Nazi germany would have won the 2WW if the USA had not participed?

How would the Germans have defeated the USSR?

American involvement means more terrific losses in the USSR,not a complete G*rman victory

Impossible.

Germany
>superior tech
>professional troops
>better equipment
>long and successful martial history
>hyper efficient industry

USSR
>low tech
>conscripts
>equipment, what equipment?
>all officers purged, and what martial history anyway?
>corrupted and weak industry

>idiot thinks its possible to occupy Russia while fighting two fronts.

Its estimated that 18 million soldiers would be required to hold the entire Soviet Union.

All that was meaningless when they were pushed back in Operation Typhoon

>low tech
Lavochkins, Yaks, KVs, IS tanks don't exist, I guess?
>Hyper efficient industry
Lmao, if we use this user's statistics on resource output, and we combine the output of airplanes, tanks and armored vehicles. The USSR outfucking produced Germany in all fields prior to lendlease even becoming a factor.
Also obligatory

...

Are you retarded?

read this
tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

this "america won ww2" meme has to die.
YOu did jackshit compared to other enemies, your best contribution is supplies to other factions.Just like ww1.
The real badasses out of ww2 are the guys who fought on the eastern front or in africa.
I love that americans dont even realize how heavily pro germany the whole of the US was most of the time. A giant propaganda machine lead by bongs and jewish americans changed that surprisingly quick.

Please cleetus. learn some history.

American did win WW2 though, if not for lend lease Britain would have capitulated and Germany could have gotten a favorable peace

>Soviet
>Low tech
>German tank guns literally can't penetrate KV-1s or 2s
>Have trouble against T-34s
Nice "technology" you have there

>murican educashion lol
Thanks for showing who the real retard is here

Doesn't matter how much armor you put on your meme tank when you're using fucking flags to transmit orders among them against a fully radio equipped force.

Obviously it does matter when it caused Germany to make retarded shit like the Tiger II

>Muh german efficiency

Soviet Union easily outproduced Germany, which was made even more easymode by germany going the meme 'wunderwaffen' road

youtube.com/watch?v=16gWRxv_aZY&

Let's assume America is completely out of the picture to the point where they basically don't exist. So you've got Britain trying to make an incursion into mainland Europe fighting against the Italians, the Nazis, and whoever they can recruit from occupied territory of the entirety of Europe. On the eastern front you've got Germany vs. USSR. And in the far east you've got imperial Japan controlling probably most of China before long, anything of value in Manchuria and eastern Siberia, all of Indochina and Korea, and with a total stanglehold on the Pacific. Whether or not they had the capability of opening up a legit front on land against Russia is pretty iffy, but you also have to wonder how long Britain can hold onto North Africa and its Middle Eastern territories by itself, and who else might join the fold on the side of the Axis when the odds look so much better. Quite frankly, without American aid it seems pretty likely that Britain leave the Soviets to get fucked in exchange for Hitler leaving their territory alone.

Without America around Japan would have no reason to join Germany, there would be no big naval fleet enforcing an oil embargo, it also increases the chances of Germany continuing its pro-Chinese programme

Im pretty sure we couldnt have btfo the krauts by ourselves. Then again neither could the ussr or britain.

How did lend lease prevent Britain from capitulating?? Britain had already been saved from invasion by the existence of its navy and producing more planes than Germany. Plus you've got the whole of the Empire behind it just waiting to be fully mobilised

Japan would still be taking Russian clay regardless. Russia is their biggest threat in Asia, and the UK would be their biggest threat in the Pacific. And if Germany is potentially in a position for capturing oil rich areas of MidEast, North Africa, and the Caucasus, they're going to look like an incredibly tempting ally for Japan. Maybe not the best of friends long term, but eliminating mutual threats together is reasonable.

Fuel for ships and ammunition for anti air, flak.

Totally this, it also amazes me how muricans ignore the fact that they had funded Hitler's party back in days.

Couldn't they just import those things from their Empire?

The empire didn't produce finished goods, it provided raw materials and a dumping ground for British industrial output.

>Germany
>long and successful martial history

We should have funded them through the whole war and let the commies and arrogant prick Brits get btfo.

go back to pol butthurt sharter

>Germany would have won WW2 if I was Führer
Every time.

Okay, so here the deal
>Hitler cucks Britain and France throughout the 30s
>gets Austria
>gets Sudetenland
>invades Poland
>then invades rest of czechoslavakia
>invades and occupies france, Brits are forced to retreat and stay on their island

So at this point, Hitler controls fucking Europe. Not only does he have all this territory, but Italy in the south is his ally, Spain on the western part is on good friendly fascist terms with him, and the soviets in the east are in a non aggression pact with him.

Then he tries to finish off the brits at this point, but his airforce gets BTFO. Then after this, he decides to invade the USSR. The USA wasnt really the turning point in him losing.

they cant. This is just my theory before anyone jumps down my throat, but the reason hitler had so much initial success is because he was from a hivemind death cult group. He had no value for human life so he had no problem basically zerg rushing his way to the top, and Germany had the highest population in europe at the time, while the French and British and Polish did value human life, and eventually reached their breaking point.

Then he just ran into someone who was the exact same as him, someone who had no value for human life and would just zerg rush his way to victory, but who alos had way more people at his disposal. And yeah, I know the soviets didnt just "zerg rush"

Germany was constantly failing to invade Britain, wasting loads of manpower and resources on trying to take the island. The way I see it that's when it all went to shit for the Nazis. They kept loosing against the Brits and the USSR was gearing for war next door waiting for them to waste their resources so they could strike and conquer Europe themselves. That eventually lead to Germany striking Russia first which ended up in failure because they were too late and had already spent too much.

At that point it was obvious Germany had no chance of recover, the USA joined in to prevent the Russians from swallowing everything all the way to France. If the Germans blitzed through England like they did with France I doubt they would've been stopped by anyone else.

> Alternate Universe
>Nazi party is not communist, but Hitler is less retarded im this timeline so he accepts Stalin into the axis.
>Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Hirohito sign a pact.
> Stalin and Hirohito divide China into their sphere of influence
> Hitler and Stalin sign the same treaty as in our timeline
> Hitler attack France and the UK with Soviet support.
> Lebenstraum is now in France and not Slavic lands..

The biggest mistake of Hitler was attacking the soviets, the USA supported everyone anyways, and they were todo fight the japs anyways.

Gringos just diverted the German forces from defending their homeland, but, the Soviet rape storm was unleashed ar that time anyways.

the whole reason nazis moved east is because slavic peoples were retarded apes basically, or worse, asiatic mongrels who needed some overlord race. Under communism, it was jews, but it should be germans since that land rightfully belongs to the ancient aryan race anyway. Plus slavs are weak pushovers, but under jewish communist leadership, they possed the greatest threat to europe. Jews could mobilize these monkeys into a powerful army and invade europe to spread their poison and that shit needs to be killed in the cradle

That was their thinking

And they were mistaken and failed, that was their undoing.

For that reason i said, with a less retarded Hitler, an alliance with the soviets was a lógic step, Russia has a lot of manpower, use that at your favor and you can win any european war.

German tech + Soviet Manpower and resources = Axis víctory.

The Germans had no way of threatening Britain. They had failed during Barbarossa with basically no US help to the USSR. The Commonwealth and Soviet Union industrial output and manpower reserves still dwarf the Axis powers. So, no.

America fought in North Africa, and in addition to providing everyone else the neccesary supplies to beat germany, we orchestrated the collapse of their western front with a massive and well organized onslaught.

I dont honestly see Nazism and Stalinism as particularly different, if they stopped with the fear mongering and childish name-calling they probably could have gotten along and realized they had a lot of common interests.

Holy shit, this. It's so nice to see how someone observes, that how it was in fact the Germans who literally Zerg rushed everyone, and when that stopped working, they just lost.

Anyone have the military history visualized video with the one that shows the soviet union raising 850 divisions?

IT WAS DONE THROUGH TACTICS AND HIGH CLASS GENTLEMAN LIKE WARFARE AND ARYAN WILLPOWER UND SCHEISSE YOU UNTERMENCH

Germany would have won the 2WW

>superior tech
>tfw tanks are to superior to penetrate enemy tanks

>professional troops
Too bad most of them were dead within a year, meanwhile the Soviets were only losing poorly trained conscripts as opposed to experienced veterans.

>better equipment
When Operation Barbarossa was launched the Soviets had over a 3 to 1 numerical superiority in tanks and aircraft. In general the German army had a poor ratio of AFVs to soldiers throughout the war not to mention that both the US and USSR had semi-automatic rifles long before Germany.

>long and successful martial history
Name one war Germany won against a European country.

>hyper efficient industry
>tfw industry is to efficient to keep up with enemy production

>Name one war Germany won against a European country.
Franco-Prussian war

Japan wouldn't be taking shit from Russia. Not only they weren't able to, they didn't even want it.

Technically not Germany

Germany had an uphill battle even before the Soviets entered the picture, the fact they were able to shrek the French and Brits was a pretty surprising thing, so the fact Germany even did as well as it did was pretty unlikely. When the Soviets entered the picture Hitler had a very long shot at succeeding, and everything would have had to go perfectly for it to work, and it didn't. When the US entered the picture then Germany had basically no chance at all.

A lot of things could have gone differently to make the Axis have a better chance, but 'what-ifs' are naturally speculative: 'What if Italy was competent?', 'What if Spain had joined the Axis?', etc.

the germany troops with the japanese army would got invading the ussr

>set your economy around Conquest
>conquer Europe and Russia
>have nothing else to fight anymore
>economy dies
>Germany loses out in the end

Can you be more wrong. it's fundamentally different ideologies and societal structures. Fascism is capitalism on attack mode, got rid of any democratic limits, with big emphasis on chauvinism.

Any question more?

Germany power

>URSS
Union of Republics Soviet Socialist?

Yes. Lend-Lease equipment did not begin arriving in large quantities until late 1943. Indeed, the bulk of it did not reach the Soviets until 1944-1945. By then, the Soviets had some significant accomplishments under their belts and were well on their way to winning the war. Accomplishments owed to nobody else's assistance:

Beat back the Germans in the Battle of Moscow (December, 1941)
Won the Battle of Stalingrad (winter, 1942-1943)
Won the Battle of Kursk (July, 1943)

Kursk was the last German strategic offensive on the Eastern Front. From that point on, Germany was continually on the defensive and in a steady retreat that ended in Berlin 2 years later. And that point had been reached by the Soviets, largely on their own.

The Allies' Lend-Lease certainly helped speed up the Red Army's advance, and the second front in 1944 helped divert significant German forces away from the Eastern Front. But by 1943 and the Red Army's victory in the Battle of Kursk, the broad outline of the war had already been defined, and Germany was well on the way towards losing the war in the East.

At the end of the day, 4 out of 5 Germans who died in the war died on the Eastern Front. Would that extra 5th German killed by the Western Allies have made a difference if thrown on the Eastern Front? It is possible, but certainly not inevitable. It is just as possible that he would have simply become additional grist for that insatiable mill.

It should also be noted that the USSR was not even a major recipient of Lend-Lease. the British got 3 times as much Lend-Lease as did the Soviets, even though their contribution to winning the war was significantly smaller than that of the Soviets.

>well on their way to winning the war
They had thoroughly defeated the german invasion, but without american/british material support there is no way they could have realistically invaded europe in turn

Where did my thread go?

Where?

There are ways germany could have won in the eastern front
the germans of ww1 were in no hurry to reach either petrograd or moscow, and knowing the unpopularity of the central government to the outlying territories quite easily set up rump states willing to share in the task of supplying the german army. That was something that could have been easily done to the soviet union, had the war been directed by someone other than Hitler and that nazi party.
Often it's not the ground level where one loses a war, but simply political goals making ground level victory impossible in the first place.

ussr for latin countries. I could not tell you why it's being used in this context.

The only way to win is to turn Barbarossa into a defensive victory for Germany in 43.

Everything hinges on the year 1942,if the Axis had played their cards right up until that point, they could have forced the Soviets into a favorable peace treaty for them, in which they keep Ukraine,Baltics, and caucasus Russia.

lolno

The clash with USSR was inevitable

...

They might've fought the UK and USSR to a stalemate, but then they'd have had most of central Europe to occupy, and as Afghanistan and Iraq has shown counter-insurgency just doesn't work.

By the end of 1941 germany was destined to lose.

While the soviets and allies could've potentially held on for long enough to draft a peace I doubt the war would've turned as decisively without US logistical support.

Russia in particular was incredibly dependant on western technology, factory tools and logistical lines to the extent that a significant amount of their airforce and the majority of their supply trucks were foreign. The amount of good the factory equipment/technology did was not really quantifiable unless someone can find an accurate depiction of soviet production before and after but i'm certain that was another decisive factor in helping the soviet union.

Without all the support a peace would've been a far better alternative to the continued war, at least in the allied front.

According to this:>In all, during the war years, the USA supplied the USSR with 38,100 metal cutting lathes, and Great Britain sent the USSR 6,500 machine tools and 104 metal presses. During the period 1941-45, 115,400 metal cutting lathes were produced in the Soviet Union, that is, 2.6 times more than were provided by Lend-Lease. In actuality, however, if you take the value of the index, then the role of Western machine tools turns out decisive - they were far more complex and valuable than the Soviet. During 1941-45 alone, industrial machines and equipment valued at 607 million dollars were supplied by the US to the USSR through Lend-Lease. At the present time, it is not possible to appraise the corresponding Soviet production in dollars, but one can presume that it must have been less than the value of Lend-Lease supplies, taking into consideration the higher quality and complexity of Western machine tools and other equipment. Some portion of the equipment, in particular, factories for the production of rolled aluminum, arrived during the concluding stage of the war and played their role not only in military efforts, but also in the restoration of the Soviet economy. Without the delivery of Western equipment, Soviet industry not only could not have increased the output of weaponry and combat equipment, but itself could not have put right the output of weaponry and combat equipment, for which the special types of rolled steel and ferro-alloys provided by the US were used.

They would've moved to space then

Thanks for pointing this out, I'll go read the link now.

Although the Germans now knew where they were being attacked from, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. The German tanks got bogged down when they moved off the road onto the surrounding soft ground making them easy targets. Twenty-two German tanks and two towed artillery pieces were knocked out by Kolobanov's tank before it ran out of ammunition.[1] Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks had been destroyed by the five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

For their actions, Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner and Andrej Usov was awarded the Order of Lenin.

The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush on advantageous ground and superiority of weapons. Most of the German tanks in this battle were light tanks armed with only 37 mm guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1. After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 156 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the armor. The narrower tracks of the German tanks caused them to become trapped in the swampy ground.

How Germany could win the war
>Step 1:get rid Hitler(optional but recomended)
>Step 2:Stop producing 50 fucking diferent variants of equipment
>Step 3:war first genocide later
>Step 4:win north africa first do Blitz and battale of brittain later
>Step 5:be Nice to Stalin
>Step 6:use italy like austria-hungary was used in ww1 less italian comanders more german ones
>Step 7:mass produce fighters and ground attackers fuck bombeiros
>Step 8:win the Battles of brittain
>Step 9:operation sealion
>Step 10:tell Japan to go suck a dick
>Step 11:give trotsky protection and use him for anti-stalin propaganda
>Step 12:invade the USSR
>Step 13:go for moskow and Kiev all else can wait
>Step 14:Gewinn??

How will you perform Operation Sealion against a naval powerhouse? Also how will you achieve all of this without the USSR intervening

Japan should be held on to for the invasion of Russia Germany hits east and Japan marches through china to hit Russia from the south

Well for one Japanese logistics were absolute dogshit, Kwantung Army was undersupplied so you'd have to sacrifice men from the Chinese front or Pacific theatre, thus making your fronts even weaker, combined with the absolutely nothing that is Eastern Russia Japan would have a hard time doing anything.
>Japanese logistics tended to collapse under pressure, as happened both in New Guinea and at Guadalcanal. Even the Centrifugal Offensive was operated on a logistical shoestring, and 14 Army in the Philippines nearly had its logistics collapse when the campaign went beyond the single month allowed for it in Japanese planning.
>When war broke out, the Japanese Navy had managed to stockpile about 6 million tons of oil. This was thought to be sufficient for the first year of war, but consumption greatly exceeded prewar projections. The Army estimated it would require 800,000 tons per year while Navy requirements were estimated at 2.5 million tons per year and civilian requirements at 1.8 million tons per year.
I don't have statistics on troop deployment but I'm certain USSR also had men deployed near the Manchuria border so good luck.

Im in the camp of believing the Germany has no chance of winning
but the soviet would be so bloodied that they have no chance for their steamrolling of Europe much later
Both countries would be superbly exhausted which will make a ripe condition for a resurgent [/spoiler]Ottoman Empire[/spoiler]

Stalin like Hitler just play along and get free resorces .
If you get airsperiority over the channel being a naval power house isnt going to help,not to mention the amount of u-boats Germany could field to secure the channel

Isnt Britain both outproducing aircraft and training more airmen

They may be bad at management but it's better to open 2 fronts and divide up the soviets even if the japs don't make any progress they'll weaken the Eastern front that's my take on it

>If you get airsperiority over the channel
Britain outproduced Germany in aircraft production and they were fighting on their home turf. Germany's fighter aircraft struggled with operational range, barely being able to reach Britain and fly back for fuel. How do you expect to win Battle of Britain? Sheer numbers? Jerries already tried that.

Sure counted as Germany when France decided to be cunts towards Germany after WW1.

We can't debate how much they'd "weaken the Eastern Front" since I don't have information on USSR army deployment with me right now, and the fact that Japan would harm herself by sending troops against the Soviet Union. Since, again, you'd have to resupply the Kwantung army (which was stripped) and you'd somehow have to deal with all of the hell that would be Russia + dealing with your other fronts that have been weakened + demands exceeding supply.

Not to mention you'd somehow have to resupply this Kwantung army with aforementioned logistics as it advanced and make sure it's prepared for combat, otherwise they'll die when sneezed at.

Yes because the german could bit get their shit toghther they had a lot of different variants of the same aircraft and they were not focoused on producing fighter aircraft because Hitler was retarded and thought the Blitz could do anything

>win north africa first
not happening unless you teleport a railroad in or you can keep and hold tobruk while its port capacity is increased by 4 times

The germans could
Make air supply more efective and send supply ships to Dara and Benghazi
Or in a more unrealistic options get Turkey to join the war

seriously, some days on Veeky Forums I wish we never fought and instead just let them get buttfucked by hitler and/or stalin

>Make air supply more efective
Britain had aerial superiority though, and I've no clue how you'd make it more effective without aerial superiority since Stalingrad and the Demyansk pocket proved, that it won't work if you don't have aerial superiority.

>Make air supply more efective
even less effective than using trucks to ship fuel across a thousand kilometers
>and send supply ships to Dara and Benghazi
italians were the ones sending supply ships, 80% of supplies went to tripoli since it was the largest port by far, and even then it had to supply 25,000 tons more than its capacity to troops leading to supplies never being shipped and sitting in italian warves

A good read on logistics in North Africa
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
>The Axis did not have access to adequate port facilities to support their forces. Capacities to sustain their efforts were rarely achieved. When convoys eventually arrived, they were at ports too far to the rear to be of any benefit,