If you the Soviet Union and shrunk it down to the size of France

But kept industry, army strength, leadership etc. the same, would they still be able to defeat the Germans?

no

yes

Is the map as inaccurate?

No, they only won because they could constantly escape encirclement, retreat a 1000 miles and still be in friendly territory, while at the same time terribly extending German supply lines.

Logistics>Tactics

Would they still have the same population base? The Soviet Union at the time also heavily benefited from the third highest population in the world- Germany had slightly less then half of its population.

Yes, everything's the same except the distance Germans need to travel.

>Constantly escape encirclement
But that's wrong user. Most major battles during Barbarossa ended with the Reds getting encircled and losing hundreds of thousands of men. Getting encirclement's was not the problem for Germany, it was how big the country is and trying to occupy it all.

Germany had allies, and Soviets lost some 40-50 million people in very early period, because of occupation.

>that Stalkingrad
>those fucking european borders

No because the distance from Warsaw to Stalingrad would be a cakewalk

would hitler have won if he had cyborg warriors and russia was only a village of 1000 people? serious question btw

>the same industry

no

they would have gassed themselves with the air pollution

The Germans would have won if the us didn't intervene.. in ww1 and ww2

Germany was already losing ww1 by the time the Americans joined, they just pushed them over the edge even harder and broke their back, raised the enemies morale, and just made the war probably a few years shorter.
World War 2, the US didn't intervene, the Axis declared was on them. Or is responding to a declaration of war and a sneak attack intervention now?

Shut up brainlet this one is actually an interesting question.

Not really. How would it even work? Would it be surrounded by other countries? In that case, which side do they take? Would Eurasia be contracted so there'd be ocean on both sides? In that case Russia would have been a seafaring power long before Peter. What would be the consequences of that?

Well depends, does it keep it's same size and layout roughly? If so possibly, it would be like Poland where all the major cities and industry are in the West, and the East is mostly open lowly populated lands.
If it was organized differently no, the manpower difference between the USSR and Germany meant that Germany would slowly be drained dry.
Even if they took the entire country they would have guerrillas like there were in Poland making their lives a living hell still, there is no way Germany could hold down the population of the Soviet Union shoved into a nation the size of France.

...

>Most major battles during Barbarossa ended with the Reds getting encircled and losing hundreds of thousands of men


By most major you mean a few months in 41 right?

So how did the soviets kick german asses in winter 41 without ll or a 2nd front?

By pouring as many men into the meatgrinder as possible, with Stalin later realising he sucked at war and handed over control of the army to people who actually knew what they were doing. Then purging them when they'd won the battles for him.

welcome to /shitwehraboossay

Asiatic hordes my ass they never had more than 130%-150% manpower superiority in battles.

Deal with it shithead, greetings from germany.

Because German losses (despite what the memes say) were catastrophic in Barbarossa and earlier, war always favours the defender and the Soviets just had more men to spare in that regard

But Russians were the ones being outnumbered.

Jap front troops could have come and helped.

No, not really, unless you think a concurrent war from Shanghai to Baikal is a realistic option

I meant russian troops on the jap front, its alot closer and they could move back east if they had too.

>During Barbarossa
Yes. Barbarossa was indeed 5 months long.