Russia vs Germany

>>34644584
Russia. They could just play the attrition game until Germany's atrocious logistics problems caught up with them (more or less what happened IRL). Just keep throwing inbred alcoholics at the krauts, from their perspective they're basically infinite.

>>34644584
All 4 of those statements are true tho...

>>34644584
>I still think that Germany would not have been able to completly take over Russia even if they were not distracted by other fronts.

just how organized do you think 1940s Russia was outside the few big cities?

>>34644639
Im referencing guerrilla warfare

But Soviets were basically alone until 1943 when Allied landings in Italy forced Germans to move some troops.
Only in 1944 did the pressure drop significantly with Normandy landings, and even then best German troops were still on EF.
LL, while it did matter, didn't affect Battle of Moscow for example.

>>34644584
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it were just Russia fighting the krauts, wouldn't fritz come out on top? I thought a large part of Russia's victory was American trucks and supplies from Lend-Lease.

>>34644681
>I thought a large part of Russia's victory was American trucks and supplies from Lend-Lease.
Yep, roughly 11 billion dollars in aid went to the Soviets during the war. Take that out of the equation and Stalin's chances look pretty bleak. Even by 45 there was a massive ammount of material being shipped over to Russia.

There are accounts of Soviets troops writing about being thankful for all the food the Americans gave to them.

>>34644681
Define "large part".
It helped a lot but overall LL was around 10% of Soviet production.
If Americans didn't sell it to them, they would make it themselves. Sure, those trucks wouldn't be as reliable and something else would suffer, but Soviet war effort was never that close to breaking anyway after Moscow.

By the way British received significantly more aid than Soviets.

>>34644584
nyet

In this scenario, remember that the Soviet forces acting as a deterrent to Japan would be available at all much earlier than the battle of Moscow, and in their entirety as well.

>>34644635
If you believe the Germanic Jew, maybe.

>>34644703
>There are accounts of Soviets troops writing about being thankful for all the food the Americans gave to them.
I bet, many probably had never eaten very well at all before that.

A sack of potatoes or a can of spam would be goddamn godsend for a person living in Stalin's Russia.

>>34645084
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/war-won-spam-things/
>And Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his autobiography, “Without Spam, we wouldn’t have been able to feed our army.”

Spam is love, spam is life.

>>34645242
>Nikita Khrushchev wrote

You know his reputation, don't you?

>>34644584
If some armchair historian could help me out here, how much of an effect did the allied bombings of Germany have? What was the state of their manufacturing?

I would speculate that it may have effected the German ability to play defensive and replenish equipment and key supplies (like FUEL). Not to mention that it diverted part of the Luftwaffe which could also be used to fight the Soviet Army.

I know the allies assisted Russia with some minor amounts of resources (via mostly Lend Lease) and were meet with less forces of the German military. The real questions are, could that have been the nudge that was needed to break the Russian offensive or would German forces have enough distance to keep withdrawing till they did break the offensive (with or without French territory)?

>>34644681
Pretty much this. Americans financed the Soviets in fighting the Germans.

USSR had the raw manpower but was pathetically lacking in terms of guns, bullets, tanks, trucks, etc. With Lend Lease, the Soviets would have had no chance in being flattened by the German push in 42.

>>34645836
>You know his reputation, don't you?
I do, "Khrushchev Remembers" was him covering his ass that was written when he was under house arrest. I know this because I've read them, he has some interesting observations on Cuba and Castro being a huge dick. Does all of that that mean you can't enjoy an interesting article on SPAM's effecting WWII? No, it does not.

>>34645864
>Minor amounts

The United States sold to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.[24] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[45]

Don't forget that without the western allies tying up German airpower the whole of the Luftwaffe would have been free to focus on Russia.

>>34644584
The Krauts didn't have the manpower to conquer Russia and the Soviets wouldn't've had the logistical capability to push all the way to Germany.

They would've likely bled each other to death until some sort of treaty was signed, they would've divied up Eastern Europe, and entered a cold war.

>>34644584

At what point in time?do we count the anschluß of austria and czeckoslovakia into the german industry?

>>34645951
>without the western allies tying up German airpower the whole of the Luftwaffe would have been free to focus on Russia
Kind of stops mattering when you run out of fuel to fly any fucking planes.

>>34644584
Depends on if the USSR was still getting lend-lease supplies from USA
I think Germany would still probably win tho

>>34646150
>I think Germany would still probably win tho
Yeah, they totally had endless supplies of fuel, ammunition and manpower.

>>34645864
>how much of an effect did the allied bombings of Germany have? What was the state of their manufacturing?

It forced them to disperse their industry. I don't have any numbers but this made their overall industrial capabilities much lower than they could have been. The raids also reduced precision manufacturing capability and fuel synthesis from non petroleum sources (along with many other synthetic materials vital to the war effort ie. rubber and raw materials that were essential to make explosives).

>I know the allies assisted Russia with some minor amounts of resources
>minor

The western allies contributed over half of the Soviet Union's supply of aviation fuel alone. Lend lease also provided the trucks, locomotives/rail equipment, and supplies necessary for any kind of counter offensive operations. >>34645922 did a good job of summing it up. Logistically the Soviets were doomed without lend lease.

>>34646123
Main reason Germany ran out of fuel was allied bombing of Germany's synthetic oil plants though.

>>34644584
Russian troops would be running around barefoot and starving if not for Allied lend lease
They would be fucked without it

German industry also wouldn't be under pressure from strategic bombing so the Luftwaffe could focus on the Russian front

File: shoo shoo wehraboo.jpg (120KB, 988x688px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 988x688px

>>34644611
No, Russia had maybe double the population of Germany, no way they could win a war solely by manpower, their ressources, landmass and industrial output would be decisive (like irl)
>>34644635
see pic

>>34644712
Not that anon, but let ME define "large part" as NEARLY FUCKING ENTIRELY. Russia sent its men - nearly all of them - to fight and die in battle, and shed far, far more blood than all other Allies combined, and the initial US response in terms of manpower was lukewarm at best. We sent equipment, without which many more Russians would have died, Stalingrad would almost certainly have been lost, and Germany would have had a lot more access to resources with which to turn on the other Allied Forces.

So, while the Russians had a lot, and I mean a LOT, more skin in the game than the US, they were at a point of having depleted nearly every resource they had, including weapons, ammunition, fuel, medical supplies, and food. The U.S. equipment and supplies contribution was absolutely necessary. This is not to say it was sufficient - the truth is we hid behind not getting more involved for a long time by sending things of value instead of manpower, happy to let the Russians break their backs on Germany and vice-versa. Likewise, by the time we did decide to get into the war, American soldiers had woefully insufficient combat training and experience, while every other combatant nation had both.

>>34646197
They were running some pretty slim margins even before that, really. Also there's nothing to say that the Russians couldn't eventually do that.

File: 1443375157659.jpg (34KB, 425x340px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 425x340px

>>34644584
>win
Define win desu

Germany occupying all of the USSR? Probably not possible

Germany taking the European parts of the USSR and forcing Stalin past the Urals? Before Barbarossa failed, there's a decent chance; after Barbarossa, not really.

USSR occupying Germany? Good luck faggot

USSR forcing regime chance in Germany? probably not

USSR forcing a stalemate and getting a truce? Maybe

Frankly, pic related, if only because "win" is too vague for any real answer.

Shit, even irl if lend-lease never kicked in (mid-'41), the Nazis were basically shit out of luck for their original goals after Barbarossa was bungled (late-'41). At best they could have held on to captured territory and maintained a fragile peace. And not to at all diminish the importance on lend-lease, but Germany had little to no chance of "winning" the war after Barbarossa failed, and only 2% of all lend-lease goods came before it did. Lend-lease wasn't the difference between victory or defeat, it was the difference between the Nazis staying in power or getting their shit pushed in so hard that they're still constipated after 70+ years.

>>34644584
Until somebody can bring up some actual numbers and logistics of each fighting force ITT then this thread is just going to be a bunch of memes going back and forth.

File: 1471257519029.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

How do you define "no outside help"? I'm guessing Germany is also deprived of their very valuable imports.
74% of Lend Lease came after Kursk, with important goods like railway equipment, telephone wire, aluminum, and trucks.
If Germany is going at it alone also they don't have 42% of their high quality ore from Sweden which is invaluable in steel production, all of France which was producing over 30 million tons of iron in the 1940s, 8,820,000 tons of oil from Romania for their mechanized forces, imports from the Soviet Union without which Barbarossa would run out of oil at the end of 1941, millions of slave workers for their industries, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers all over Europe.
Without Lend Lease the Soviets would not be able to accomplish something like Bagration, the destruction of an entire army group which in the middle of 1944 succeeded in large part due to Lend Lease Studebakers supporting deep penetrations by mechanized units. They'd be more likely instead to do Stalingrad style encirclements of armies and corps if the Germans get too cocky, maybe on their own initiative if their doctrine advances like it did historically.
Overall, the Germans never had the logistical capability to enforce their will upon the Soviet Union with their inefficient trains and insufficient trucks. The Soviet Union did, with large help from Lend Lease. Without it the Soviets might win more through a war of attrition since the Germans don't have enough manpower or resources.

I think a good reference for "little to no American help" would be chiang's china.
tl;dr: stalemate with axis occupation of large/most important swaths of allied nation.

>>34647152
So basically what we're used to?

>>34644584
I suppose I'm an extreme wehrboo then.

File: Germans:Not even once.jpg (88KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 853x480px

>>34644635
>He trusts (((Germans)))

File: 1290581904.png (99KB, 404x361px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 404x361px

>>34647245
Except the Soviet Union was a regime that was able to mobilize its entire society behind the war effort and had a massive industry to back it up.
It produced more in the second half of 1941, in wartime conditions with half its trains evacuating factories east, its most important industrial regions being occupied, and barely 1% of total Lend Lease arriving than in the first half in peacetime.
Its officers were also not China-tier and although incompetent at the start, showed throughout the war they had the capability to adapt and change.

No lend lease, No USSR in yurop.

>>34647468
I'm not so sure about that.

Also you'd be trading one oppressive socialist state for another. Feels kind of like picking between being prison raped by either a big black guy or a big hairy samoan, between a cock and a hard place.

>inb4 screaming wehraboos

>>34644584
reminder that that in ww2 german forces had:
>1 milion russians
>70000 azeris
>2600 indians
>20000 arabs
>7000 albanians
>33000 armenians
>14000 georgians
>16000 turks

All these lend-lease niggers, christ sake at least do your homework. The key components that the USSR wasn't able to produce and procure in sufficient amounts by itself were the chemicals required for gunpowder and explosives. It wasn't till early/mid 1944 that tanks and trucks supplied by lend lease breached 10% of the total, meanwhile 30-50% of artillery shells going to the front were packed with us stuffing.
Could they have won the war? Yes, most of the key battles happened in 41-43, before lend lease items were present in sufficient amounts, but they would be hard-pressed to use the sort of massed artillery barrages that were a key component of soviet strategy. Losses in offensives would have been significantly higher.