Would Germany have been able to defeat the USSR if it was not at war with Britain & the USA...

>USA
Barely. They'd still win but it would take them more years and millions upon millions of extra dead Russkies.
>Britain
Britain wasn't even a factor in that war. Might as well mention Poland.

Soviets need to last until 1943 and they are set because Germans will run out of soldiers fast then they do.
1944+ is just fighting untrained kids and old men.

How is HoI4 now, has Paradox made it decent yet? I tried playing HoI3 again last night but it gave me a headache.

Well if no war with US probably means Japan didn't go down that path and the IJA won in the North road/South road debate in the late 30's, so you also have to think that it would have Actually been the USSR fighting on 2 fronts. If germany and Britain made peace it's possible an anti Communist alliance could have been formed with britain providing supplies and Naval assets. USSR was not popular and it wasn't 20 years since the russia revolution and the western attempts at preventing the bolshevicks taking over.

No.
Hitler made many bad decisions contrary to his high command during the invasion.
If Hitler had no say in the war then maybe yes

>IJA won in the North road/South road debate in the late 30's, so you also have to think that it would have Actually been the USSR fighting on 2 fronts
Any possibility of Japanese invasion of USSR was permanently dead in 1941 regardless of Japan entering the war against USA or not.

You don't think shifting all the assets jsed to secure the idland chains wouldn't have been thrown against a distracted and demoralised USSR? Look at the actions of the kwantung army in the region in the past, a border skirmish turning into an incursion doesn't seem unrealistic.

Japan had no reason to go to war with the USSR. Literally none, it's a lose-lose situation, either they get buttraped like they did at Khalkyn Gol or they win and gain nothing (the huge mineral and oil deposits in Siberia weren't discovered yet).

>Britain wasn't even a factor in that war.
Are you baiting

When it comes to Eastern Front, Britain was a total non-factor, they were barely holding up themselves, and actually needed more American gibs than Russia at that period.

>Implying thats a bad thing

There weren't enough assets to shift nor would they be enough to deal with soviet army.
By 1941 majority of Japanese army was permanently stuck in China and that campaign has turned into a horrible slog with Chinese mobilizing at a pretty impressive pace. So 2/3rds of their forces are stuck unless they are willing to just abandon the territory they fought so hard for.
Remaining troops would have to deal with 1.3-1.4 million soviet troops stationed in Asia. Soviet army might be a mess but Japan isn't Wehrmacht either - their doctrine and mechanization just wouldn't be able to achieve same results. And Siberia would be much harder to attack into than Europe.

I would sooner believe in Japan crumbling in Asia within months because they rigged the conflict against themselves then them having significant impact.

Absolutely.

>Would Germany have been able to defeat the USSR if it was not at war with Britain & the USA?

Pretty sure the war was effectively only Germany vs. USSR for majority of it until 1944. And Germany was already starting to definitively lose after Stalingrad. So no.

If Hitler had no say they wouldn't have knocked out the army reforming in Ukraine, basically all of German high command was just as retarded as Hitler

With enough mods it is

Whats wrong with hoi4? Apart from the dlc nonsense, but thats part of every paradox title.

>Pretty sure the war was effectively only Germany vs. USSR for majority of it until 1944

completly retarded
the war on Africa and italian invasion of Greece were big drains of manpower, resources and especially time
>inb4 they were nothing but skirmishes
when Rommel was nearing Alexandria he already needed more fuel just to haul supplies than to fuel the vehicles because their only port was Tunis, that besides the fact that the Allies bombes most of the convoys coming from Italy

Not him but it's comically easy compared to previous games and the AI is retard tier. Dumbed down functions too, Parashit is trying to appeal to the broader normie audience.

USSR just had more dudes, more hardware, more land, more planes, more everything.
Germany and its uncooperative continental system couldn't defeat it, much like the earlier equally uncooperative continental system under Napoleon couldn't.
A Europe united can't take out Britain, and can't take out Russia. Its not enough. Not enough guys, not enough manufacturing, not enough room. It needs more to go on the offense.

Maybe in a year or two it will be worth playing for anything but Kaiserreich

brainlet the war was lost in winter 41 right in front of moscow

le kursk and stalingrad turning point is history channel bullshit

Tbqh, the war was lost the moment they started allocating resources to the preparation of Barbarossa.

>the 6th army crumbling basically destroyed Germany
It destroyed itself quite a while before that, the entire Blau plan was fucked from the outset

then how did the soviets rek the heeresgruppe Mitte 41 in front of moscow without ll and a 2nd front?

ooopsie.....

AI has always been retard tier, it's just that Hoi4 got that division designer which makes the AI even dumber unless you have a mod locking it into building meta divisions that won't always get their shit pushed in a straight fight.

the war was lost the moment Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and prevented Rohm's Brown Revolution

The war was lost the moment Hitler was appointed Chancellor

>Brown Revolution
Based Merkel revived that idea

The war was lost the moment Hitler invaded assuming Japan would invade, without asking first.
And he later declared war on the USA assuming this will lead Japan to declare on the USSR, yet again didn't ask.
Also the Japanese didn't tell anyone they had much earlier tried to invade USSR and failed, losing a large army. It would let Hitler know that the USSR is stronger than they seem, and that Japan can't easily march through Siberia as the Germans assumed.

Basically the war was lost when one side had communication and cooperation, while the other side was effectively just a non-aggression pact with zero common command structure and zero joined planning.

Why didn't Hitler just use the eagles to drop a bomb in big ben?

He didn't have the bomb.

Because the eagles were lazy leftist students, why do you think it took so much goading to get them to Mount Doom?

>Germany would run out off soldier the same time they did in our timeline even if they wouldn't go to war with Britain and France

>USSR just had more dudes
yes
>more hardware
no

the USSR couldn't have made a sucessfull defense without the Lend Lease
especially the one through Iran
the biggest shortcoming of Germany was the lack of Oil, especially because it severelly affected the Luftwaffe
if Germany had captured Baku, they would have had all the Oil they needed while at the same time denying the USSR their biggest oil source

>the USSR couldn't have made a sucessfull defense without the Lend Lease
But they did, all Lend Lease does is shorten the slogging match, Germany did not have enough fuel in 1942 to go for anything but the Caucasus and that was a fiasco of ridiculously long front lines begging to get fucked by the Soviets ability to better concentrate their force

You do realize that Lend Lease only picked up steam after the Soviets began to turn shit around, right?

By the time lend lease actually started meaning anything the Germans had already been ground to a halt.

>The war was lost the moment Hitler invaded assuming Japan would invade, without asking first.
Why would Japan even agree to invading the USSR?

Land Lease happened after the Germans lost the war. Its early volume wasn't relevant, and its increased volume later was just to hasten the German collapse.

>we're allies!
>siberia has oil!
>its literally empty!
>free real estate!
>right next to your border!
>damn commies!
>we'll help you against usa!
>we're friends, right?
>honorary aryans!

It was the IJA's pet project, until Khalkin Gol happened

>siberia has oil!
Nobody knew this until the 1960s.

Its not hard to see, it literally explodes out of the earth.
I very much doubt it people didn't notice for thousands of years of habitation.

>the USSR couldn't have made a sucessfull defense without the Lend Lease

Then how did they destroy the germans in winter 41 and winter 42 without significant LL ?

You have no clue what you are talking about and try to make it a US/british victory by making desperate assumptions.

Are you by any chance american?

>siberia has oil!
Majority of Russia's oil was in the Caucasus (IIRC about 80% of the Soviet Union's oil came from there), good luck convincing the Japs to reach perhaps Central asia to get anything considerable
>>its literally empty!
Is that literally supposed to be fucking enticing? That sounds like a literal logistical nightmare. Keep in mind Japan's logistics were already at their limits:
> 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. The Japanese forces suffered severely from malaria when their allocation of quinine ran out, and there were also many cases of beriberi. In part, the weakness of Japanese logistics reflected the much weaker industrial base of Japan relative the United States. The Japanese inferiority in logistics went a long ways towards nullifying her advantage of interior lines of communication.
>The combat train relied heavily on pack animals and the transport troops were organized into a transport battalion for each division, numbering from 2200 to 3700 men with up to 2600 animals. This was organized into five companies, and it was typical for one company to handle small arms ammunition, two to handle artillery rounds, and two to carry rations. The normal combat loadout for a division was a day of supplies, implying replenishment each evening.
Not to mention you would have to split your logistics even harder now.
>right next to your border!
Because Khalkin Gol sure as hell fucking worked out, right? I remembe reading somewhere Stalin still had a shitton of troops deployed in Far East Asia because he was that paranoid of Japan attacking him
The "we're friends" meme doesn't work if your action is literally suicide.

The Japanese had made their intentions about Siberia vocal, so the Germans knew they want it.
The Japanese didn't make their problems known, so the Germans didn't know about them.

You are thinking like a modern historian heavily armed with hindsight, not like a contemporary German heavily brainwashed by propaganda.
I doubt the idea of a Japanese invasion of Siberia once the Soviet army moved west seemed at all weird. It was probably the most common sense for the German command, and taken for granted.

Lend-lease enabled counter attack, not defense.

>>its literally empty!
Aside of the army larger than the entire chinese occupation force Japan had.

I wouldn't even say it enabled counter attack. The Soviets could already do that. It just made said counter attack that much easier.

The Soviets couldn't deliver food, fuel and ammo without trucks, and they couldn't produce rubber yet.
The Land Lease was trucks and rubber. It made it possible to go farther, faster. It was a means to push Germany back before she could recover and start assembling a new army and establishing a new front line.

Without Land Lease the Soviets would defend, push a bit, then the war would stop and get all slow and grindy, and it would be an even more expensive Soviet victory at the end, and an even more demolished Europe.

I thought we were arguing how "plausible" the invasion would be, and I doubt the Japanese high command would be easily convinced when facing all of these problems already and Khalkin gol being a recent memory, sounds more like they'd rather wait for Germany to absolutely crush the Soviets first and then invade.

>Lend-lease enabled counter attack, not defense.

Then how did they successfully counter attack the germans in winter 41 and 42 without significant LL?

brainlet just accept that the soviets won the eastern front on their own

Pathetic anglo/burger do you have to claim every single vicotry for yourself?

>you're already fighting China and the Anglos in Asia, possibly will engage against the USA soon as well
>please could you also attack the world's largest land army spread across the largest country on Earth?
>and we promise to give you vast space of frozen nothing in return
Japs would be complete retards to take that offer

No, they literally had no idea. That's why defending Baku was so vital for the Soviets.

Yeah, germans woudl probably end up slaughtering Poles for meat to feed the wehrmacht.

Alexander Hill wrote something about the significance of Lend-Lease tanks (medium tanks to be specific) in the battle of Moscow.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518040600697811

In 1942, tank losses exceeded production, meaning that the Red Army would have entered a tank crisis if LL-tanks had not kept the amount of available tanks stable.

The forces in the Caucasus were mostly supplied via LL in 1942. I suppose it is known that the Caucasus front tied down a lot of German troops.

That said, tank deliveries were one of the less important components of LL.

>In 1942, tank losses exceeded production
Are you sure? Soviet production seems to have always exceeded losses. For context Russia had about 22,600 tanks at the start of Barbarossa.
1/2

Fuck's sake forgot picture

2/2

Aside from latter years apparently, my bad, but definitely not 1942.

>Then how did they successfully counter attack the germans in winter 41 and 42 without significant LL?
>Offensives of 41 and 42
>under a hundred miles
>Offensives of 43 to 45
>hundreds upon hundreds of miles
The scale is completely different and that also completely changes the logistic requirements.
Soviet supply through later stages of the war was done by American trucks (which USSR flat out didn't produce during the war because of "more tanks needed") and trains.
>just accept that the soviets won the eastern front on their own
Soviets won regardless of LL but LL changed the nature of the victory significantly.

>Pathetic anglo/burger do you have to claim every single vicotry for yourself?
Cocи хyй, я гopдый мoнгoлoйд и мoй дeд eбaл нeмoк.

>In 1942, tank losses exceeded production
>The forces in the Caucasus were mostly supplied via LL in 1942.

But the paper you linked is named "British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941—A Research Note" and it is talking about 1941, the previous year.
And yes, losses exceeded production for a given period, but so many tanks already existed. Thats like saying potato consumption exceeded potato production in January, so we are all going to starve. No, we have a warehouse full. There is a reserve to fall back on, until production kicks up again.

Гocпoдин Cocихyйoв, зaщo eбeтe нeмцитe вмecтo пpocтo дa ги yбивaтe? Mнoгo гpyбa пpoявa.

desu I'd say had it not been for lend-lease, Russia would have won, but the amount of influence and power the USSR would have would be much smaller, I doubt she would've even reached Berlin first or had as much influence/control over more Eastern European countries. That's what Hubert P. Van Tuyll says in his book "Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945" if memory serves right.

Peвepc HTP этo фeтиш для интeллeктyaлoв, пoнимaeшь.

Иcтинcкия интeлeктyaлeц взимa чacoвникa oт мъpтвия нeмeц и мacтypбиpa c нeгo.
Кoнтpacтa мeждy кaчecтвeннa нeмcкa тeхникa и cypoвo cлaвянcкo дъpвo e хpaнa зa yмa.

Nazi-Germany without beeing at war with Britain and its Colonies or Commonwealth and the USA the hole thing wouldn´t be a world war and therefor Germany wouldn´t attack USSR

>Иcтинcкия интeлeктyaлeц взимa чacoвникa oт мъpтвия нeмeц и мacтypбиpa c нeгo.

Not an argument.

This.

underrated post

>The scale is completely different and that also completely changes the logistic requirements.

Stop shifting the goal poast, you clearly just admitted that they were capable of launching offensives without LL.

Yes WW2 would have taken longer but they were clearly capable of winning alone.

Deal with it.

>Cocи хyй, я гopдый мoнгoлoйд и мoй дeд eбaл нeмoк.

Schön für dich, du Stück Slavenscheiße lies ein Buch du grenzdebiler Prähumanoid.

Maybe! If they hadn't been at war with Britain they could have imported grain and oil from outside Europe, and could have created another two or three armies with garrison forces from the West. Could have been enough to win the war in 1942

The garrison forces in the West weren't considered reliable enough to fight on the Eastern Front

You are a fool if you think Germany would retreat garrison forces from the west just because of a peace treaty.
This is not how border defense works. You don't just leave your backdoor unguarded against a potential enemy you just signed up some piece of paper with.

See also: soviet-japanese border which was fully loaded with troops on both sides despite the NAP.

What if Germany built more stugs?

Yeah but briton and the usa would certianly have embargoed themas they did to japan

Why didn't the wehrmacht just drive through the snow to moscow?

Then more StuGs get blown up

With no blockade they could imported resources from other places. Indonesia for example

In this scenario is the UK and US still embargoing Germany?

If US oil is shipped to Germany and trucks are rolling off the line in Detroit to be sold to Germany, they might very well win.

The loss of shipping and access to world markets made Germany embrace a lot of hugely inefficient work arounds. If US companies, still dealing with low demand from the recession, are willing and able to sell to Germany it makes a huge difference.