- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did Germany ever have a real chance of beating the Soviet Union?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:44 pm to Canon951
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:44 pm to Canon951
Germany made two fatal errors
One was backing Japan after Pearl Harbor and declaring war on the U.S.
The 2nd was Stalingrad.
Hitler should have hung Japan out to dry and it’s possible the U.S. only focuses on the pacific front. Declaring war on us opened up two fronts for Germany against two large nations full of resources. He had Europe defeated and Britain on the brink of defeat.
Hitler redirected his troops to Stalingrad when they were within striking distance of Moscow. He should have taken Moscow and occupied it during the winter. He got bogged down in Stalingrad and the winter caught them, and troops couldn’t get supplies by rail due to the USSR using different gauge track than Europe.
Had Germany been able to put its full force on the eastern front and had they taken Moscow they could have beaten the Soviets. But it was similar to the American civil war with Germany being the CSA. Germany had better soldiers and generals, but they were outnumbered and lacked resources.
Germany had high end tech but over engineered equipment that took longer to produce and then they couldn’t easily get it there due to the track gauge issue. Russia just overwhelmed them with manpower and cheap, hastily built tanks and vehicles that they mass produced quickly and efficiently.
One was backing Japan after Pearl Harbor and declaring war on the U.S.
The 2nd was Stalingrad.
Hitler should have hung Japan out to dry and it’s possible the U.S. only focuses on the pacific front. Declaring war on us opened up two fronts for Germany against two large nations full of resources. He had Europe defeated and Britain on the brink of defeat.
Hitler redirected his troops to Stalingrad when they were within striking distance of Moscow. He should have taken Moscow and occupied it during the winter. He got bogged down in Stalingrad and the winter caught them, and troops couldn’t get supplies by rail due to the USSR using different gauge track than Europe.
Had Germany been able to put its full force on the eastern front and had they taken Moscow they could have beaten the Soviets. But it was similar to the American civil war with Germany being the CSA. Germany had better soldiers and generals, but they were outnumbered and lacked resources.
Germany had high end tech but over engineered equipment that took longer to produce and then they couldn’t easily get it there due to the track gauge issue. Russia just overwhelmed them with manpower and cheap, hastily built tanks and vehicles that they mass produced quickly and efficiently.
1
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:48 pm to udtiger
Caught a recent WW II-related documentary & this was the first time I'd ever heard this: Britain had several plans to kill Hitler . But held off when they decided Hitler alive & running German's military was being more damaging to Germany's war plans.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:48 pm to Canon951
Fighting on multiple major fronts was a bad move.
Either leave Russia alone or mount that offensive before engaging the European countries.
Either leave Russia alone or mount that offensive before engaging the European countries.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:49 pm to Canon951
As soon as it was a war on two fronts the opportunity for success dropped drastically.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:52 pm to Canon951
If the other Allies hadn't assisted the Soviets materially with resources and equipment, yeah, the Germans had a shot. Everything still would have had to break right, but they had a chance. As late as the second half of 1943 the Soviets were making back channel feelers to negotiate a separate peace.
Hell, you could argue just without American trucks the Soviets couldn't have logistically supported their frontline troops.
Hell, you could argue just without American trucks the Soviets couldn't have logistically supported their frontline troops.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:54 pm to Canon951
I think that if Japan had not brought US full into war because of Pearl Harbor and attacked Russia from east thru Siberia.Manchuria, that gave them the best chance to topple Russia. Once USA was in war it was only a matter of time until manpower and ability to produce overwellmed the Axis.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:55 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
If the United States does not enter the war, and certainly if the British and Germans ceased hostilities and the war pitted Germany vs the USSR heads up, there would be plenty of scenarios where German victory was attainable.
Do you mean in every single scenario but the one where God himself descends and protected the USSR? Without lend-lease the Soviets were screwed. They had men but that's about it without the US supplying them. Now, does Hitler have such an easy time rolling over France and western Europe once he took the USSR? No, absolutely not because blitzkrieg wouldn't have worked as well and the US would've joined in before a Pearl Harbor type event at that point but Germany runs roughshod over the Soviets in a world without any US intervention.
ETA: This is in a scenario someone else mentioned where Germany goes after the USSR first because no one would care. In a two-front war Germany still beats the USSR without American aid.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:59 pm to Canon951
If Rommel and Model had been in charge of planning and in command of the entire invasion, possibly.
Hitler was just too full of himself.
Hitler was just too full of himself.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:59 pm to lsugradman
quote:essentially they were telling the Germans that something was going to happen but they didnt tell them when or how. They had no idea Pearl Harbor was "coming" and were floored when it actually went down given how little info they were given before hand combined with how daring it was
Did Japan confer w Germany on their Pearl Harbor plans or was that a unilateral decision?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:01 pm to Canon951
Yes they would have had to take Moscow instead id full three prong approach That was the rail hub for everthing - everthing had to go back and forth through Moscow, very little direct links otherwise.
It would have pushed all Soviet industry across the urals. Germans would have had time to consolidate oil fields etc.
They would also have had to work with the existing local populace of western Soviet Union rather than exterminating them. That would have provided men, resource and people looking to get rid of Soviet oppression.
It would have pushed all Soviet industry across the urals. Germans would have had time to consolidate oil fields etc.
They would also have had to work with the existing local populace of western Soviet Union rather than exterminating them. That would have provided men, resource and people looking to get rid of Soviet oppression.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:02 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
A better question is if the allies could have won the war without Soviet intervention on the eastern front.
idk do Atomic Bombs work on German cities?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:09 pm to Tigerstark
quote:
They would also have had to work with the existing local populace of western Soviet Union rather than exterminating them. That would have provided men, resource and people looking to get rid of Soviet oppression
The Nazis weren't looking to annex all of Russia anyway. Lebensraum was basically to the Urals and nothing further east. I think Hitler would've been fine with Stalin sitting in BFE Russia for a bit before he had Stalin killed and a pro-German strongman take over.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:10 pm to Canon951
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:15 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
idk do Atomic Bombs work on German cities?
Germany was also working on the atomic bomb amongst many other war-changing technologies. If they didn't have to focus energy or finances on Russia, it's very possible other things could have happened that either sped up Germany's research or delayed the US. Russia and Germany went to war in June 1941 and the US atomic bomb wasn't ready until July 1945. Butterfly effect and all.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:17 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
A better question is if the allies could have won the war without Soviet intervention on the eastern front.
Easily. I don't think people realize the absolute dominance of the United States in 1944/45 in manufacturing and resource production. Just look at oil production alone during America's involvement.
The better question is: could the United States whip all of the Axis and Allies combined? Probably
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:25 pm to Canon951
quote:
Did Germany ever have a real chance of beating the Soviet Union?
Definitely, what? Are you kidding?
Let's assume that Germany has some Atomic Bombs in early 1941. BOOM, there goes Moscow. BOOM. There goes Leningrad. BOOM. There goes Stalingrad.
OK Russia! Ready to Surrender now?
Game. Set. Match.
Game Over.
Eazy Peazy.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:36 pm to Canon951
They did, but Hitler moved too fast.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:38 pm to Canon951
If we don’t give Russia equipment they are in serious trouble and quickly.
I’m pretty sure it allowed the Russians to build plants to start manufacturing
I’m pretty sure it allowed the Russians to build plants to start manufacturing
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:44 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
I don't think people realize the absolute dominance of the United States in 1944/45 in manufacturing and resource production. Just look at oil production alone during America's involvement.
They really don't.
By 1944, the United States had taken the lead in not one, not two, but three major fronts: western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific. The British were important supporting players, while the Free French were loyal contributors.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:49 pm to Canon951
Possibly. His mistake with Russia was trying to take them on at the same time he was trying to invade England. Had he picked just one (and threw the combined forces at it) he likely would have won, then could have waited as he consolidated power before going after the other.
Thankfully, he wasn't patient.
Thankfully, he wasn't patient.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News