How do you think an Allied loss at D-Day would've effected the war?

What would the Soviets have actually done if they somehow ended up in control of Italy? Would they have killed the Pope?

That's not really true. Force allocations by the time of D-Day were roughly split east vs West. It just doesn't look that way since the force put against the Western Allies was overwhelmingly Luftwaffe, while the force put against the Soviets was overwhelmingly Heer.

that's hard to say. churchill said exactly what you said, that the russians will be really weak by the end of ww2, and would be crushed in a supposedly quick war(operation unthinkable en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable). the opposite was true though, and the soviets instead emerged as one of the dominant superpowers. it wouldn't be much different if the war kept dragging on since the soviets by 1945 were already advancing across germany so quickly, and stalin would stop at nothing to spread communism throughout europe

not really, believe it or not stalin was more lenient towards religion and other conservative things that were outlawed when russia turned red
yes, but during 1942 and early 1943 they were able to put all of their units on the soviet border, it's only when italy fucked up that they had to start positioning units elsewhere and start thinking about an allied invasion

> yes, but during 1942 and early 1943 they were able to put all of their units on the soviet border, it's only when italy fucked up that they had to start positioning units elsewhere and start thinking about an allied invasion

That's still the Heer thou. Kriegsmarine was a 90% western front affair, and starting from mid 42, more and more luftwaffe units were diverted to the Western Front. Fighter squadrons in particular were transferred to deal with the Combined Bomber Offensive, at a murderous cost to both pilot and airframe attrition.

Dragoon was probably slightly helped by the fact that D-day was pulled off about two months beforehand

>implying luftwaffe can beat this

>yes, but during 1942 and early 1943 they were able to put all of their units on the soviet border, it's only when italy fucked up that they had to start positioning units elsewhere and start thinking about an allied invasion
What the hell does that have to do with the distribution of military assets come the summer of 1944?

Not as much as you might think. The Transit plan meant that it was damn hard for the Wehrmacht to move about in any organized fashion.

Allies are delayed in capturing France, and are barely across the Rhine by the time the USSR takes Berlin. Germany most likely gets divided at the Rhine and Weser. Soviet losses become slightly higher, and Operation Unthinkable moves slightly closer to reality.

if nazi germany couldn't defeat the ussr after 3 years, then it's highly unlikely they would have been able to make any sort of comeback looking at how they failed to win any strategic victories after 1941, and eventually was forced to be on the defensive due to them murdering all their manpower in stalingrad

Are you a trained parrot?

Italy didn't fuckup in North Africa. The only reason the Axis had a shot in North Africa was because of the Regina Marina. The position for the Axis is pretty much hopeless from the beginning anyway with the route they chose. It doesnt help that Mussolini and Hitler get caught up in retarded fights in the Balkans and Russia. The only hope the Axis has is if they knock Britain out. No Britain means that most likely the US won't get involved or at least not against the European axis

yes
people from /pol/(reddit) or wehraboos need to be repeated things several times to understand things thoroughly, and I am simply working in your favour so you can more clearly understand what I am trying to comprehend
indeed, looking at how most of the world's resources was in allied hands, the axis powers didn't really stand that much of a chance from the beginning. looking at what they had, it's amazing germany was even able to capitulate france, let alone getting as far as they did into the USSR

They certainly can, considering approximately 23,000 out of 36,182 IL-2's built were lost. That's an extremely high rate, far higher than even the 4 engined heavy bombers, which were also lacking in escorts before 1944. Before the Luftwaffe lost air superiority on the Eastern Front, IL-2 missions were very often one way trips; they were simply too slow to penetrate past air patrols, and if they got to the target, they were too slow to get back out.

North Africa should never have been a thing in the first place for the Axis. Italy should have realized how indefensible their libyan colonies were an just focused on preventing an allied invasion by contesting sea superiority with the Regia Marina. Then the ground troops, supplies, and German reinforcements would have gone to the Eastern Front and actually do something.

>people from /pol/(reddit) or wehraboos need to be repeated things several times to understand things thoroughly, and I am simply working in your favour so you can more clearly understand what I am trying to comprehend
Then why do you simply repeat irrelevant information to the point at hand? Because if anyone's being the idiotic /pol/tard, it's you. You made a statement, which was false. I corrected you on it. You responded with a completely irrelevant side point, and act as if this means anything. Your ability to write grammatically correct but completely meaningless stuff makes me wonder about your intellectual capabilities, which are more avian than human.

Of course it should have been a thing for the Axis. If you bothered to look at a simple deployment chart, you'd know that there were never more than 7 German divisions in North Africa at any one time (and most of those were in 1943, not when they were attacking), while deployment to Italy proper immediately shot up to over 25. The reasons, of course, are obvious, and yet I'm sure they escape you.

The USSR would not have beaten the third Reich without UK/USA support.

the luftwaffe was already in shambles by the end of 1942 as the soviet air force gains air superiority by the time of operation uranus. that's why they relocated all their planes to the western front because germany knows it doesn't stand a chance against IL-2, let alone any other plane (just look at battle of britain)
i'm not sure what you want me to tell you. even if nazi germany was able to concentrate it's shambling army, airforce, and navy combined towards the eastern front in 1944, they still would have lost since they already had 100% of their forces dedicated towards the eastern front beforehand, when it was even more powerful than it was in 1944. the answer is implied, but there you go.
kek

>i'm not sure what you want me to tell you. even if nazi germany was able to concentrate it's shambling army, airforce, and navy combined towards the eastern front in 1944, they still would have lost since they already had 100% of their forces dedicated towards the eastern front beforehand, when it was even more powerful than it was in 1944. the answer is implied, but there you go.
I would like you to say something that is factually accurate and germane to the discussion, instead of things that are true but irrelevant. We can pass along random factoids all day, if you want, but it won't accomplish very much.

Did you know that an American infantry division by the time of Operation Cobra fielded more tanks than a German panzer division of the same date did?

Also, Luftwaffe losses only start to outpace production (yes, even in personnel) by 1943, not 1942. The Soviets did not have frontwide air superiority, and you have cause and effect backwards; they were able to attain air superiority (later) because of the hatchet job the WAllies were doing to the Luftwaffe. don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Or, in a very tl;dr, since you don't seem all that bright, the western front was enormously more important than you're giving it credit for.

>I want something factually accurate
ok, let us take a nice relaxing journey to wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army
'The Red Army is credited as being the decisive land force in the Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II. During operations on the Eastern Front, it fought 75%–80% of the German land forces (Wehrmacht Heer and Waffen-SS) deployed in the war, inflicting the vast majority of all German losses and ultimately capturing the German capital.[2]'
something tells me that if the soviets were able to take on 80% of the entire wehrmacht, they would have no trouble finishing the last 20% that the western front took on. yes, the western front eased some pressure on the soviets, but at the same time the ussr was only growing in strength from 1941 while germany was struggling to find people to put in its army, eventually being full of recruits. that's why they started to have around the same casualty rate as the soviets later in the war. sorry i am not as enlightened and bright as you to not represent something that is quite obvious

>land forces
key term there retard-kun

t. wermacht larper

>I want something factually accurate
Do you take statements out of context because you're too stupid to understand them, or because you're dishonest? Do you not understand what happens when you put "and" in between two clauses? Or shall we just continue trading facts? Did you know that Britain alone captured more PoWs from Germany than the USSR?

>something tells me that if the soviets were able to take on 80% of the entire wehrmacht, they would have no trouble finishing the last 20% that the western front took on.
Like this, which is wrong. Here, have something a bit better than Wikipedia. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf The important pages (on the PDF count, not the page count) are 70-73.

it is factually accurate and germane to the discussion though. i can sit here typing for an hour and give you an essay on why the germans still wouldn't be able to take on the ussr and pinpoint every single little reason, or i can not beat around the bush and give you a general reason why they wouldn't be able to accomplish that, since i have better things i could be doing. i doubt you would want to sit here and write me an essay how you think the germans would be able to win the war without allied intervention either, but if you do want to then be my guest.
as for your pdf, i'm not sure how that correlates to anything. if germany would want to reproduce the successes it made during barbarossa, then it would have to have a land force over double the size of the red army(as shown in above chart); or else it faces overextension as it did during case blue. it's very implausible they would be able to recruit another 3 million soldiers to even match the soviets numbers, and if they aren't attacking then they are facing an inevitable demise

>i doubt you would want to sit here and write me an essay how you think the germans would be able to win the war without allied intervention either, but if you do want to then be my guest.
Once again, missing the point entirely.

>as for your pdf, i'm not sure how that correlates to anything.
You really don't see how the commitment of 40% of their ground forces and the overwhelming majority of their air forces might matter to things? Do you think that attack and defense on an operational level are just the same thing in the inverse? Did you ever stop and think about the massive logistical effort that the Soviets needed to push the front forward, since they were much more supply guzzling than the Germans were, and how attempting to do that in the face of what would actually be air inferiority if the forces that were otherwise occupied in Reich defense were committed to the Western Front?

>and if they aren't attacking then they are facing an inevitable demise
This, probably more than anything else, encapsulates just how wrong they are, or rather, ti's only right because of the extra weight dumped in by the western Front, which necessitates that Germany eliminate one of the foes facing it.

There is a difference between

>Germans win totally, parading in Moscow, Soviets eliminated
and
>Soviets win totally, parading in Berlin, Nazi Germany eliminated.
That you are completely ignoring, probably because your brain doesn't work very well. And without the Western Allies being involved, some sort of non total victory becomes a virtual certainty.

>You really don't see how the commitment of 40% of their ground forces and the overwhelming majority of their air forces might matter to things?
no. i'd ask you similiar questions; do you not realize the massive logistical effort that the germans would need to push anywhere beyond what they have already achieved? do you ever ponder the reason why they stopped towards the end of barbarossa (which happened before the winter?) do you realize how vast russia is and how pointless german planes are when they are all meant for close support and rely on plentiful amounts of airfields to work sufficiently?
>This, probably more than anything else, encapsulates just how wrong they are, or rather, ti's only right because of the extra weight dumped in by the western Front, which necessitates that Germany eliminate one of the foes facing it.
maybe I am retarded, or I just don't follow the gibberish you're writing. do you really think that germany would pull off some miraculous defence, conscript every child in germany, and make an offensive beyond the urals to capitulate the ussr?
>probably because your brain doesn't work very well
it's only mutual
>without the Western Allies being involved, some sort of non total victory becomes a virtual certainty.
really now? after what germany has done to the ussr, do you think stalin would stop at anything to destroy germany and take the territory it has occupied? I don't think you know who exactly you are dealing with here; he would have stuck it to the bitter end in the same way hitler did

>no. i'd ask you similiar questions; do you not realize the massive logistical effort that the germans would need to push anywhere beyond what they have already achieved? do you ever ponder the reason why they stopped towards the end of barbarossa (which happened before the winter?) do you realize how vast russia is and how pointless german planes are when they are all meant for close support and rely on plentiful amounts of airfields to work sufficiently?
None of this is relevant, because once again, I am not arguing how Germany will win the war, I am arguing that the likely outcome in abbsence of Western Allied intervention is some kind of stalemate..

>maybe I am retarded, or I just don't follow the gibberish you're writing. do you really think that germany would pull off some miraculous defence, conscript every child in germany, and make an offensive beyond the urals to capitulate the ussr?
No, I don't. But please, continue with your strawman.

>? after what germany has done to the ussr, do you think stalin would stop at anything to destroy germany and take the territory it has occupied? I don't think you know who exactly you are dealing with here; he would have stuck it to the bitter end in the same way hitler did
No, I'm saying that if you don't have Western Allied involvement, The Soviets cannot build up to the point where they can roll all the way to Berlin. Because now the logistical limitations are generally on the other foot; it's a lot harder to attack than it is to defend, and it's doubly difficult to do so in absence of air superiority, which is not likely without the Western Allies destroying the Luftwaffe.

>I am arguing that the likely outcome in abbsence of Western Allied intervention is some kind of stalemate..
very implausible; even hitler would be in disapproval of a stalemate and would rather continue fighting rather than see the soviets turn more powerful than it already was
>No, I'm saying that if you don't have Western Allied involvement, The Soviets cannot build up to the point where they can roll all the way to Berlin. Because now the logistical limitations are generally on the other foot; it's a lot harder to attack than it is to defend, and it's doubly difficult to do so in absence of air superiority, which is not likely without the Western Allies destroying the Luftwaffe.
I'm not disagreeing with you here; the logistics from berlin to moscow are quite vast, and are perhaps what made barbarossa such a success and failure at the same time. at the same time though attacking is generally harder when there is a massive terrain difference, and most of the terrain from berlin to moscow is either plains, steppe, or woods, of which is easier to attack through. and in a long term situation, the soviets could simply just make more infrastructure to support their armies, as they don't face destruction from partisans.
yes, air superiority would be a vital role in defending germany, but it would likely again delay inevitable demise, as the soviets will always be able to make more, as opposed to germany who barely had the resources to make more planes in the first place

Just a daily reminder that the Wehrmacht was the greatest military force in World War II, they had the most technologically-advanced Army on the planet and if they won, which by the way I don't support I don't support the Nazis, but if they won they probably would have developed laser weapons by the 1960s.

why would they continue making weapons though if there was nothing to fight against...? if anything they probably wouldn't have even reached space since there would have been no competition to do so like in our timeline

>very implausible; even hitler would be in disapproval of a stalemate and would rather continue fighting rather than see the soviets turn more powerful than it already was
Hitler's approval has nothing to do with it. The Germans cannot take the offensive, and it would be very difficult for the Soviets to do so as well. And war economies cannot be sustained indefinitely.

>yes, air superiority would be a vital role in defending germany, but it would likely again delay inevitable demise, as the soviets will always be able to make more, as opposed to germany who barely had the resources to make more planes in the first place
Overall air production between the two powers was a 1.31:1 ratio in favor of the Soviets. Given the Soviets complete disinterest in high altitude operations, and the lack of any sort of doctrine concerned with winning airspace, the idea that they would eventually win control of the skies on their efforts alone is dubious.

>Hitler's approval has nothing to do with it
are you sure though? he was in complete control of his country at that point, so much so he decided to make himself head of the army instead of his amazing generals. and the war has only dragged on for about 3 years with the ussr at 1944, looking at how the massive population increase can now support massive wars and how wars in the past have been conducted over dozens of years, the war could have waged on even into the late fifties, depending how much of a fight germany would be able to put up
>the idea that they would eventually win control of the skies on their efforts alone is dubious.
if it became that much of a problem, then it's likely that the soviets would begin an effort to develop doctrines to counter german air supremacy, and would provide an incentive to further modernize their airforce

What was 'The Transit plan'?

>Italy didn't fuckup in North Africa.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH
OPERATION COMPASS SAYS HELLO

The Anglo-American air interdiction campaign against German logistical infrastructure in France including railroads, railroad yards, fuel and ammo depots, and supply convoys.
sci-hub.bz/10.1177/096834459600300404
This is a good article on how badly it fucked over the Germans in the beginning stages of the campaign. Significantly, how the railroads were basically halted even before 6th June, the inadequate amount of ammunition reaching the front, large scale destruction of fuel depots and the poor transportation situation creating a fuel crisis, and attrition of the motor pool by air attacks.

Interesting, thanks for the source.

>he can't debunk my accurate and germane to discussion facts and now refuses to give me my (you)
something I am interested in is where you find your sources. I doubt you randomly stumble across a random essay like that browsing vkontakte, so how exactly do you find these?

If you're talking about the slapfight you had with the guy above, I'm not him.
But I usually get them through bibliographies and sources in things like books, other articles, wikipedia, etc. and searching for them in the scientific articles section of scihub (which isn't limited to articles about science)
gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/index.php

i see. you typed somewhat similar so thought you might have been that person. thanks either way

Then explain how Russia stopped Operation Barbarossa when they weren't recieving any significant aid from the US/UK