The soviets had infinite amount of soldiers they could throw at the germans

not necessarily

you could argue that germany could still defeat britain and not declare war on usa

if germany beat russia then it would focus all on britain and there's not much chance of britain resisting then

and if britain gets knocked out of the war then the usa can't invade either

and that's when ww2 becomes a bit geographically awkward

??? cant be serious

>you could argue that germany could still defeat britain
How? Literally how? They don't have the navy, they dont have the pilots, they don't have the oil, rubber and other resources, and they can't match the man-power of the Empire. What plausible path to victory do you think the Nazis had?

>they dont have the pilots, they don't have the oil, rubber and other resources,
not by 1944 or 45

> What plausible path to victory do you think the Nazis had?

read the post again lad

germany was king in 1v1s and it only lost because it had to split its forces into numerous fronts.

>how could germany beat britun hurr
if it was able to launch 1,000 aircraft bomb raids on cities behind moscow im pretty sure it could resume another battle of britain in 43 or 44 after defeating russia

>considering the soviets had no reserves in 41

The soviets mobilized around 20million soldiers in the year 41

Germany never stood a chance

CRY CRY KRAUT

And Caucasefags + steppefags + forestfags + arcticfags were less than 50 millions? Man, this is a void continent.

Not him, but do you not fucking realize that the British alone outbuilt the Luftwaffe in planes? Not to mention the 1,000+ plane raids that the British did on the Germans (with heavier bombers than the Germans ever historically fielded) didn't break the German will to fight. What basis do you have to assert that the reverse, even if it could somehow happen, would be true?

alright, lets suppose they don't create more aircraft or invent the me262 or will to fight doesn't break down in britain

ww2 would probably last 10 years at a stalemate with germans being able to focus on the west entirely

> or invent the me262
You are now aware that the British had their own jets. They actually declined to use them because jet fighters in WW2 had shitty performance, only really excelling in "not being shot down", and not actually say, stopping bombing raids.

>ww2 would probably last 10 years at a stalemate with germans being able to focus on the west entirely
And you're basing this on what? Your profound ignorance of reality? What happens when the Americans join in? When the bombing raids intensify as they did historically come 1944? When the oil and transportation systems completely break down? The Germans might have a couple of million troops, but if they can't actually manevuer them around because railways all across Europe are in shambles, it doesn't mean a damn bit.

Or, given how much of their food and other necessities they needed to import from the USSR and how that prompted their own invasion to just seize it; in absence of an Eastern Front, all it takes is diplomatic work from FDR and/or Churchill to replace Germany as the USSR's trading partner and the German sphere of influence can no longer feed itself.

so they would have focuesed more on an air defense war thus preventing large scale destruction as there was in 44 and 45

>what happens when the americans join in

unrestricted submarine warfare to starve britain

germany wouldn't have a food problem if it had its lebensraum unlike britain which could have seen a commie revolution there.

The Germans had no long range bombers? Why?
This was the most crucial time for them to be used to bomb the factories and infrastructure behind the Urals.

The Germans never communicated or co-operated with the Japanese to implement in the Kantokuen plan for a planned invasion in September 1941. This would have blocked the Pacific lend lease which would have been a great boon for the Germans.

The Germans wasted precious time in the summer by trying to smooth out salients that were pointless to defend, there were very few maneuvers after Rostov , and army group centre and north had halted to almost a standstill. But as I said there was no point in holding such a long line in front of Moscow because there was no way for the Soviets to wage a successful counter-attack at thee time and the land they were occupying was useless.

The Germans biggest blunder, dividing army group South and adding another objective apart from caucasus oil fields, namely Stalingrad. But the goal should have always been pulling Luftflotte 4 and bombing Baku and possibly the Caspian oil fields, Baku accounted for 80% of the Soviet Union's oil reserves, it would have been a veritable disaster for them. Why go for Stalingrad at all when you know this? Just focus army group center and army group south for a maneuver and push for southern Russia and crush whatever the Russians throw at you, they attack and you defend in this scenario.

>unrestricted submarine warfare to starve britain
They tried that and failed. British tonnage went up, and Germany could not replace the lost U Boats.
We're talking about the British Empire at its peak lad. 1/3 of the world's population, 1/4 of the land and the biggest navy on the seas. It would take me than a few jet fighters and a snazzy hugo boss overcoat you know

>so they would have focuesed more on an air defense war thus preventing large scale destruction as there was in 44 and 45
They were already enormously focused on air defense. Reichdefense had more fighters than any other front, and they were still swept aside. Maybe they could hold off the UK, but the U.S. has a massive air industry and will sweep aside their resistance.
don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

>unrestricted submarine warfare to starve britain
They had that from day 1. It was in no way close enough to "starve britain", didn't even stop them from ramping up their war economy.

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

>germany wouldn't have a food problem if it had its lebensraum unlike britain which could have seen a commie revolution there.
You can't have your lebensraum without an Eastern front. And even if you somehow "beat Russia" (also impossible), you're still going to have a colossal occupation force, given how vast the former USSR is, and all the losses you'd necessarily absorb in subduing them.

>The Germans had no long range bombers? Why?
Because they were more focused on a CAS approach, and quite honestly, it proved a much better investment than massive strategic bombardment would have; you're not winning campaigns in France, or doing much to the Soviets with long range strat bombers.

>This was the most crucial time for them to be used to bomb the factories and infrastructure behind the Urals.
Seriously, look at German war production. It takes YEARS of strategic bombing, by combined economies roughly 5 times that of Germany's, to see measurable results. Even then, it is horribly expensive, bloody, and required the wholesale redesigning of aircraft with far longer operational ranges than Germany ever historically developed, and which still wouldn't be enough to go transuralic from Poland.

>The Germans never communicated or co-operated with the Japanese to implement in the Kantokuen plan for a planned invasion in September 1941.
GIven how Soviet troop counts in the region went up, not down, between June of '41 and the end of '42, I'm not sure how much this helps.

>This would have blocked the Pacific lend lease which would have been a great boon for the Germans.
And if they send that stuff by an alternate route? Say, the Persian corridor?

> But as I said there was no point in holding such a long line in front of Moscow because there was no way for the Soviets to wage a successful counter-attack at thee time and the land they were occupying was useless.
Have you seriously not heard of things like Vyzama? Yelnya?

> But the goal should have always been pulling Luftflotte 4 and bombing Baku and possibly the Caspian oil fields
First off, even if you do bomb it, the Soviets can field defending planes there, and it's too far away to provide escorting fighters. Secondly, the Germans wanted to seize the oil and use it to help ease their enormous fuel problems. Bombing it to bits doesn't help that.

except the empire wasn't much good

see the far east and north africa

yeah thats what i was saying if the ussr was defeated it would be able to focus more on britain or try and get it round negotiations

This pic is only Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Balts are missing and were occupied. Siberia is empty.

Defeating the USSR, even in a best case scenario, is going to take years and be horrifically bloody and expensive, as well as requiring enormous occupation costs. It might extend the war by a couple of years, but it is not going to end it, and it is not going to stop the salient fact that America has an overwhelmingly powerful military economy and can crush you as long as the will is there. Which it was. I wasn't even going into the enormous likelihood of the atomic bomb being thrown at Germany come 1945, which it certainly would have if Germany is in any sort of position to offer resistance at the time of the Trinity test.

This meme originally had an Irish pepe in the middle; you can see this "German" pepe still has a Guinness sticker and an Easter Rising pin on his shirt. They only changed his head.
>implying antifa even exists in Ireland
fucking /pol/ I swear to god

CRAAAAAAWLING IIIIIIN MY SKIIIIIIIN

and what good is a big industrial complex if you have nowhere to land the troops?

D-Day would get BTFO or at best would be a gallipoli type battle.

the americans wouldn't have bombed germany though would they?

even if they tried to the luftwaffe would stop it, even if one managed to nuke a german city that wouldn't end the war and the germans would adapt or learn from it.

The japs surrendered after the bombs because they had no army or air force left.

Wow, this needs its own thread, what happens in the white areas?

Yes, and?

Fuckhuge forrest/tundra. It's pretty much wilderness with only eskymos and occasional miners and hunters.

>then the usa can't invade either
Invade Ireland by surprise>Invade Britain>Invade France

>and what good is a big industrial complex if you have nowhere to land the troops?
You will land the troops, likely in more or less the same place they did historically.

>D-Day would get BTFO or at best would be a gallipoli type battle.
No it wouldn't. Historically, the Transport Plan fucked up the German forces in France something awful. If they went at it for another year or two in preparation, the idea of a German counterattack, or even containment, becomes laughable.
sci-hub.bz/10.1177/096834459600300404

>the americans wouldn't have bombed germany though would they?
Of course they would have. They were strategic bombing like mad conventiaonally. IT wasn't until post- Korea that the Atomic bomb had this mystic significance that it elevated past an ordinary weapon. Hell, the Manhattan project was developed primarily aimed at Germany, not Japan.

>even if they tried to the luftwaffe would stop it,
You didn't read the Caldwell link, did you? Go do that now.

>even if one managed to nuke a german city that wouldn't end the war and the germans would adapt or learn from it.
And when they turn out 3 a month come late 1945? And more even further? And are nuking multiple cities every month? nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

>The japs surrendered after the bombs because they had no army or air force left.
The japs surrendered after 2 bombs. The Americans were capable of building and delivering many more. The Japanese also did not have a military that was convinced their leader was bringing the country to ruin and attempted to stage a coup against them.

But this is a wildly inaccurate chart, what is the actual source for this image?

would the brits let america nuke a european country though?

nuking nips isn't as bad as a european country

even churchill probably wouldn't let it happen until like 1948 or something later

then it would get political

how would germany just surrender after defeating europe and having a strong army?

if a D-Day were to happen then they would have more men and tanks to meet it than they did.

not forgetting that most if the army was in the east with another part of it in italy and whatever was left was to fight the allies in normandy.

It wouldn't be possible to have a successful overlord in this situation

Are you kidding me? The German had already designed such a bomber but they continuously revising it and it never entered mass production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_bomber

Even if it did not do massive damage, bombing infrastructure and especially chemical production plants or metal processing plants would have been painful even in the 1/10 hit chance, and as another poster said the Germans waged 1000 bombing runs behind Moscow.

In terms of the Kantokuen plan , you are incorrect , manpower and tanks were continually being siphoned off west, but it does say that in the potentiality of an attack they would have beefed it up. Only problem was the Japanese tank inferiority, but this would not be much of an issues as the Soviet tanks very spread out in the far east, and naval and aerial superiority would be easy to establish.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen#Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_the_combatants

>And if they send that stuff by an alternate route? Say, the Persian corridor?

There was no way to send more stuff at a higher rate through the Persian corridor, which is why lend lease was split into 3 avenues.

>First off, even if you do bomb it, the Soviets can field defending planes there, and it's too far away to provide escorting fighters. Secondly, the Germans wanted to seize the oil and use it to help ease their enormous fuel problems. Bombing it to bits doesn't help that.

Which is why I said have both Army group centre and Army group south go for a southern defensive maneuver towards Caucasus, and pull the entire of Luftflotte 4 closer to Caucasus, the Germans had absolute air superiority over Stalingrad so the Caucasus would not be much different.

And bombing it helps immensely because as mentioned 80% of the soviet oil comes from there, it wasn't vital for the Germans to have moe oil at the time, the Germans captured Maikop in 1942 and also had Romania and Norway. forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=78524

>would the brits let america nuke a european country though?
Do you have ANYTHING to suggest they wouldn't?

>how would germany just surrender after defeating europe and having a strong army?
WEll, for one thing, atomic hellfire. For another, you have a million or so troops in Italy, and god knows how many more flooding into France, assuming they haven't progressed further.

>if a D-Day were to happen then they would have more men and tanks to meet it than they did.
And the Anglo-Allies would also have more force, if necessary. What part of "much larger war economy" are you not getting? And why are you ignoring the effects of the transport plan?

>Do you have ANYTHING to suggest they wouldn't?
Churchills fondness of history and cultured europe

he offered refuge to german monarchs and other aristocratic types in germany after all the british monarchy and germany were pretty much the same, im not too sure churchill would let yanks just nuke it all

>hat part of "much larger war economy" are you not getting?
the part where they manage to land enough troops and tanks to not get thrown straight back in the sea or even bombed back.

Even in this timeline overlord was a huge strain logistically against a mere quarter of the strained german army

>Are you kidding me? The German had already designed such a bomber but they continuously revising it and it never entered mass production.
So they didn't have it on the battlefield. And you've completely ignored the aspects about actually getting it to target without being shot down, given how the Germans had no fighters that could escort at those ranges. Nor did the Germans have the economic resources to build up thousands of 4 engined bombers as well as keep up with everything else they needed and were perennially short of.

>Even if it did not do massive damage, bombing infrastructure and especially chemical production plants or metal processing plants would have been painful even in the 1/10 hit chance,
Yeah, that's why Cologne was a ghost town after 1942. Oh wait, no, that's not true at all. The Soviets have repair teams you know, and again, they can put in fighters to defend the targets that the Germans have no ability to oppose.

>and as another poster said the Germans waged 1000 bombing runs behind Moscow.
I'm aware of no such raids. Can you cite to some? Not to mention that German civilian raiding was done with converted attack craft for the most part, not carrying the same kind of tonnage as a Lancaster. Building up 1000+ of these Ural bombers (assuming you get them to work) is going to be absurdly expensive.

>There was no way to send more stuff at a higher rate through the Persian corridor,
[citation needed]

>which is why lend lease was split into 3 avenues.
No, the Persian corridor was the longest trip of the three major avenues. That does not mean more cannot be pushed through it.

>Which is why I said have both Army group centre and Army group south go for a southern defensive maneuver towards Caucasus, and pull the entire of Luftflotte 4 closer to Caucasus, the Germans had absolute air superiority over Stalingrad so the Caucasus would not be much different.
Look up the term "operational range". Then come back and realize why a defensive operation isn't going to help you, no matter how many Luftflottes you bring down. Also, enjoy losing Rzhev.

>And bombing it helps immensely because as mentioned 80% of the soviet oil comes from there, it wasn't vital for the Germans to have moe oil at the time,
Yes it was. history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf Pay especial attention to Part 3, Section 8.

>the Germans captured Maikop in 1942 and also had Romania and Norway.
Maikop was destroyed by the Soviets pulling out. And Romania and Norway are enormously expensive to ship from; the Germans were using a liter of fuel to ship a second liter to the front at some points.

But this is actually.a really accurate graph and learn to Google faggot

Colonial troops were more than a match for the Germans in Italy and North Africa, and the Indian army under Slim routed the Japanese in Burma. Not sure what your point is. A mortar fired by an Indian kills you just as dead.

the point is the brits surrendered in the east and didn't win much in africa until the americans joined

Apart from el Alamein.
The British hadn't even begun to tap the well of manpower they had in Asia and Africa. They would always win a long war against Germany. Logistics count. Germany has no plausible path to victory. They couldn't even get Gibraltar or suez

Except it isn't. Conventional sources have German military losses at 4-5 million and Soviet losses at 8 million plus, not 13 million.

You can't use Google and you have no source other than an image you saw one day and actually believed without checking.

It's probably counting some 3 million POWs exterminated by Germans.

>2017 CY
>user discovers Siberia

>Churchills fondness of history and cultured europe
The same Churchill who ordered the wholesale destruction of German cities in the dehousing program?

Read. The. Link. sci-hub.bz/10.1177/096834459600300404

>Even in this timeline overlord was a huge strain logistically against a mere quarter of the strained german army
I don't think you understand what logistics means. Also, check out page 71 of this. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf You are severely underestimating how much of the late war German forces the western Allies were fighting.

Don't forget Crusader. In fact, the only real time Rommel beat a British force in North Africa that wasn't an overextended under strength one at the end of their own supply tether was at Gazala.