Does Germany win in a Soviet-only WWII (No allies)? Does Germany

They won IRL.

>>3326811
No on both cases.

I think the war could well have been won without a soviet union yes

>>3326821
wishful thinking, Germany would have suffocated from lack of resources in a prolonged war with the Allies anyway

>>3326815

First one is a maybe if the allies provide absolutely no help, and Germany still achieves strategic surprise like OTL.

Second one is a definite no by way of a radioactive Berlin.

>>3326851
Even with the first one, assuming that the Soviets can never make a serious counterattack the way they did historically,y the timing of Lend-Lease means that you're extremely unlikely to have a knockout blow delivered to the USSR in 1941-42, and after that the Germans don't really have a chance, even if they can hold the Soviets off more or less indefinitely.

At that point, it becomes an endurance match, and the German war economy was deeply, deeply dysfunctional. I am far from convince they could have kept it up. It probably wouldn't have been the total victory we think of in WW2 with Soviets parading in Berlin, but I do think they'd have won that war as well.

>>3326811
No. (importance of LL act is a meme)
No. (if USA join the game as usual)

If there were no soviets then they probably could have blitzed right from france into Britain with full force and at that point I dont think the US would bother trying to sing handedly liberate the whole of Europe

>>3326895
Yes, with that huge fleet they didn't have.

>>3326895
>with full force

Soviets didn't get forced into the war until after the Battle of Britain

Who else were the Germans fighting when the UK defied them?

>>3326886

>importance off LL act is a meme

stupid russisans I swear to God :D

>>3326811


I'd go across the grain here and answer yes on both.

For USSR, although the land lease is stated as as a major reason for the russian survival, I do think it's severely overplayed by the west as a means to cope with the fact the majority of fighting and killing was done on the russian front.

That being said, the great german push of 41-42 was almost a success, if their forces were not scattered all across europe and north africa and occupying vast swaths of land, I do believe Moscow would have fallen pressed against with the said forces not occupied. With it the major road and train network would have spitted the remaining russian production centers and severely demoralized the soviet troops. Probably leading to a peace treaty with either unconditional or at least conditional surrender.


As for the allies, without the push on the east, Germany would have been able to amass enough strength to cripple the RAF and subsequently launch an invasion before USA enters the game. With britain occupied, USA would have very little strong points to launch an invasion from. The distance and the two fronts they would find themselves in to, would probably lead to white peace treaty down the line.

>>3326908
>hurr durr ussr would be easily beaten without LL
Anon plz

File: Lend Lease to USSR dates.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>3326944
>That being said, the great german push of 41-42 was almost a success, if their forces were not scattered all across europe and north africa and occupying vast swaths of land, I do believe Moscow would have fallen pressed against with the said forces not occupied. With it the major road and train network would have spitted the remaining russian production centers and severely demoralized the soviet troops. Probably leading to a peace treaty with either unconditional or at least conditional surrender.
Pic related.

>As for the allies, without the push on the east, Germany would have been able to amass enough strength to cripple the RAF and subsequently launch an invasion before USA enters the game.
https://www.philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

>>3326944
>Germany would have been able to amass enough strength to cripple the RAF
Absolutely, definitively, completely wrong.

>>3326945

as a matter of fact, yes

>>3326856

Germany alone loses, but Germany invaded the Soviet Union with Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Finland. With those countries, the Axis matches the population and surpasses the raw industrial capability of the Soviet Union. Then there's occupied Poland and likely occupied Yugoslavia, which would make some contribution.

There's no North Africa, which frees up about a million troops and a lot of supplies+logistical capability.

There's no clusterfuck in Greece, which delays the invasion by 2 weeks.

There's no bomber and western allies killing a thousand of pilots per month, which means the Germans might never lose air superiority in the east, as well as more than tripling the number of 88mm tubes and rounds available on the Eastern Front.

I think there is a definite chance that the Soviets lose here, especially if the additional forces are available for Barbarosa and make the opening months that much more devastating.

>>3326948


Perhaps you are not getting the point across.

Witout the allies russia as stated would have collapsed in my opinion, in part due to the lack of the land lease, but more importantly because germany would have fielded at least a million more troops and equipment on the eastern front.

As for the western front, without the need to mass produce mechanized infantry, tanks, artillery peaces and other land based produce to challenge USSR as a threat, the said resources would have gone to airforce and submarine production.

At the beggining of the war, britain was close to being starved out by hunting U boat packs sinking vast amount of food supply ships. With the resources allocated to push the production of the said military assets, I'd recon UK would have lost the war prior to 43.

>>3326970

Germany didn't invade with Finland you dingus

Finland was a co belligerent, it "invaded" its own territory the soviets had seized illegally and progressed no further than was necessary to secure their gains.

>>3326970
And none of that extra manpower or equipment makes it to the frontlines anyway because the logistical situation was already fucked to shit. They literally could not transport what they had already.

>>3326970
>Germany alone loses, but Germany invaded the Soviet Union with Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Finland. With those countries, the Axis matches the population and surpasses the raw industrial capability of the Soviet Union. Then there's occupied Poland and likely occupied Yugoslavia, which would make some contribution.
They match the raw GDP. However, not all of that is channeled into war against the USSR (Epseically Italy, which is the second biggest economic power by a fair shake), and not all of it is channeled into eastern front war production efficiently. Germany outproduced the USSR on steel yet somehow managed to produce fewer steel based armaments all across the board out of it. http://sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518049808430330 To assert that it is all equally effectively implemented is disingenuous.

>There's no North Africa, which frees up about a million troops and a lot of supplies+logistical capability.
North Africa never had a million troops in it at one time. Furthermore, while it might free up supplies, it will not free up transport routes, which were the usual bottleneck, both in North Africa and in the USSR itself.

>There's no clusterfuck in Greece, which delays the invasion by 2 weeks.
This is just wrong. Consider when Blau starts; you can't attack in the USSR until the end of June, not unless you like getting stuck in the mud.

>There's no bomber and western allies killing a thousand of pilots per month, which means the Germans might never lose air superiority in the east, as well as more than tripling the number of 88mm tubes and rounds available on the Eastern Front.
Again, you can't GET them all to the eastern Front. They had enough problems supplying the troops they had, let alone more.

Would recommend this as reading. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf The correlation between overall force and ability of the Axis to project that force into the USSR is far weaker than you're supposing.

>>3326977
>Witout the allies russia as stated would have collapsed in my opinion, in part due to the lack of the land lease, but more importantly because germany would have fielded at least a million more troops and equipment on the eastern front.
Yes, and I would recommend the same book to you as well. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf A million more troops doesn't mean that a million more can actually be sent into Russia effectively, nor do occupation costs magically go away. Hell, without a war in the West, Germany doesn't occupy France, and a good chunk of their food, coal, and non-ferrous metal supply doesn't exist anymore.

>As for the western front, without the need to mass produce mechanized infantry, tanks, artillery peaces and other land based produce to challenge USSR as a threat, the said resources would have gone to airforce and submarine production.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Military production is not that fungible, and the UK outproduced the Germans on land as well as in the air and on the water. https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf (Check out pages 30-31). There is simply no way of outrpoducing the UK, let alone defeating them quickly if you're trying to literally build a fleet from scratch.

>At the beggining of the war, britain was close to being starved out by hunting U boat packs sinking vast amount of food supply ships.
Wrong.http://jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

Submarine effect was a lot like the Allied strategic bombing program; it did not even stop the ramping up of the war economies, and was mostly impactful in how it forced the defender to divert resources to defend against it.

>>3326969
As a matter of fact, no. First significant amount of LL arrived in 1942, already after Soviet troops defeated Germans in the battle of Moscow. So basically Germans were stopped without Allied help. There was no chance for Germany to win the war after.

>>3326999

keep telling yourself that ivan ;D

>>3327005
i mean if you look at >>3326948, it shows that 3/4ths of it came after Kursk

>>3327005
His argument is valid.

You answered like a butthurt 2 year old.

>>3327026

no need to compare me to the common Vasily

muh Lend-Lease.
soviets had more tanks than entire world combined.

>>3327224

now you're just hitting the drugs too hard

>>3327228
look it up. they even had swimming tanks before the brits.

File: WW2Production.png (109KB, 1539x838px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1539x838px

>>3327224
>soviets had more tanks than entire world combined.

Why nobody listens to tankies, do something for humanity and kill yourself.

File: 4.jpg (608KB, 1200x1791px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1200x1791px

>>3327234
Wow. What kind of drugs was Germany Taking to ever thought they had any feasible chance in winning the war?

>>3326811
No in both.

Germany failed to plan for a war of attrition. That simple.

By 1941 when it became evident they had failec to knock the British empire out of the war Germany could not hope to win. They faced a constant manpower shortage. Failed to share crucial tech with allies. Their logistics were a mess that they never botheted to streamline, ever. Their intelligence apparatus was a complete joke routinely outdone by partisans and incapable of the most basic field work.

They had no hope of winning a drawn out conflict.

>>3326980
this meme again
Fingols occupied the entire Karelia including the former Soviet part, why do you think that Churchill send them ultimatum and declared war on them?

>>3327325

because he could be a right gormless tit at times, the Americans gave no such declaration to the Finns

>>3326811
>Does Germany win in a Soviet-only WWII (No allies)?
Easily, they would have effectively won in 1942 by reaching the Archangelsk-Astrachan-Line. 1943 at the latest.
The reason being that the Soviets have insufficient material to equip new divisions to replace their losses, and also lack the means to supply any offensives whatsoever, or to move around troops on an operational level. At the same time the Germans have significantly more troops and equipment and a secure home front.

>Does Germany win in an Allies-only WWII (No Soviets)?
Germany would have no way to force a surrender, but the same applies to the Allies (until the advent of nuclear weapons). However, Germany would suffer a major contraction of economic production beginning in 1941-1942 while the USA could increase military output virtually arbitrarily. Britain would eat shit, so if the US is not in the war, you would have two crippled countries facing off, with the US Germany would eventually be forced to surrender as one by one German cities are destroyed by nuclear weapons.

>>3326957
Are you retarded? They were on the brink of collapse just before Hitler decided to give the order and start bombing london. Literally a couple days away.

>>3326811
Yes easily on both. They were so close to defeating both if Hitler hadn't become a complete and utter moron, meth head.

>>3327404
>education is a worthwhile pursuit in itself. Understanding yourself, your community, and your world better may bring you some joy. If you intend on ending your education after 4 years of undergrad, you are doing it wrong. Even if you do not plan on pursuing a degree beyond a Bachelors, your learning cannot cease if you wish to remain competitive and quench a healthy thirst of knowledge.

America would probably had stayed out of combat with Germany. They wouldn't have joined at all if it were not for Japan. Both Germans and America wanted to avoid war with each other.

>>3326811
>Does Germany win in a Soviet-only WWII (No allies)?
Yes.
>Does Germany win in an Allies-only WWII (No Soviets)?
It would be more likely a stalemate because the Allies would be winning in the air and in the sea, but wouldn't have enough power for invasion.

>>3326811
>soviet only
Maybe, but they'd have to roll them fast cause the soviets outnumbered them massively and could manufacture much more shit
>allies only
Yes without burgers, very unlikely with. Merican had massive manufacturing power and local resources.

>>3326944
Someone post the sealion article

>>3327639
>It would be more likely a stalemate because the Allies would be winning in the air and in the sea, but wouldn't have enough power for invasion.

Air, no. Sea yes. But the Germans could control the air long enough and bomb enough ships and with the number of ships the Germans had as well to invade England. Then they would sweep through England. America wouldn't do anything with Japan not there.

>Maybe, but they'd have to roll them fast cause the soviets outnumbered them massively and could manufacture much more shit

Easily could have if they weren't defending against the allies as well. Would have had at least a mil more troops, minimum 1000 more tanks and Britain and America might not have even helped USSR out. After all they didn't want any conflict with Germany in the first place.

>>3327643
Second part >>3327655
was meant for you

>>3327633
America was already at war with Germany in every way other than name prior to the whole jap incident. If the Americans didn't make war on the Germans, the Germans would of had to do it to stop the burgers supplying the Brits.
>>3327655
Had the Germans not been at war with the allies, I'd imagine that the soviets would have been better prepared for an invasion.

>>3327677
>America was already at war with Germany in every way other than name prior to the whole jap incident. If the Americans didn't make war on the Germans, the Germans would of had to do it to stop the burgers supplying the Brits.

The conflicts were never on purpose though. They were accidental after they thought they were attacking each other when it wasn't the case. And any American industries were still trading with Germany up until 1941 supplying them with vehicles. Only 8% of the American people wanted a war with Germany until pearl harbour happened. Hitler probably only declared war on them because he'd thought he'd have conquered Europe and finished off Russia.

>America was already at war with Germany in every way other than name prior to the whole jap incident. If the Americans didn't make war on the Germans, the Germans would of had to do it to stop the burgers supplying the Brits.

If anything Germany being at war with the allies and knowing that Hitler hated communism should have had Stalin preparing for war even more but couldn't after Stalin's purge of the army killing more than half of his generals and cutting funding, and with communism and all didn't have the supplies to fund them army and rebuild it.

>>3326811

>Number one

Maybe, it is at least possible IF the Russian army still has to be brought back from the east in extremis.


>Number 2

If we consider this scenario starts right at the moment of the invasion of Poland, it depends whether France and the BEF attack Germany at that point. If they actually push rather than twiddle their thumbs in the Phoney war, we can assume Germany would be crippled by the loss of the Rheinland.

>>3326895
>they probably could have blitzed right from france into Britain with full force
Um anon I don't know if you're aware but there's this body of water between Germany and Britain that needs to be crossed for an invasion

Lend-lease did not help Soviets defend against G*rms. It were the offensives where American trucks really helped the Red Army keep something that resembled supply lines.

>>3328031

Yeah, because supplylines only move towards the offensive

retard

>>3326811
Germany would have had Moscow and maybe Stalingrad if there were no allied help but it's hard to say what would have heppened after. They would likely control the bulk of west-uralian russia and bombard places in the east and creep up or deffend what they conquered and perhaps even create a fascist russia that would produce equipment. If they wouldn't take Stalingrad at first then they probably would surround it only it's hard to say where the russian reserves would regroup, how many would there be and how hard the counter attack would be on Moscow.

For the second case i think it would be impossible for the germans to win against the western allies, especially if we include american production.

>>3326811
No, never.

Why are wehraboos and poltards so desperate they have to resort to making up fantasies?

>>3326811
Germany/USSR-only: I doubt one could outright conquer the other.

I say this because when Germany lost the battle of Moscow, the USSR haven't received any meaningful aid from lend-lease, the German advance was stopped on the Soviet's power alone. If the war were allowed to continue without lend-lease. it's likely that the Soviets would be able to force Germany out of their territory, but probably not able to continue advancing into Germany-proper. I'd place bets on it being a German defeat but not an outright conquest of Germany.

Allies/Germany-only: stalemate I'm sure. With millions more germans to man and defend the Atlantic wall, the US/UK would have a much harder time establishing a beachhead anywhere, while Germany would still be unable to seriously challenge the Royal Navy for supremacy in the English Channel for an invasion of Britain.

With the allies unable to breach a more well defended atlantic wall, and Germany unable to invade Britain, it would devolve into an impasse.

>>3327240
Nazism is a hell of a drug

>>3328475
>With the allies unable to breach a more well defended atlantic wall, and Germany unable to invade Britain, it would devolve into an impasse.
Well, until the Manhattan project rolls around and the Americans start nuking every city in Germany.

>>3326811
Yes

Not without knocking Britain out of the war then no, America is useless without the British isles as a launching pad

>>3327626
>t. Goering

>>3326900
>>3326899
They had to shift manpower and resources away from Britain in preparation for Barbarossa. If they had no intention of carrying out Barbarossa, it would've freed them up to focus on more air/sea production rather than armor.

Of course an amphibious invasion of UK still would've failed, but if they were free from worrying about the pending USSR invasion, they could've made better headway.

>>3326948
Is this list C.O.D. or F.O.B.? Some of what was shipped from the U.S.A. never reached the U.S.S.R. for a variety of reasons. Whole cargoes were lost to military actions, along with partial losses, just on the way to England.

You have 'normal' losses due to accidents at sea, water damage, storms, etc. Many of the convoys sailed for military reasons that would have stayed in port due to weather in peacetime. Also a lot of the crews responsible for loading the ships were inexperienced. This would also increase losses at sea.

And once the ships reached England, the English military had the right, as a condition to co-operating with Lend-Lease to the U.S.S.R., to 'inspect' and confiscate any cargo they wanted. What was left would then be reloaded on another ship and sent to Archangel where additional losses would occur. Does anyone know how much of U.S.A. Lend-Lease actually reached the Russian military?

>>3326948
Also, why does this list run 1941-1949? I thought Lend-Lease ended in 1945?

>>3328475
You don't know what you're on about

File: __izayoi_sakuya_touhou_drawn_by_hayashi_custom__sample_e48c1568fa90116ee8a69a8f551ab87a.jpg (32KB, 850x638px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 850x638px

>>3326994
Always nice to see more of Mark Harrison on this board, guy's a legend when it comes to WW2 economy.

>>3326811
Does Germany win alone - no Japan, Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania and other Axis, their equipment, solders and reasorces?

>>3329829
Germany would be in a much tougher position if they didn't have Romanian oil or Swedish iron that they bought on credit and never paid back

>>3329854
That does not sound like Sweden. Mostly they gouged the Germans every chance they got, just like Switzerland.

Germany had to protect its people and cities as well as resources far from the homeland which were vital for the war effort. All the allies have to do is damage supply lines and the facilities producing them and they draw German soldiers into a more spread out location.