Russia simply produce several times the amount of equipement roosevelt sent to him, with the exception to some oils, the lend lease would not supply /in total) the mensual production of equipement the soviets have in 1941 even.
Fact, stalin did not use any of the equipment like tanks and cars in the battle field, they were sent to garrisons and in reserves
also remember fate of convoy PQ 17
>regurgitating soviet propaganda
Step 1: not be aggressively moronic
Step 2: not destroying Poland
Step 3: wait for the USSR to be the unambiguously bad expansionists (may take a while) then rally the world for the Soviet Containment War
>then rally the world
America and Britain were controlled by the Soviets, moron
America and Britain were literally using Hitler as battering ram against Soviets and if Japs weren't autistic with Pearl Harbor/Krauts with Blitz, the former would have sit out the war, and the latter would only barge in to try and finish off the winner.
holy copium, FDR thought that the sun shone from Stalin's dick and Churchill was a drunken lightweight that didn't care about anything beyond defeating the nearest enemy
profound mental moronation
>Step 3: wait for the USSR to be the unambiguously bad expansionists (may take a while)
Reich's economy would implode decades before that would happen.
>If they end up taking moscow I don't really see the ussr recovering
Soviets were prepared to lose it. All administration (sans Stalin) was already moved to Kuybyshev that officially became new capital of USSR in October.
>got caught with his pants down
That's a myth.
>Millions of Eastern Europeans welcomed Nazis as liberators against Communism
That's what the Nazis claimed. The reality was different.
You can defeat an enemy by turning them into a friend. Hitler had already accomplished this at the beginning of the war. Hitler had keen insight into the psychology of the people he negotiated with, but he didn't recognize Stalin for what he was - a fellow psychopath who had no business being in charge of a nation but was anyway, who saw it all as an exalted game.
Stalin was a Hitler stan at the beginning. The border was peaceful and they were both gobbling up weak countries and picking their fights. Conflict with the USSR had already been resolved satisfactorily.
Very cringe response. Stalin was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century and his policies were essential to winning the war.
t. right wing germanophile
He was a great leader who got caught with his pants down? And his great war strategy was to beg for help from allies while grinding his own people into mush to preserve the state?
If Japan had decided to invade the Russian East, it would have been curtains.
Japan was a afraid of fighting the soviets so made a non aggression pact, had japan not stretched their resources too thin in china and instead took out their expansionist policy on the soviet union in coordination with germany the soviets would have not stood a chance, if WWI and II should teach you anything its that germany has a hard time fighting a 2 front war, and that russia could barely fight a 1 front war
And why would Japan not focus on China?
Why do people assume Japan and Germany were allies in anything but convenience? Why would Japan possibly ignore their entire ideological outlook just to have another war in Russia because it would benefit the Germans? What would they gain from it? What would be their motive beyond "this althistory tard needs us to do this so Hitler would win". China was what the Japanese wanted, why would they not try to take it?
Also what would they even accomplish getting themselves into conflict with America if they began preventing lend lease?
>And his great war strategy was to beg for help from allies
Frick are you talking about lmao, 80% of German casualties were on the eastern front! Stalin certainly fricked up by appointing horribly incompetent leaders to disasters such as the battle of Kiev, but the extreme levels of light speed industrialization he oversaw in the interwar period, often referred to as one of the greatest economic leaps in history, are what provided the USSR the keys to victory, hands down, no questions asked, NOT up for debate
Rapid industrialization doesn't require genocidal communism to achieve, it happened in spite of stalin, not because of stalin
>Rapid industrialization doesn't require genocidal communism to achieve
It fricking does, when your country has CENTURY-long traditions of corruption.
>it happened in spite of stalin, not because of stalin
Yeah, that's why Russian Empire fricking imploded even from the fricking Japs.
it might be genocidal capitalism too
>If Japan had decided to invade the Russian East, it would have been curtains.
I really somehow doubt that. The Japanese army was pretty dogshit at fighting the Soviets as demonstrated at Khalkhin Gol. Knocking out isolated Allied garrisons in the Pacific is one thing, but fighting a conventional war stand-up war with the Soviets is a different matter. Also look at the size and scale of the territory we're talking about. Some are imaging the Japanese marching to the Urals when the reality is them taking... Vladivostok. If the Japanese threw everything they had the USSR, then they might've reached Ulan-Ude and Lake Baikal.
>The Japanese army was pretty dogshit at fighting the Soviets as demonstrated at Khalkhin Gol
wtf are you on about
Also you forget that the Soviets would've had to split their forces up regardless, easing pressure on Germany and also demoralising soviet troops.
And don't forget that a lot of the land lease was delivered via the pacific and arctic routes. If you take or destroy the infrastructure in the eastern and northern coastal region you frick the soviets big time.
>Also you forget that the Soviets would've had to split their forces up regardless, easing pressure on Germany and also demoralising soviet troops.
What are you talking about? Soviets always kept about a million troops in the Far East, and were always increasing their numbers.
>Hitler had keen insight into the psychology of the people he negotiated with
Just end your life.
It's true. Hitler played Chamberlain, Stalin and, at the beginning, Roosevelt. He called all bluffs, broke all treaties while playing the victim, secured his eastern border, annexed Austria...
>Chamberlain
Knew Hitler was bullshitting from the start and he appeased Hitler in order to buy Britain time as they wouldn't have been prepared for a pissed off Germany right there and then.
>Stalin
Stalin knew Hitler wanted to eradicate the Slavs and communism years ago, part of the reason he industrialized at such a rapid pace was to prepare for the inevitable invasion of the USSR from a Western power like Germany.
Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence that both Britain and the Soviets massively increased the sizes of their armed forces prior to being drawn into the war and they fell for Hitler's shtick hook line and sinker.
Stalin may not have wanted war with Germany, but what about the Soviet leaders that would come after him? I’m guessing Germany was thinking about that and was worried about the possibility of a future hostile USSR.
Yeah, I agree that the latest diplomatic messages from fantasyland hypothetically support your position good work you should celebrate by going to one of the fat kid boards and never coming back.
This assumes that Hitler was on the defensive and that he didn't want to invade Eastern Europe and genocide millions so that he could have it for Germans only.
stellar post, anon. (as confirmed by LULZ hating it)
Even if they co-opted the locals and didn't have partisan issues and went straight for the oil fields initially, they couldn't do it. Only plausible route would be a peace treaty with USSR and maaaaaybe spook the allies into an armistice. Even then, that is extremely unlikely
If they end up taking moscow I don't really see the ussr recovering, the Urals retreat would have been a slow decline to defeat.
moscow is just a city
The German government now predicted the imminent capture of Moscow. On 13 October, the 3rd Panzer Group penetrated to within 140 km of the capital. Martial law was declared in Moscow. Almost from the beginning of Operation Typhoon, however, the weather worsened. Temperatures fell while there was continued rainfall. This turned the unpaved road network into mud and slowed the German advance on Moscow. On 31 October, the German Army High Command ordered a halt to Operation Typhoon while the armies were reorganized. The pause gave the Soviets, far better supplied, time to consolidate their positions and organize formations of newly activated reservists. In little over a month, the Soviets organized eleven new armies that included 30 divisions of Siberian troops. During October and November 1941, over 1,000 tanks and 1,000 aircraft arrived along with the Siberian forces to assist in defending the city. While the weather conditions had largely grounded the Luftwaffe, preventing large-scale air operations. With the ground hardening due to the cold weather, the Germans resumed the attack on Moscow on 15 November.
The Germans were 8 miles from Moscow, better weather conditions would have led to a less organised, smaller Soviet force that would have been unable to withstand the German advance. An extra month of sunshine is all it would have taken.
>UHHH ACTUALLY DA JOOS CHANGE THE WEATHER SO MUCH REICH LOSE UNFAIRLY
>DA JOOS
You know Russia is fairly prone to bouts of poor weather, don't you buddy?
Why do you homosexuals always forget that if the weather is shit everyone are at a disadvantage. When the Germans were freezing the Soviets were freezing also. They are not Nords with 50% resistance to frost damage. When the Germans were advancing through mud and shit, the Soviets had to defend and retreat through the same mud and shit hellscape. It's not like they had special appendages that would help to move in the mud or anything like that.
This is true since weather happens in the same place to both armies it has the same effect on both so therefore weather has mathematically never affected the outcome of anything ever even if one army is pushing forwards into foreign territory and their supply lines are stretc unngh unngh I'm a fuuuuucking moron
Experience with cold lets you prepare better and also handle a situation better. If you experience -40°C every year you don't really mind if it's only -20°C. Also the logistics are easier if you don't have to frick with partisans and have to change every single rail behind you. Further,
>what is scorched earth
Hmm another germ sleeping
the day clown world started
Millions of Eastern Europeans welcomed Nazis as liberators against Communism. If the Nazis had not started slaughtering slavs, or at least held off until the USSR was crippled, I'm not sure if they would have won, but certainly there would have been fewer slavs rallying against the Nazis during their campaign.
>fascist country attacks and destroys humans that support it
Suprisepikachu.jpg
Maybe for a whole 5 seconds and only in select regions. Baltic states and Ukraine were pretty much the only ones and theres no way Nazis would ever have managed to appease them enough within the constraints of their ideology to gain long time mass support.
sure and then germs start requisition of food and honey seconds ended fast
just watch this, I don't feel like summarizing it in a post
I could see it working if
>Japan invaded from the south instead of doing whatever moron island hopping shit they were doing (also don't do Pearl Harbor)
>Spain Joins on the Axis side and helps Germany hold down western Europe
>Mussolini stop fricking around with Africa, Greece, and all the other moronic shit he was doing and just focuses on helping Germany win
Basically, the Allies won because they were globalists. The Axis powers were all hyper nationalist. The ONLY way they could have won is if they had all agreed to put off their own ambitions and focus solely on helping Germany win the war. That wasn't going to happen though because every one had a big fascist/bushido ego and the idea of just falling in line and letting Hitler quarterback the game was out of the question.
Japan couldn't have been much help against the Soviets because Siberia is too vast. They simply didn't have to supply lines neccesary to take hold of anything of strategic value that could help Germany win.
>Japan couldn't have been much help against the Soviets because Siberia is too vast.
Yes much better to focus on the miniscule Pacific
The Japanese had their navy for that. And besides, attacking the Pacific was much more favorable for Japan as it gave them the resources of European colonies, like the Dutch East Indies, British Malaysia and French Indochina. The Soviet Far East had none of that and was much more inhospitable
Japan conquered large swathes of northern China. They definitely could have taken the eastern Russian coastline. Incidentally, a ton of US shipping was arriving in Russia from the east. If the soviets tried to split up and fight a two front war they’d be fricked, but if they just allowed japan to do what it wanted japan could take its time to develop supply lines and frick their shit up. The axis could have done a lot to improve their prospects of victory, and even a slight edge could have pushed the soviets over the limit. People underestimate how important Moscow was to the soviets as a railway hub and population centre, there is a distinct possibility that they would have surrendered if it fell.
Possibly if the Germans locked down Western Europe and forced Britain out of the war. The war gaming at each stage of planning for Barbarossa showed the campaign was going to be an absolute nightmare and most likely utterly ruinous. There was no reason to rush it when the outcome was so probably going to be shit.
Perhaps Germany should have focused on consolidating their continental gains and given more time for further development of long range weapons that could have made the ramshackle/nonexistent Russian infrastructure a nonfactor. A protracted one on one war with no intent on the German side to actually physically seize territory during hostilities but merely destroy any Soviet offensives while hammering their industry and infrastructure with long range weapons could probably force a favorable peace and possibly even destabilize the USSR. Lots of ifs in the scenario though, and Americans are going to be wildcards with Britain removed.
Even then I really doubt the clown car kleptocracy Nazi domestic administration and ideological autism leading to ethnic purges and mass migrations could effectively govern most of the continent without big chunks of it being permanently infested with partisans and resistance movements, not to mention it was 1000% guaranteed to implode when and if Hitler dies in this scenario.
>not to mention it was 1000% guaranteed to implode when and if Hitler dies in this scenario
I'm sick of this absolute memery.
this
when UK refused to surrender it was over for Germans
Barbarossa was a answer to UK problem
If the german military intelligence and chain of command hadnt been so corrupted by plants, foreign angents, and spooks, then they could have probably pushed the USSR into a stalemate. But beating them outright i dont think is possible.
No. Hitler made two crucial mistakes that cost him the war.
1. Not invading Britain after Dunkirk. He didn't even have to conquer it just force a peace treaty so they wouldn't continue harassing him in the west.
2. Not rushing to Moscow as fast as possible. He could've gotten to it sooner but instead he decided to waste time by taking a detour and attacking Kiev. By the time he reached Moscow his forces were weakened and the cold weather set in.
>invade britain
How on Earth would they pull this off? The Kriegsmarine stood no chance, hell I'd say the Italians would have had a better chance at pulling it off if they could somehow get past Gibraltar.
>rush moscow
And then what? Stalin would have bailed out of the city if it was in serious danger and outside of its rail roads it has little to no strategic value.
>How on Earth would they pull this off?
Bomb them back into the stone or blockade them or literally do anything other than leaving them alone when they are the only country left in the war at that point
>Stalin would have bailed out
No it is a fact that Stalin refused to be evacuated from the city. Do you seriously believe he thought that the city wasn't in real danger when at that point the Soviets were getting flattened in every battle. The man had a literal breakdown at one point and had to be dragged back to work by the rest of the party.
1. Germany never outproduced Britain in planes or ships. They can't outtrade with Britain. 2. Strategic bombing doesn't actually work. 3. Germans suck donkey dick at urban warfare. They didn't take Leningrad, they didn't take Stalingrad, they barely took Secastopol. Reaching Moscow guarantees nothing except more overextension.
>The man had a literal breakdown at one point and had to be dragged back to work by the rest of the party.
Actual bullshit spread about by Nikita Khrushchev after Stalin died.
Stalins work diaries show he worked 168 hours during the week this supposedly happened.
>Not invading Britain after Dunkirk. He didn't even have to conquer it just force a peace treaty so they wouldn't continue harassing him in the west
Not only is this nearly impossible as the Battle of Britain proved, but conquering Britian would not guarantee the British government wouldn't continue fighting in exile from Canada.
Tell me you're an extra-moronic, HoI4-playing Wehraboo without telling me you're an extra-moronic, HoI4-playing Wehraboo.
perfect.
Don't even play HoI4 but thanks for the non-response
>Just take the capital, bro, Russians will implode them
You don't even deserve a response, you flaming moron.
Not him, but you do realise that one of the most important aspects in warfare is morale? hf explaining your population that you fricking lost the capital which is lying hundreds of kilometers away from the border, despite burning down a huge deal of your own country to slow down enemy advances.
You know if you just zerg rush the capital, you win! The Soviets would've been like "ah, damn, we lost Moscow, time to pack it in." Like they didn't have backup plans at all and Stalin would've shot himself in embarrassment like Hitler in the Fuhrerbunker instead... moving to the east. Laffo.
You guys know there were whole industrial cities and armaments factories to the east, right, guys? Right?
If you can't point to Omsk on a map, you probably shouldn't be making alt-history war plans for the Nazis. Just some friendly advice because I care about my posting pals.
The more moronic aspect is even thinking theyd take Moscow to begin with and it wouldnt be a meat grinder for possibly years to bleed the Germans dry on.
Let's introduce the kids to strategic depth.
Americhads won the war.
>they sold them the rope to hang their fellow white germanic capitalists
thanks cuck
btw only 2% of it was during 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
Operation Barbarossa failed because of only two reasons, neither of which the USSR were responsible for.
1: A significant portion of the German military was busy fighting the British, therefore they couldn't devote all of their power to the eastern front.
2: The USSR was heavily supplied by lend-lease from the United States, see this anon's pic
>see this anon's pic
Anon's pic is moronic, as it ignores both existing supplies and the timing of their delivery. Note that I'm not even mentioning everything else (ex. counting all "vehicles" as "trucks").
>t. typical lying troony
Doing the catering doesn't give you top billing on the movie credits, dumbass
No. Momentum was the key, and everything the Germans did caused them to lose it. If you give them half a second to breathe, they can recover enough to make your day very, very bad. Any hope for a formal victory would have to be incredibly swift and crushing enough to the morale of the common man. Otherwise, you're in for a long fight that can only end in perpetual conflict.
A victory would be outside the realms of practicality. Nazi Germany would either have to do things highly uncharacteristic of Nazi Germany or they would have to make near-perfect decisions with limited information. The USSR wasn't truly unbeatable, but Germany's plan was flawed at its core of "kick the door in and the whole house will fall".
If they kept America out of the war (including lend lease) the USSR would have collapsed like it deserved to and millions of lives would have been saved as a result.
The Soviet union could have been beaten by the Axis certainly. If the Nazis had come, as their propaganda suggested, as defenders of civilization against bolshevism, they probably would have gained some amount of popular support as they 'liberate' the Ukraine from the soviets.
But instead they came with their ideas of violent collective punishment and racial annihilation. Which turned the whole population against them.
moron
Damn dude, you are gonna hurt my feelings.
From a logistical stand point yeah. Otherwise operation unthinkable would have happened.
>cooperate with japs to force Stalin to keep eastern reserves
>try to be nicer to slavs, just genocide them later
>do the invasion a week earlier, ignore Balkanoid autism
>get Britain out of the war ASAP. Keeping them on their island is still too much
>try to kill Stalin
If they still can’t win idk.
>>get Britain out of the war ASAP
that would happen only if they didn't attack USSR
as soon as Krauts attacked bongs would never surrender or peace out
Depends. Germanys whole strategy was not your typical Civ 5 domination victory but rather a repeat of WW1 where Russia would collapse and withdraw due to massive internal hemorrhaging.
They had underestimated Stalins Iron Grip with the perfect combination of paranoia and cult of personality gripping the people. So yeah Stalin was a PoS but he was the perfect leader for a war that eerily seemed tailored to match his cold nature while Hitler had to please his Prussian aristocrats that very much had influence.
>paranoia
if anything he wasn't deep enough in paranoia
If Halder didn't sabotage Fall Blau the Soviets could have broken at Stalingrad. Was he just incompetent or a israeli agent?
I will post this and leave, bunkertrannies, get the frick out
The worst part is they just keep spamming the exact same argument in every single thread about this, and whenever they get BTFO they just show up again pretending it never happened. I guess their goal is to just spam so much that you have to dig through all their posts to find the rebuttals
Imagine the kind of people who have that much free time or devote that much time to this. Lefties are truly sick in the head
>Lefties are truly sick in the head
Agreed my friend, mind if I start a thread posting the pic on this post?
without lend-lease gibs from the US the Soviets would've lost
Indeeed soviets were already torn by the war effort against the third reich, to the point that kill rates were 8:1 in favor of germans
The Germany should have just made an a alliance with the Eastern European countries unstead of chimping out against them
the Axis could've won if
>they allowed free market
>thereby creating efficient economy
>probably more efficient oil and rubber synthesize program
>also more efficient ways to transport logistics.
The axis probably would have been much better if they all just worked on developing the industries of their various countries. Rather than spending all their capital on invading other countries.
If Germany didn't invade Yugoslavia or if Italy didn't beg for Germany to help with Greece. These events delayed barb by 1-2 months. Given the progress made historically, it's safe to assume Moscow would've fallen if the above mentioned events did not occur.
Japan meanwhile was stuck fighting China, they'd only commit to invading Russia if "sufficient gains were made" prior to their Southward expansion. Apparently the gains made by that time wasn't enough. So with a barb invasion that had no delay, Russia would've lost Moscow and Vladivostok by the end of '41.