WWII Western efforts

The USSR couldn't even produce much high-octane fuel. Anything with a more sophisticated engine than a tractor was dependant on high-quality lend-lease fuel.

The USSR also had a massive lack of ball-bearings and locomotives.

While I don't think that it would have lost without lend-lease, its eventual triumph would have been far costlier.

>locomotives.
kek, they had like 20,000 before the war

And lost enormous amounts of them. Trains and rail infrastructure are some of the most obvious targets for air strikes.

Locomotive production also dipped sharply during the war, so those that were lost couldn't be replaced

I think they would have stalemated in Europe rather than lost.

There's a lot of distance between Moscow and Berlin, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

They probably would have won it by themselves, but they would have suffered many more casualties to do so. The USSR might not owe its victory over the Nazis to the Western Allies, but those Soviet soldiers that survived the war because of the supplies certainly owe their lives to them.

> the USSR just won by the skin of their teeth
Actually the USSR was steamrolling Germany in the final two years. Even if you disagree with that statement, I don't think any rational person with even a shred of historical knowledge could make the claim that the USSR won by the skin of their teeth like you did.

That's true, but they were getting substantial help from the western allies and the Nazis had to remain vigilant for a potential British invasion from the west.

The USSR could probably have defeated nazi germany with only its own military, but it absolutely could not have done so without US material support

>The D-Day landings opened the western front Stalin had been asking for for so long pulling troops away from the east.
By the time the D-Day landing happened, the Soviets were already steamrolling the Axis. The D-Day landings were more for favorable division of Europe post war than for the war itself.

The Brits were pretty much irrelevant during the war except sit in their island and blockading the Germans.

Most of the US materials arrived after 1943, when the tide has already turned.
The most important LL support after trucks is actually canned food as the USSR was focused on producing grains for the calorie needs of the Red Army and had little for anything else after the loss of the breadbasket Ukraine. American canned food, especially spam was greatly helpful to the Soviets as they allowed far greater strategic mobility as the Soviets had canned food rather than relying on the battalion soup kitchens like the Germans. The high energy density also boosted morale and helped logistics.

Did they have some way to make it winter 12 months a year?

>when the tide has already turned

There's a difference between defending Moscow and taking Berlin.

The Soviets broke the German advance, but I don't think they could have actually ended the war without logistical support.

Defending Moscow was 1941, user.

Yeah, but Kursk was 1943, and Bagration was 44.

And the Germans put up a pretty good defense.

The initial German advance gave Russia enough time build up power for their 2 star CO power.

>The Brits were pretty much irrelevant during the war except sit in their island and blockading the Germans.
I know, it's more to do with the fact that the Germans had to be prepared an invasion than any damage the Brits actually did.

Winter fury is garbage. If the Soviets had used it they would've lost the war.

The Soviets held their own against 90% of the Nazi's forces, and the Nips had their asses handed to them by the skeleton crew Soviet forces in the East.

Mid 1942 the Soviets had already won the war.

Increased fuel expenditure and further worn troops would be more effective in WW2 then in the advance wars universe.

The steamrolling only happened because they survived the earlier parts of the war by the skin of their teeth. Obviously the winning side gains momentum by the end of the war, by that doesn't mean that the Russians didn't almost lose the war several times.

*Blizzard is garbage. His SCOP is great.

Over 85% of Nazi forces were stationed in the Eastern Front.

>won the war
If not for Hitler they could've probably gotten a separate peace if they wanted, but they wouldn't have been able to win conditionless victory without help. (probably)

why would they preperate a invasion?
they decided not to invade britain.

so britain didn't draw away troops from the eastern front except north africa ofc

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? or are you on some auto-shitposting mode?
Your earlier point was that the Soviets could not have won without western military intervention in the west since they barely defeat the Germans. Now you concede that you were completely wrong. It doesn't look like there's any need to continue any further down this particular path.

They didn't need anything. Pic related is lend-lease, besides trucks, most of the help was small.

USSR even had 1,5 mil troops stationed in the far east in case japan invaded. It was never even close.

Increasing numbers of AAA weapons and crews had to be deployed throughout the west due to RAF activities. Those could have been of great use on the Eastern front.

Only through 41 and 42. Once the US and British Commonwealth forces landed in Italy Germany had to move 40% of their military away from the eastern front.

Plus something like 80% of the german airforce was committed to protecting the skies over Germany from American and British bombing raids. Combine that with the aid provided to the soviets from the west and it's pretty damn clear the USSR on their own isn't going to win a damn thing.

The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.

Even if Hitler could have concentrated completely on the Eastern Front (as the practically did tbqh) the Nazis did not once defeat the Soviets comprehensively or take the strategic targets.

Even a fall of Moscow would have left the Nazi's completely overextended and the Soviets would have simply pulled back the front line more.

Not enough people realize that although western support sped up the war greatly and helped Russia take Berlin, the Nazis effectively lost the war after Barbarossa failed.

Also, most of lend lease came post 1942, when stalingrad was already won and the tide of war turned. It probably shortened the war for a year max.

>Only through 41 and 42. Once the US and British Commonwealth forces landed in Italy Germany had to move 40% of their military away from the eastern front.

Bullshit

>Plus something like 80% of the german airforce was committed to protecting the skies over Germany from American and British bombing raids. Combine that with the aid provided to the soviets from the west and it's pretty damn clear the USSR on their own isn't going to win a damn thing.

Source = your ass

>The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.
Yeah dude? I hate to break this to you but this probably just means a ceasefire rather then a victory. Hitler would probably be dead by 1950 or infirm enough that someone else would be in charge of the decision making, and the Soviets would have suffered enough casualties at this point that they would have gladly agreed to a ceasefire rather then fight anymore at this point.

>The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.

9 years of continuous combat was beyond the level of the Soviet population to support it at the casualty rates suffered during WW2.

Bullshit
Nope.

>>Source = your ass
Nope.

Also, You = assmad.

Using my ass as a source, i'd give it 50/50 that the USSR could have beaten nazi germany without any aid beyond trade. It would have taken a while though

They steamrolled and their losses increased the closer they got to Berlin.

He's partially correct. As the war ground on increasing numbers of Luftwaffe fighter units were redeployed to the west to the point that large scale Soviet offensives could be launched with little concern to Luftwaffe response.

>And the Germans put up a pretty good defense.

>lose its largest army group in 2 weeks after slavs get their shit together
lmfao

Post source then, or any creditble link, or whatever

When you are invaded, you kicking them back out = victory.

Oh and Germany? They lost 25% of their male active population by 1945.

In 1944 and 1945 Soviet/German deaths rates were similar.

You have no sources for these claims.

By May 1943 (Italy), the outcome of the war was already known.

>>When you are invaded, you kicking them back out = victory.

Yeah but at the same time it's no red flag over Berlin. A still existing Nazi Germany without American and British efforts in europe is quite significant.

I mean, how many people seriously think WW1 had any real victors other then maybe the serbs?

That's because the majority of German aircraft losses were in Russia.

The Nazis in 1943 realized protecting war production was worth more than air support in the East.

The one thing i just do not understand is how the USA was so far ahead of the rest of the world during ww2? Is america just that great of a country? Seeing as how everything from raw resource production to processing and manufacturing in the USA made the efforts of europe look like the work of children, why isn't the usa given the recogniction it deserves?

>>By May 1943 (Italy), the outcome of the war was already known.
Not really no. This is a revisionist claim.

You are talking 44-45 when Germany has been fighting on multiple fronts and and is being bombed around the clock.

For discussion, have Germany fighting solely in the east with all the industrial and transportation capabilities of Western Europe operating at full war production capacity.

I can hear you guys typing already. Be careful, it's tricky.

Kicking the invaders out literally is victory.

Now you are being a faggot. By May 1943 Soviet armies were consistently pushing Nazis back, Stalingrad was over, and Operation Blue had failed.

No. Eastern Front casualties in 1944-1945 were equal between Germans and Nazis.

The trained, well-equipped Nazis were dead by then. The Soviets killed them in 1941-1943.

>>German deployments to the Western Front (including North Africa and Italy) reached levels as high as approximately 40% of their ground forces, and 75% of the Luftwaffe. During 1944, there were approximately 69 German divisions in France, in Italy there were around 19. (Approximate data is given because the number of units changed over time as a result of troop transfers and the arrival of new units.) Keegan, John. The Second World War.

There's your source for 40% of the ground forces, the airforce stuff I'm not as sure about the 80% number but at the same time they did actually move most of their airforce to a defensive posture in Germany itself due to a need to protect against allied bombing raids.

Americas population was bigger than the entire USSR, it was isolated on a rich and productive continent with no serious enemies or threats and had all the advantages of inheriting the traditions of british liberalism and industrialisation

The Soviets would have defeated Nazi-occupied Western Europe in a 1v1. The occupied Western regions in general were a waste for the Nazis.

Now a unified Europe in 1938 would have beat the Soviets though, but that isn't the question.

Hopefully. Honestly ive had my world view shattered recently because i had no idea just how overwhelmingly superior the usa is from the rest of the world. Am i taking a simplistic view of things?

>>By May 1943 Soviet armies were consistently pushing Nazis back, Stalingrad was over, and Operation Blue had failed.
Doesn't matter, they wouldn't have been able to push anyone back if the Germans had more men and machines to use against them, but they didn't because 40% of that was elsewhere.

Yes, but the Luftwaffe was broken in the West. Go through every history and it comes to that conclusion. Even the Soviets were delighted at the time that fighter units were redeployed. It made Bagration, for example, almost free from air attacks. In the East the Luftwaffe losses were a steady drain but certain pilots and units were able to do lots of damage for long periods of time. When transferred to the West they got decimated in a far shorter period and quite a number of experten were killed or otherwise disabled.

>For discussion, have Germany fighting solely in the east with all the industrial and transportation capabilities of Western Europe operating at full war production capacity.
With a constant stream of supplies and weapons from Western Europe from the very beginning of the war and continuing throughout, the Germans might have had a chance against Russia if they took territory in the Spring and Summer, scorched earthed it, then withdrew back into defensive positions in time for Winter.

Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down might have been possible. Even then, they still probably lose. It's hard to overestimate how badassed the Red Army was back then.

Daily reminder that Lend Lease helped the Soviets relocate their manufacturing base to the Urals. And gave them some of the foundations of their logistics chain, namely, the MOTHERFUCKING TRUCKS.

Combine the german forces committed to western europe with those already present in eastern europe already and that 1v1 scenario is a lot more doubtful for the Soviets.

>TRUCKS

Is a huge point, soviets would have been barely capable of advancing into germany without them

It cant be a stalemate forever. If one side won, then it would be like North and South Korea

>Am i taking a simplistic view of things?
Yes and no. The founders of the US fought for/inherited quite the bounty, but disregarding other nations would be a mistake.

>The occupied Western regions in general were a waste for the Nazis

Not in the scenario we are discussing. Look at the industrial capacity available to the Germans from just France, Belgium and Holland. Now think how much more production can be done without RAF/USAAF bombing.

I agree. Stalemate is the most logical conclusion given everything we know about both sides.

>Daily reminder that Lend Lease helped the Soviets relocate their manufacturing base to the Urals.
Most supplies arrived after the relocation.

>Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down might have been possible.
Only if they went full war economy. However, Speer didn't turn the economy to full war economy because the German economy was prone to collapsing because of how it was set up.

>Is a huge point, soviets would have been barely capable of advancing into germany without them
Trucks helped increase the speed of the advance and was greatly helpful. What's just important was canned food from the USA as they prevented the Red Army from facing malnourishment while also helping simplify the logistic chain due to their calorie density.

>I think they would have stalemated in Europe rather than lost.
German economy would have likely collapsed before a stalemate, which was why Speer didn't turn the economy into full war economy until 1944, when the situation became really desperate.

I wounder why they steamrolled the last two years of the war. Its interesting you picked the last two years of the war. What could have helped them do this? Could it have something to do with what happen in early June of 44? Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy, and leaving less and less to the East in Russia?

Hmmmm

>South in Italy
>Italy
Italy is not south of Germany retard

I think everyone is missing the point of this discussion.

Wouldn't it have been better if the Germans had won? Ergo the Soviets should have lost.

...

>Wouldn't it have been better if the Germans had won?
Yeah, if you want to be a bigger wagecuck and be possibly genocided at any time.

>Italy is not south of Germany retard
??????????

>>Italy is not south of Germany retard
You are either hilariously ignorant of basic geography, or are about to make some pedantic point about Italy actually being to the south of Switzerland and Austria instead.

Either way it is important to note that you are a faggot.

I'm not gonna yell at you, I just want you to walk through your thought process.

>I wounder why they steamrolled the last two years of the war. Its interesting you picked the last two years of the war.
What the fuck is so interesting about picking the last two years? I picked the last two years because that's when the Soviets steamrolled Germany. How they did it is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is you started out by saying they won by the skin of their teeth, and now you have completely been BTFO and exposed as a moron, yet you can't stop yourself from posting the filth that is your opinion for whatever reason.

Nazi Germany wasn't the paradigm of order and efficiency it's remembered to be. It had an extremely chaotic system of government that relied far too heavily on Hitler's micromanaging.

It's likely that as soon as Hitler died shortly after the war, a civil war would have erupted over succession in short order.

There are two fronts in WW2. With me so far?
Now, East (France/Italy,etc)
West (Russia)

Italy is consider a WESTERN front battleground

Retards

You didn't read his post obviously. Hes talking about how DDay took pressure off of the Soviets. Witch is why Stalin asked for it.

I didn't say they won by the skin of their teeth, that was the faggot I was responding to.

This is why we need ID tags mods

>Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down
Germany did not have superior firepower, what are you smoking? And a war of attrition was the last thing Germany could have won. They literally had a better chance of successfully carrying out Sea lion.

>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,

They did have better weapons.
At least when it comes to Tanks. They just outnumbered the German forces witch is all you really need to win a war. Numbers

West in Russia and East in France?

He knows less about geography then this guy. knows about war.

>They did have better weapons.
They barely had weapons.

>At least when it comes to Tanks.
Especially when it came to tanks.

Towards the end of the war, a Soviet division had a much higher concentration of AFVs and artillery than a German division, which was still fighting WW1.

>Numbers
No, the Soviets had much greater firepower and mobility.

>Germany did not have superior firepower

Initially they did.

German fire support for their forces in the early part of the war in the East was much better than anything the Soviets could do. The sheer number of weapons counts for little unless they are firing at the the right place at the right time. It took quite a while before Soviet fire control could match and then surpass the Germans.

With air support it was pretty much the same. For some time, Soviet tactical bombers were shot down in droves.

Dude, sorry , no. Too simplistic a view.

...

American/british supplies contributed much more to the Soviet victory than the Western Front.

Yeah that is an American/British gun... Your point?

>They did have better weapons.
But they didn't
>At least when it comes to Tanks.
Only if you look at paper specs, which do not represent war.
>German fire support for their forces in the early part of the war in the East was much better than anything the Soviets could do. The sheer number of weapons counts for little unless they are firing at the the right place at the right time. It took quite a while before Soviet fire control could match and then surpass the Germans.
It's pretty easy to surpass a disorganized army when you sneak attack them. When slavs got their shit together, they had much superior firepower.

Classic weapon.

But it would have been preferable to face that than a MG34 or 42

He said all you need to win a war is numbers and that picture is one of the reasons why thats not necessarily correct.

His post reminds me of all the arguments in /k/ about the Panther tank. Too many video games and not enough research.