Historians today generally agree that the Germans had no chance of defeating the Soviets under any scenario...

>Historians today

>>Historians today generally agree that the Germans had no chance of defeating the Soviets under any scenario.
They're wrong then. The soviet triumph against german armies in eastern europe only happened because the germans were having to deal with multiple fronts and the soviets were being supplied from abroad.

Remove those things and the soviets probably lose.

Most analysts at the time probably didn't predict the Soviets to move literally thousands of industrial plants to the Urals, which allowed them to continue the war despite the loss of the most economically important regions in the Western USSR.

Because we now have access to a wealth of declassified documents and reports that people at the time didn't have.

You and I know more about the Nazi high command and its workings during those decisive years than most middle ranking members of the party would even know at the time.

>Remove those things and the soviets probably lose.
There's no timeline where these things are absent, faggot. You think that Western Powers would just stand aside and let the Nazis completely conquer the USSR, annihilate slavs and jews and then wait for themselves to be attacked by Nazis, even had the Nazis not attacked France? Western politicians weren't brainlets and recognized that the elimination of the USSR would totally upset the balance of power on the continent.

The ballance of power would have been upset either way you utter moron.
Its just that for whatever retarded reason the western power believed the soviets to be the lesser evil which in hindsight is the dumbest shit ever considered.

>Its just that for whatever retarded reason the western power believed the soviets to be the lesser evil which in hindsight is the dumbest shit ever considered.
t. retard. The Soviets weren't nearly as expansionist, risk-acceptant, or prone to breaking their word as Nazi Germany was. They were most definitely the lesser of two evils.

They absolutely had zero chance of winning. It's not like Russians would be willing to stop fighting or anything like they had before in WW1. Here, they'd been fighting against a war of extermination, a war of total destruction and annihilation. When fighting against that, there's nothing on Earth that would have kept them from doing every single thing they could to put the Germans under heel.

>The Soviets weren't nearly as expansionist, risk-acceptant, or prone to breaking their word as Nazi Germany was

If you seriously believe this please unironically kill yourself.

They underestimated the chad Russian. No rifle? Hide in a ditch with Babushkas letter opener and wait until a kraut takes a piss before you slit his throat. No medicine? Pour vodka on your wounds until they numb.

>which in hindsight is the dumbest shit ever considered.
lmao what? ussr expanded insofar as they seized formerly nazi territorial conquest. after that they just sat around for four decades and then collapsed without much fanfare. nazis meanwhile prosecuted a war that led to 50 million deaths and directly caused soviet expansion into eastern europe

I'm sorry, which country started WW2 again? Which country violated multiple treaties, violated every deal made in good will, and started a war of racial extermination?

Are you baiting or just historically iliterate?

Great rebuttal there. Tell me, when did the Soviets break their arms limitation treaties? When did they promise to halt expansion only to renege on it twice in the next year and a half? Why is it that they were in fact deterred by the whole nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction thing, when Hitler was hellbent on starting wars with countries that were enormously stronger than his, on the assumption that they wouldn't militarize to the same degree he did? When did they attack their biggest trade partners? How many times did they invade their client states in order to seize said client states military assets? Why is it that they limited themselves to proxy wars instead of starting an all out confrontation with the NATO alliance?

The soviet union spread a cancerous ideology worldwide which killed up to 100 million people and condemned serveral countries to economic ruin.
It also broke numerous treaties.
It also expanded and swallowed countless countries and territories.
It started numerous wars on various continents killing even more people.

All Hitler ever did was unite all Germans under one banner and knock out Poland.

No matter what mental gymnastics you employ the soviet union was not the lesser evil.

It's called the Fog of War. Historians have greater access to information than analysts.

Historians don't predict the future, they wait for things to happen and then tell you why they were inevitable.
Really though, is the best answer ITT.

the soviet strategy was to encourage the psychopath and pick up some freebies in the chaos. it's obviously evil as shit but you can't really start defusing it from the other end.

>all hitler did was anschluss and knock out poland
t. Hitler

>cancerous ideology which killed up to 100 million people and condemned countries to economic ruin
implying that fascism and nazism wouldn't do just as bad or worse
>it broke numerous treaties
name them
>expanded and swallowed countries
never said they didn't. but they didn't say then, they never promised the rest of the world that they wouldn't do that exact thing, and equating Russia turning land they conquered in a defensive war into puppet states, and Germany trying to exterminate and colonize all of Eastern Europe is a bit ludicrous
>It started numerous wars on various continents killing even more people.
Almost like it lasted longer and was thus able to do more
>All Hitler ever did was unite all Germans under one banner and knock out Poland.
By starting the War in the first place, that man is directly responsible for every single European death that occurred in that war.

>mental gymnastics
Nazi sympathizers are the biggest soyboys in the fucking world.

under any scenario seems bs
if it was 1941 Germany vs the Soviet Union and Soviet Union alone there's a chance we'll see something like Brest-Litovsk happening

And why exactly do you think the other nations at war with Germany would not step in to help the Soviets? Can we make the Germans as stupid as you're portraying the Allied leaders as? Maybe have them break off the war to invade Senegal through the Sahara and have a million men die in the desert?

no arguments here

muh 4d soviet chess! that's right they were handed the movie script in advance!

There's no timeline where these things are absent, faggot.
Yeah there is. Britain peaces out of the war and Germany never declares war on the US.
>>the balance of power
Was going to be upset either way.

>Britain peaces out
why the fuck would they ever do that? they won the Battle of Britain. They were safe from invasion. There is no reality, in a thousand fucking universes, where Britain gets hit in the head hard enough that they become retarded enough to even fucking contemplate peace.

>Britain peaces out of the war
there is absolutely no timeline this hallowed stormkiddie fantasy plays out exccept in the mind of stormkiddies.

because its says any scenario
my scenario is 1941 Germany with all its conquest and Finland,Romania,Hungary,Italy etc against the SU
they could've just put most scenario

>This fucking thread again

You fuckers post at least one of these a day, I swear to God...

It's understood by non-autistic people that "any scenario" means "any plausible scenario". We could just as easily say

>What about if aliens from the Andromeda galaxy stop by and offer Hitler their services and instantly flatten the entire Soviet Union.

That's a scenario too, yet somehow I don't think historians consider it nor feel their analyses lacking for not considering it.

>my scenario is 1941 Germany with all its conquest and Finland,Romania,Hungary,Italy etc against the SU
so, you mean like real life? Because the Germans and their cohorts lost that one.

What would lead to victory besides the Western Allies not being in the war?

Literally nothing, ignore them

>Why did analysts at the time overwhelmingly seem to think the opposite?

The estimates of the time didn’t include the MASSIVE amount of Lend-Lease that the Soviets would get from the U.S. and UK, which kept the Soviets in the war and prevented them from signing a cease fire with the Germans.

Post-war, historians included Soviet claims of production, losses, etc. which we now know were propaganda and almost completely fabricated.

...

>cease fire against an enemy that wants to destroy you from the start
Opinion discarded

>t. historically illiterate /pol/ack

...

Barbarossa had already failed before the first lend lease shipment arrived, when they failed to win in 1941 they were finished.

Give this video a watch, as it shows just how badly depleted the German army was at the start of 1942
youtube.com/watch?v=caoxNSNcQZs

lol no. The soviets wouldn't have been launching their mobile counter-offensives in 1943 without lend-lease. Furthermore, without American and British involvement in the war they would have been facing more of the German army too. They would have been beaten and driven back in the summer months, just like they were in 1941 and in 1942.

The frontline stopped in 42, so i doubt that. Without burgers the war could be longer, but with the same results.

It wasn't a winnable war so long as there was a western front. Hitler had six years during the Great Depression to rearm from nothing.

Hitler stressed that he never posed a threat to America.

youtube.com/watch?v=mK7rm4nn020

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1933
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1935

I remember that time I went from Berlin to Warsaw but had to take a detour through Prague, Amsterdam, Bruxelles, Copenhagen, Oslo and fucking Belgrade, sure.

It was more than lend lease. The allies funded/fed/trained the Red Army and dropped a million tons of bombs on German women and children after said Red Army (created by Trotsky aka Bronstein) invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Finland and Romania.

>Historians today generally agree that the Germans had no chance of defeating the Soviets under any scenario.

Maybe you should read an actual book

Hitler offered peace once the Polish army was defeated. France declared war on Germany. Hitler waited. Then he crushed them and the BEF in six weeks flat.

youtube.com/watch?v=LayLQGgrsoE

Hitler dumped hundreds of thousands of peace leaflets over the UK after France and the BEF capitulated. I have one of these leaflets in storage.

He didn't annex Bohemia only the German parts that were stolen after WWI. As for Belgium and the Netherlands..

youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20

This German man is asked the same question.

Hindsight is 20/20.

It stopped in 41 too, during the winter. Then during the summer of 42 it started moving again, this time to the south. It stopped during the winter months and it was probably going to start moving again 43 after Manstein's backhand blow at Kharkov, but the soviets were too well equipped and the germans had too many fatal distractions(the air war, and the invasion of italy, plus the coming invasion of france that anyone with a brain knew would be happening sooner or later)to really do all that much during the summer other then one big offensive at kursk that simply failed due to the above factors.

nigger its barely even a strategy, every shithead dictatorship with no friends has always taken every chance to get someone else to be the problem child.