Operation Barbarossa

>FUCKING
>HORSES

Tfw you will never fight and die in Kursk, the largest tank battle in history.

Pic related

But if you're on meth it won't feel so cold, it's flawless logic

so the question becomes, is it more expensive to produce winter gear, or meth chocolate?

But even if the drug stops your brain from registering cold, your body will still be at risk from it.

Germany at its strongest, was defeated by the Soviet Union at its weakest.

>"YOU IGNORANT SERVILE SCUM, WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING HERE?"

That's not a fair comparison because you're pitting Germans against human beings.

>pseudo agrarian army.
So I take it you haven't actually read anything on the topic then?

From a story perspective it would've been perfect. A defeated Germany in shambles reforms itself and through lighting victories thought impossible becomes the most powerful nation on earth.
No.
Correct, the Brits would've made peace as the US wasn't in the war.
Not only does this ignore that the Manhattan project was in its infancy and that America wasn't in the war, but the Allies would fight through 4 years of defeat and stalemate just to drop a bomb they didn't know would work or even bring Germany to the negotiating table. Besides even if they did you're "stealing" victory from someone who fought so hard and did everything right to finally take their place in the sun (this is their perspective). You wouldn't defeat Nazi Germany, you'd just see them resort to mass chemical warfare, turning Europe into a radioactive and chemical wasteland. The question would be, was it worth it?
Incorrect. Germany was fighting with one hand behind its back and the Soviets were well on the road to recovery. If it wasn't for Wallied intervention and support, the Soviets couldn't have lasted the later rounds

>no lebensraum for the German volk
>no final solution to the Jewish question
>no destruction of Judeo-Bolshevism
>no glorious united Europe, led by Germany, stretching from Ural mountains to the Atlantic
it hurts so much

...

>perfidious Albion wasn't dismantled and defanged so he could never threaten Europe or the world again.
I know tf friend

>not posting the full img.

>independent Wales and Isle of Man
>no independent Cornwall
Why must you do this to me?

>no glorious united Europe, led by Germany
I'll pass.

>implying you ever had a choice

get fucked kraut

ABSOLUTE VICTOR

You can't stop me now, Harris. You've come too late.

This mad man can

Even if you manage to kill me, my spirit will live on

>led by Germany
like that you've lost me

>independent Isle of Man
It's under German occupation

>no independent Cornwall
Cornwalls are too small to be revived even by Nazi memes. Same thing with Brittany

England is a shithole with natives being minorities in their own capital city
Germany is leading world 2nd largest economy and is the centre of science and industry

>Correct, the Brits would've made peace as the US wasn't in the war.
Why?
Daily reminder Kesselring and his best troops got repeatedly BTFO by pajeets

Germany is literally getting flooded with negroes and arabs, you dumb fucking cunt.

>1,000,000 (about 1% of Germany's total population) refugees
>The Federal Statistical Office classifies the citizens by immigrant background. Regarding the immigrant background, 22.5% of the country's residents, or more than 18.6 million people, were of immigrant or partially immigrant descent in 2016
>In 2015, 36% of children under 5 were of immigrant or partially immigrant descent
But yes Britain is the one getting shitfaced more, Hans.

Ah fuck's sake wrong reply, meant

Is this a contest about who is getting fucked worse by the NWO?

Yes, white boi.

London is a minority British city
Berlin is not a minority German city

Berlin is a shithole surrounding a disneylandish part around the Regierungsviertel and Potsdamer Platz. London is just the same, candy center surrounded by favelas.

>more than 18.6 million people, were of immigrant or partially immigrant descent
A good chunk of these is from other EU countries or countries like Russia. There's a lot of rapefugees in Germany, but try getting the numbers right

Are you retarded? Or are you some hick that hates big cities on principle?

Not at all. I just found this to be a similarity of these two cities.

I imagine if the Germans did manage to dismantle the Soviets they'd be weak as fuck after. Then the allies could have swooped through. Both Fascism and Bolshevism destroyed in a few years.

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

>the Brits would've made peace as the US wasn't in the war
Unlikely. The Germans would've had to defeat the Soviets in less than a year, which even if they took Moscow and the oil fields was Caucasus oil fields was not gonna happen. Then Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, Hitler declares war on the USA, and Germany is screwed as usual.

>you will always be able to destroy berlin, puting the end to 1000 year meme and rape every kraut women on pile of corpes of her kraut family and dead soldiers who "tried" to defend them
This is what you get after even thinking about shit like "Lebensraum", stupid krautling.

>The Germans would've had to defeat the Soviets in less than a year, which even if they took Moscow and the oil fields was Caucasus oil fields was not gonna happen.
Contrary to Soviet propaganda, the government's (e.g. Stalins) credibility was coming to an end in August 1941. Had Moscow fallen this credibility would've come to an end. Hell, Molotov said so himself:
>"When asked at a later date what would have resulted from a different decision by Stalin, to leave the city and move to Kuibyshev, Molotov replied: ‘Moscow would have burned.’ He went on to say that the Germans would have taken the city, the Soviet Union would have collapsed and this would have led to the break-up of the coalition against Hitler."
From Derek Watson Molotov. A Biography

Political turmoil would've likely severely disrupted economic and military mobilization in addition to Msocows critical rail head captured, effectively dividing the Red Army in two. Even if the Soviets didn't make a formal peace, 1942 would've been a mop-up campaign and Britain would write Russia off, suing for peace.

Finally butterflies would probably cancel PH and US intervention.

>Finally butterflies would probably cancel PH and US intervention.
How so? The United States would still be embargoing Japan, which means they would attack Pearl Harbor, then the Germans declare war on the USA, and we help out the Brits.

>All your slavic ancestors smiling down on you while you hatefuck some of the less hairy kraut bitches on the corpses of their families.
the feels...
I now understand what anglos feel about Harris.

Using the Trans-Siberian railroad the German's could ship oil from Romania and later from the Caucasus (potentially the Middle East as well).

Alternatively the Japs could've just attack the Dutch East Indies without PH and a victorious Germany would deter Congress from declaring war on Japan (Tripartite pact). If Britain didn't make peace with Germany already (ceding the DEI to Germany or Japan), Japan opening up yet another front would be quite convincing.

The Germans could never have taken Moscow anyways, they couldn't even take Stalingrad.

Germans should have cooperated with anti-communist elements in Ukraine and Russia, instead of treating them like subhumans so harshly that even devout Orthodox Christians went back to seeing Stalin and the Red Army as their saviors.

>no glorious united Europe, led by Germany

This happened, and the results are awful so far...

>The Germans could never have taken Moscow anyways
They likely could have in August/September 1941. They also could've in the summer of 1942 instead of Blau (although much tougher than '41)

>they couldn't even take Stalingrad
They had a chance early in the campaign to capture it pretty much unguarded but the panzers were directed south. If you're referring to the urban battle, they just about almost took it before the 6th army was encircled.

Should've, but this is pretty much hindsight armchair generalship. That strategy flies in the face of Lebensraum and besides, why give up total victory if you can taste victory?

>They likely could have in August/September 1941
no.

yes

No

You gonna try to support your claim or shitpost?

You provided no support for your claim either .We are on even ground right now.

>yes
No. Germans needed time to regroup and resupply after Smolensk, and even doing just that and moving ahead as fast as possible would have left literally a million men on their flank to the south with nothing stopping them from hitting the German flank.

And then there's the question of actually taking the city. The Germans only barely got close enough to see the skyline, and entering the city isn't the same as taking it. Leningrad, Stalingrad, and even Sevastopol showed how much of a clusterfuck taking a city the Soviets were intent on holding onto tooth and nail was, and it's retarded to think the Soviets aren't going to fight harder for Moscow than they did for any of their other cities.

After Smolensk Hitler and OKH disagreed on what the next objective should be. OKH favored Moscow while Hitler favored Leningrad and the economic targets (Donbass) of the Ukraine. Ultimately Hitler won out and Hoth was sent to Leningrad while Guderian was sent to close the Kiev pocket. By the time the two generals finished their tasks and prepared for Typhoon, time was running out with the autumn rains and then winter. Any early Typhoon would immensely favor the Germans since they would have much better weather, much stronger forces, and a much weaker Russian opponent

>No. Germans needed time to regroup and resupply after Smolensk.
I wouldn't call driving 100 miles north and south as regrouping time.

>and even doing just that and moving ahead as fast as possible would have left literally a million men on their flank to the south with nothing stopping them from hitting the German flank.
The Soviet Southwestern front was fucked no matter what. Any push to the north to try to "cutoff" AGC would be met by an AGC Infantry Combine Army (which proved to be brilliant in the defensive) and further weaken their position in the Ukraine making AGS job easier. Furthermore, there is nothing they could do to prevent von Rundstedt from crossing the Lower Dnieper. In short if they stayed in Kiev like Stalin ordered or "advanced" north they would likey be encircled or defeated.

There was no way Germany could have won and the entire operation was a mess from the start

>Falls behind schedule just 1 week in
>150,000+ casualties
>Germans constantly changing objective mid-operation
>Logistical problems at very start (Germans at Brody in Eastern Poland ran out of food)
>2/3 primary targets not captured
>German advance faltering already before even "General Winter"
>Even if the Germans took Moscow they would have just evacuated to Samara, all while churning out tanks, guns, and aircraft comfortably in the Urals

There was no chance of victory and you're a dumb faggot if you think so.

Germans didn't even inflict 2:1 losses on the Soviets on the battlefield. Most of the Soviet dead were civilians and murdered POW's

The only support the Soviets "needed" to defeat Germany was the initial food aid because of the lost lands in Barbarossa comprising their entire fertile lands.

explain the:

>Germany was fighting with one hand behind its back

They didn't accomplish any of their major objectives in 41 or in 42.

almost lenigrad, almost stalingrad, almost moscow.

>Even if the Germans took Moscow they would have just evacuated to Samara, all while churning out tanks, guns, and aircraft comfortably in the Urals
Commie fantasies. While the politburo may be gorging themselves in banquets in Saratov, the morale of the troops plummet leading to the fall of Leningrad and Sevastopol. Besides who will man the tanks? Pretty much all of the manpower the Soviets recruited 1943- were from recently liberated German territories.
Look at it on a per year basis, not some random total number.
>Soviets only needed Lend-Lease cause of food
The Soviets needed much more than that. Without LL they would have to pour resources into different fields (such as making locomotives, trucks, and boots) reducing their 4:1 tank production advantage substantially. Most likely to the point where they couldn't sustain their 7:1 tank losses (#of Soviet lost tanks:# of German lost tanks) in 1941, 6:1 in 42, 4:1 in 43 and 44.
>explain the: Germany was fighting with one hand behind its back
IIRC the Germans garrisoned some 600,000 troops in Norway all the way until the end of the war. The Allies took away massive resources from the German war effort in the east. In 1944 The strategic bombing campaign devoured 30-40% of all ammunition produced, with 90% of the FlaK cannons being used in defense of the Reich. If you give just half of those to OKH in the east then Bagration would be severely limited (or non-existent with no LL). I'm not mentioning either the destruction of the Luftwaffe at the hands of the Allies (or the significant LL amounts of aircraft or aluminum for engines), industry damaged from aforementioned bombing campaign, troops gobbled up in France, Italy, and North Africa either.
A final relatively unthought of point: the Battle of the Atlantic was a MASSIVE campaign (you could even call it the "fith front" against Germany. If you took all the steel & crew used to produce the uboats, you'd have 30,000 Pz4Hs ready for use

>the morale of the troops plummet leading to the fall of Leningrad and Sevastopol
Uh, what? At most the troops keep on fighting like normal, at worst they get pissed off and fight even harder, taking the capital is not some instant win button that causes all the troops to despair and give up.

Source for tank KDs:
operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/
That's why Barbarossa failed, yes. However replace Stalingrad with Rostov/Sevestapol since it wasn't really an objective for 41 (unless you consider the AA line objective which could only be completed if the Soviets collapsed

>Kesselring got BTFO by well led and equipped troops who just happened to be pajeet
Reminder that the indians got paraded in england because they won the first victory against the axis in ww2.

but you dont feel it

>What do you think happens to dictatorships that show weakness?
If Germany had been acting as liberators instead of exterminators you might have a point there, but they acted so badly as to drive the eastern Europeans into the arms of the Soviets whom they also despised. If the choice is fight for a tyrannical government or be killed, they'll choose the former.

In 1941 Soviet Russia it is. Moscow was the last stand of the Soviets and Stalin knew it (Molotov did too but it's interesting that you still haven't responded to the quote of his I posted). We're talking about a Soviet Union whose minorities and citizens endured a tyrannical communist rule who see the Germans literally roll from Warsaw to Moscow. What do you think happens to dictatorships that show weakness? The common soldier in Leningrad and Sevastopol will see that even the heart of the motherland and communist rule fell, so what does he think will happen to him? Why die for a lost cause?

I'm getting quite tired of this "Moscow's just another city" argument. So I'll leave with this question whose answer I hope to address tomorrow: when was the last time Russia lost its capital to an invading army? (Hint: it's not 1812)

The avg Soviet citizen doesn't know of Generalplan Ost. They may have heard of light reprisals against partisans and Einsatzgruppen, but not enough to deter them from naively seeking peace. Again, I got to go, I hope the thread isn't archived when I get back

>They may have heard of light reprisals against partisans
ah yes, the light reprisals of slaughtering entire villages.

>They may have heard of light reprisals against partisans and Einsatzgruppen
More like they heard of the rape and genocide of every man, woman, and child who got caught by the Germans. Sure, it would have been exaggerated by the Soviets, but there would have been enough truth to it as well to convince them all that they're fighting for their lives (which they were).

maybe Hitler was /theirgoy/ all along? would explain all the rash decisions and the 'miracle' of Enigma decoding

>What are Partisans?

t. never done meth

Even if the Germans take Moscow which is unlikely in the first place, let's say late November at the earliest the Soviets are just going to take it back in December. There would not be time for complete breakdown in moral, the Germans would just get their shit kicked in like they did in real life.

And if you continue to "not feel it" until your trigger finger has fallen off, you're pretty much worthless as a fighter now, aren't you?

...

>couldn't sustain their 7:1 tank losses
Jesus christ wehraboo, can you be a bit more delusional. German tank losses were counted much differently than Soviet losses. A German tank is considered lost if it is destroyed, and, more importantly, there is no longer hope of recovering it. On the other hand, the Germans would claim an immobilized Soviet tank in no-man’s land as a kill, even if the Soviets would recover it later. Germans counted only unrecoverable losses. Soviets counted any tank that had to go back to the factory as a loss. The same Soviet tank could be counted 2-3 times in terms of losses. Why do you think they ended the war with still tens of thousands of tanks in their inventory?

Similarly, the German human losses, once again, are counted differently than Soviet losses. For one, there is no “died from wounds” field in the combat losses. A German soldier that has died from wounds after the battle counts as a non-combat loss. The Soviets count said soldier as a combat loss. The German account losses also ignores the fate of wounded Wehrmacht soldiers sent back to Reich and considers executed Soviet civilians as enemy's combat casualties.

And yes, German numbers against the western allies were also bullshit, claiming consistently more total kills than the allies lost even if we include tanks that were only damaged and quickly returned to service into the actual allied loss numbers.

Cringe.

>They likely could have in August/September 1941.
You do realise that would have created very early, Stalingrad dissaster just this time in Moscow 1941-42?
The Russians would defend Moscow to the teeth and if germans ever managed to barely take it, they would be faced with russian winter and destroyed infrastructure that would've destroy all the supply chain.
By winter Russians would encircle Moscow and starve germans to death or just retake it and kill the occupants.

Taking big cities was the biggest meme autist Hitler ever did. Krauts were fucked from the day 1.

The mods should ban anyone that replies to multiple posts with a single reply. You're literally worse than Hitler

pajeets were unironically better than any other colony, probably better than english

>They likely could have in August/September 1941.
Because attrition and logistics don't fucking exist, right? Tanks could just go on forever without breaking down and your army doesn't need to be resupplied and repaired no matter how far it gets while the infrastructure is less than suitable.

Germans could hardly go any faster than they did without flat out committing suicide by ramming their under-equipped faces into a huge city hub. They were already suffering a retarded vehicle attrition by September and it didn't even require soviets to shoot at them, mechanical breakdown was fucking everything up.

.... very fucking mental:

youtu.be/LI0yKMO6J9Y

youtu.be/ZJgRoFHI4qo

youtu.be/C3YHMcQQbnE

...

Fantasy post

>For one, there is no “died from wounds” field in the combat losses. A German soldier that has died from wounds after the battle counts as a non-combat loss.
>The Soviets count said soldier as a combat loss.

Wrong. Neither Germans nor Soviets counted soldiers that died of wounds in a hospital as KIA, no country did that. There were separate statistics for soldiers that died of wounds in both countries.

>and considers executed Soviet civilians as enemy's combat casualties.

We use Soviets statistics for Soviet losses, and the Germans could only roughly estimate Soviet losses anyway. But it's again unsupported bullshit, it wouldn't even make sense since the German commanders would obviously be interested in having accurate estimations of enemy losses instead of inflated numbers.

Only in anti-partisan operations the reports often don't distinguish between killed partisans, partisan suspects, suspected partisan helpers and innocents.

As for tanks, both sides distinguished between irrecoverable losses and tanks in repair. 7:1 is an accurate ratio during Operation Barbarossa

Only true thing is that Germans units reported too many enemy tank, airplane etc. kills; that goes both ways however

Not even Wehraboo, these are just the numbers: operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

Also how are the Soviets supposed to recover a tank in enemy territory?

Hard for you to gloat when your own government did worse things to your serf ancestors than they ever did to the Germans.
Now go eat your blini off of a shovel, slave, and remember to polish the new Victory Day monument before picking your little brother up from Dear Leader's house.

Triggered much?

My country won the war, and unlike you, my grandad wasn't enslaved by the people he'd saved after he got home.
Germany is in all respects doing better than Russia, and has been since the 50s, so you gloat over your 16 year old grandad raping a geriatric, like that makes up for the shit stalactite hanging outside your window.

i read that Kursk was maybe not the biggest tank battle? can anyone help me find out ?