So if the "asiatic hordes" thing is a meme then why does this board declare so fervently that the germans didn't stand...

So if the "asiatic hordes" thing is a meme then why does this board declare so fervently that the germans didn't stand a chance at winning the war on the east when both sides were evenly matched?

Those coats the Nazi high command wore were aesthetic as fuck.

answer the question Veeky Forums

Something something pregnant Anne Frank. There's your answer.

wew this is a shitty board

What do you mean evenly matched?

Evenly match like Only Germany proper and only ‘Russia’ or what
Make the goddamn question more clear

The meme is that Russia simply threw endless waves at the Germans drowning the invaders with their blood, that they were tactically and strategically witless and won merely by 'zerg rushing'.

The reality is that the Germans weren't just at a considerable disadvantage in terms of men, but the Soviets massively outproduced the Germans, formulated sophisticated defensive and then offensive tactics in response to the invasion, and ultimately the strategic goals of Germany at the onset were based on wildly faulty intelligence and practically impossible to achieve with their given resources.

They were speaking about themselvea and their zergrush. Krauts were zerging for the entire war.

>practically impossible to achieve with their given resources.
who are you quoting

someone sure is butthurt

>The truth is that Russia simply threw endless waves at the Germans drowning the invaders with their blood, that they were tactically and strategically witless and won merely by 'zerg rushing'.
FTFY

Hunns and Tatars> Uzbeks, Kazakhs, and Mongols

There is a clear hierarchy of Turkics

the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Inferiority complex.

>Soviets were more knowledgeable about strategic warfare
>Soviets used tactics more accustomed to a large scale attritional war
>Soviets understood mass production much better
>Soviets understood production in general much better
>German military extremely deficient in logistics, something vital for a war in Russia
>German military not as efficient at strategic warfare

I think that's it

Germany did have a chance of winning the war on the east if they equipped their soldiers better and trained them for arctic warfare.

>Germany could have won if they magically had more equipment and were trained in something completely irrelevant
Casualfags make me angry

>completely irrelevant
>is one of the leading causes why the germans lost in russia
Autist make me angry

>mongols
>turkics
>also missing out huge chunks of turkic tribes
Reminder that Anatolian turks are at the top of the hierarchy

Soviets had an economic system not reliant on slave labor. That alone was a huge advantage. Germany's advantage was that their officer corps wasn't purged a few years before the war, unlike Russia. A big part of Russia's success though is also due to Lend Lease materials such as trucks which the US gave them.

>weather was one of the leading cause why the Germans lost in Russia
CASUALFAGS MAKE ME ANGRY

It's true though.
Many german soldiers froze to death.
Simple shit like their rifles getting jammed from the cold effected how they would fight.

It doesn't help when soldiers are eating eachother to survive a la stalingrad.

The reality behind the hatred for hortler here is that a majority of this board are hopeless reactionaries and must hold the opposite opinions of /pol/

It's definitely up there. Equipment, the most important being trains, broke down en masse during the 1941/42 winter, which was one of the coldest on record. It wasn't just the winter either; the hot summer hindered the Germans as their horse-drawn supply columns slowed down due to the heat and had to make frequent stops for water.
A tiny percentage of German soldiers actually died from frostbite, around 1%. It was a pretty significant cause in the reduction of unit strength, though.

If you have 2 million soldiers and 1% of them die to something, thats 10 000 soldiers.
Thats a lot of men.

There were 228,000 cases of frostbite in the winter months of 1941-42 with a mortality rate of 1.5%, so only 3,420 men died from it.
Even with your numbers, 10,000 soldiers in the context of Barbarossa is nowhere near a lot of men, considering the millions who died from other causes.

Yes but the cold doesn't effect you just from kiling you.
It would have made it harder for the soldies to fight in many ways i.e not being as rested because it was harder to sleep int he cold and have good sleep.

Well yes, that's why I said it had a significant effect on unit strength. It's just that the number of German soldiers who died from the first winter on the Eastern Front is sometimes exaggerated.

Yeah you are probably right.

Does anyone ever bother with knowing two things about industrial warfare? I see this question on here all the time.


Germany was going to lose because there is no way they could out produce Russia with manpower and resources. Russia could simply replace each soldier and tank quicker and easier than Germany could. Not to mention Hitler autism that destroyed any ambitious strategy that could of possibly allowed them to succeed. It was literally a mere matter of time before Germany bent.

Winter didn't start until the Germans had already lost, (December 1941)

if left totally to their own devices, without a single solitary form of aid from the US or some outside interference like lend-lease, the soviet union and the core of boleshevism would have been extinguished like a small match in a hurricane.

and 1943 Ensured Soviet Victory. By 1943 Germany had "lost" the initiative it was stalemating for in 1942.

Lot was cast and the deciding factor was this aide. It broke the stalemate, and nearly every post in this thread has proven that, whether my own, or others refutations. all of them show the dead being broken by 1943. Coincidentally the height of lend-lease aide to the soviet union (into 44).

Im sure it did, when the war was fully engaged on 2 fronts. But what DID show up 1941-1943. was the deciding factor in World War II.

The Timing of the first major arrivals of lend lease during 1942 saved the Soviet Union from LOSING the protracted war of attrition, rather than winning

WWII was an entire conflict solely contested in the realm of production. The nations that produced the most, or profited most from production were the "winners". The war was truly and ultimately decided by one nations ability to Destroy another capacity for production or their will to produce (think Dresden etc..)

it was entirely a logistics war

Lend lease coincided with the "turning of the tides" in this conflict. Nothing else can be as clear as this.

all strategic decisions were made in light of this event. both good or bad

The war was no where near "over" or even "decided" untill 1943

>The war was no where near "over" or even "decided" untill 1943

>implying Germany didn't lose the war when they failed to take moscow in 1941
>implying stalingrad 1942 wasn't the point of no return for Germany

Moscow forced Stalingrad. Battle in Moscow came at an unthinkable cost to the Russian people, and was more of a Draw strategically. Germans had defeated the entire "West" (Britain/France) and had wheeled east towards Russia on essentially the same supplies, shattering Russians by the millions in Ukraine, then Moscow. The German Materiel loss, and the Italians failure in Greece, forced Stalingrad, while Americans were simultaneously Providing incomprehensible material support in waves to Russians, preventing what would have been their ultimate defeat.

Many of the Russian manufacturing and Factories were literally in peices, being transited to the Urals. They could have NEVER recovered had it not been for the timing of lend-lease.

Because the asiatic hordes thing was very real. Also american lend lease so those asiatic hordes have weapons to fight with.

>The lend lease meme

How is it a meme when Stalin himself said that the war was unwinnable without American materials being imported

how many countries had to unite to break german lines?

yep

Wrong.

Equipped them with what? What good will "Arctic training" do when it's not winter? Will arctic training stop your vehicles breaking down and getting stuck in mud 24/7?

Very few German soldiers died to frostbite. A few jammed weapons doesn't mean shit because small arms don't matter in the big picture of this. The main problem in winter was the roads

>Germany had completely blown its oil reserves on this offensive
>Failed to decisively destroy the Red Army like they intended
>Failed to achieve the propaganda victory of flying the flag in Red Square
>Lost nearly two hundred thousand of it's most experienced men they can't replace
>It was a draw

>The main problem in winter was the roads
The roads aren't that bad in winter, the spring thaw and rain fucks the roads, the grounds hard enough to stay solid when its frozen

you can follow your leader any time you want mindless retard, die in cancer

all me

>Will arctic training stop your vehicles breaking down and getting stuck in mud 24/7?

ALSO german railroads were wider than the russian ones, so they just couldnt supply their own soldier using german trains... that was the main problem...

>soviets lost more than 4 million men
>it was a soviet victory

leftypol get the fuck out of Veeky Forums you have been a cancer here for too long
if this board had to choose it will always choose fascism over you kike commies

>tfw I am a leftist but secretly root for the Wehrmacht when I read about details on the eastern front because they are the underdog.

What can I do about this cognitive dissonance Veeky Forums? Am I becoming a wehraboo?

He raped millions...

They were both leftist so you're fine.

>muh k/d

americans should be shot and survivors shot again

>actually nevermind that we lost 4 million men
>we are the soviets who cares we won lmao

>if left totally to their own devices, without a single solitary form of aid from the US or some outside interference like lend-lease, the soviet union and the core of boleshevism would have been extinguished like a small match in a hurricane.
When victory in Europe starts appearing impossible, the Brits launch Operation Vegetarian and starve millions to death. A year or two later when the Americans have amassed enough men and materiel Dragoon, Overlord and Avalanche are launched. The Germans are able to put in a a more concerted effort in defense but with their industries still being bombed to nothing and being forced to leave behind forces to extract all the wealth and food from the Soviets plus contain the remnants of the Red Army means they are eventually defeated in the mid to late 40's, probably culminating in several atom bombs dropped in the heartland of Germany.
Soviets, being on the winning side, will regain their country but will be at the mercy of the West as democratic buffer states are set between Poland and the Soviets.
Bolshevism is quenched but tens of millions more die leaving Europe even more devastated and demographically decimated.

Was it really worth it?

>confederates have less casualties
>THAT MEANS THEY WON?!?!!

>Focuses purely on the losses and not the abject failure to accomplish their objectives
You could work for OKW with these skills user

this is the shittiest fanfic i have ever read

>soviets suffer crippling blows to manpower
>they somehow still didn't draw
you are not familiar with history are you? This was literally the strategy of the time everywhere on earth. That the soviets didn't surrender after those initial successes is another story

>if left totally to their own devices, without a single solitary form of aid from the US or some outside interference like lend-lease, the soviet union and the core of boleshevism would have been extinguished like a small match in a hurricane.
But the Soviets won the two decisive battles of the campaign despite those exact circumstances. American aid, both in forms of lend lease and military action, did not start in any significant amount until after the Battle of Stalingrad. By implying that the Soviets would have lost without America, you are implying that the Germans could have still won after Stalingrad.
>By 1943 Germany had "lost" the initiative it was stalemating for in 1942.
The Germans lost the strategic initiative by 1941. There was no way for them to win the Eastern Front after that.
>Lot was cast and the deciding factor was this aide.
Lol
>It broke the stalemate, and nearly every post in this thread has proven that, whether my own, or others refutations. all of them show the dead being broken by 1943. Coincidentally the height of lend-lease aide to the soviet union (into 44).
See above
>Im sure it did, when the war was fully engaged on 2 fronts. But what DID show up 1941-1943. was the deciding factor in World War II.
See above
>The Timing of the first major arrivals of lend lease during 1942 saved the Soviet Union from LOSING the protracted war of attrition, rather than winning
Lend lease made up about 4-7% of Soviet military industry. I implore you to do your own research on the topic of lend lease since you clearly derive most of your knowledge from heavily biased and non-historically-backed conjecture.

How could the Germans have taken the critical strategic objectives of the Caucases, Stalingrad, Moscow, and the Soviet production facilities in the Urals after the Battle of Stalingrad?

How was it crippling when after war they became one one of two superpowers

You're overemphasizing the effect of lend-lease. Without the 4-7% boost to their (already larger than Germany's) military industry, you're looking at a much slower and likely more costly repeat of what happened with lend-lease. The Soviets end up in Germany either way.

I agree, I was just playing along his scenario that the Soviets somehow totally collapse. Worst case their offensive stalls somewhere in Poland due to not having US-supplied logistics and General Studebaker and the western Allies reach Berlin first.

Oh yeah that's pretty solid then

>This was literally the strategy of the time everywhere on earth
No, not really, WW1 had already shown attritional warfare was no guarantee of an enemy capitulating

/thread

GERMANIC HORDES

T. I am not a Fascist but

bumpu

>Soviets were more knowledgeable about strategic warfare

the germans were just as knowledgable, see the drive to kiev and case blue

>Soviets used tactics more accustomed to a large scale attritional war

"tactics" means throwing more men on german weaponry.

>Soviets understood mass production much better

not true they just had a huge production base at the urals

>Soviets understood production in general much better

i like memes too

>German military extremely deficient in logistics, something vital for a war in Russia

that the german logistics were shit is another meme too. They were just bogged down by the shitty roads thats it. The heer said at the start of the campaign that the effective limit of the german logistics is like 250 km from the borders of their side of poland. Io and behold they managed to get to the caucasus without much of a problem.

>German military not as efficient at strategic warfare

Just as efficient even more so they just had shitty luck

>not true they just had a huge production base at the urals
Not that guy, but it's absolutely true. Germany's production philosophy was about delivering highly complex, detailed and constantly changing specifications handed down from on high for each and every problem which resulted in both high-cost and slow production. German factories required skilled workers to complete tasks whereas Soviets more pragmatically adopted American style low-skill assembly production allowing them to absolutely dwarf Germany in production.