- 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 8:56 pm to Tridentds
Posted on 1/26/26 at 8:56 pm to Tridentds
One thing not mentioned- Spain.
The Spaniards stayed neutral, but were fascist (thus ideologically similar) to Italy and Germany, and they were 100% openly opposed to communism. They sent the Azure Division, a 45-50k force to fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front, all volunteers.
A quick glance on the internet, and Spain had a military in the 300k-400k in numbers during WW2. Spain had little to no reason to fight the West, but as noted they absolutely hated the Soviets.
I think the general plan was to get the Brits to tap out quickly, before the Americans joined; at that point it would be war just against the Soviets. In that scenario, I could see Spain entering officially, just to fight the USSR.
That never happened, Britain held out, the US entered the war, and Spain stayed neutral the whole time.
The Spaniards stayed neutral, but were fascist (thus ideologically similar) to Italy and Germany, and they were 100% openly opposed to communism. They sent the Azure Division, a 45-50k force to fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front, all volunteers.
A quick glance on the internet, and Spain had a military in the 300k-400k in numbers during WW2. Spain had little to no reason to fight the West, but as noted they absolutely hated the Soviets.
I think the general plan was to get the Brits to tap out quickly, before the Americans joined; at that point it would be war just against the Soviets. In that scenario, I could see Spain entering officially, just to fight the USSR.
That never happened, Britain held out, the US entered the war, and Spain stayed neutral the whole time.
0
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:01 pm to michael corleone
Generals January and February did the Germans in as far as Russia was concerned. They had neither the equipment nor the clothing to withstand 30 below zero temps. On the other hand, the Russians were right at home and had home field advantage.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:12 pm to Canon951
quote:
Russia is too big and had too many resources/people plus the weather.
The main Russian resource was the United States of America. Without support from the USA, Germany would probably have conquered Russia.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:14 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Of course. The Germans made multiple attempts on Hitler's life over the course of the war. Eventually they would have succeeded
Yeah maybe, but I don’t think that’s the question…I do think dividing German forces mattered.
Did Germany advance too far east? Yes. Do I think western invasion overextend German resources? Yes. Had Germany not advanced too far east would they have ultimately been in a position to treaty and keep territory claimed? Perhaps.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:28 pm to Canon951
In a war, the name of the game is resources. Germany had pretty much taken all of Europe besides Britain so the spoils of war from the conquered nations strengthened them incredibly.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:47 pm to Canon951
Hitler was warned about this. It’s amazing how World War I is completely responsible for WW2 and for turning Hitler into the figure we remember today.
The Schlieffen Plan for fighting a two-front war didn’t work in World War I, and a two-front war didn’t work again in World War II.
On a side note, it’s tragic that roughly three million men died on the Western Front for armies to gain or lose only about thirty to forty miles over four years. What makes it even harder to grasp is that Germany surrendered while much of its army was still sitting on enemy soil in France and Belgium.
The Schlieffen Plan for fighting a two-front war didn’t work in World War I, and a two-front war didn’t work again in World War II.
On a side note, it’s tragic that roughly three million men died on the Western Front for armies to gain or lose only about thirty to forty miles over four years. What makes it even harder to grasp is that Germany surrendered while much of its army was still sitting on enemy soil in France and Belgium.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 11:14 pm to threeputt23
And Russia was lacking resources without lend lease.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 11:20 pm to threeputt23
Except they still couldn't produce food and nearly starved to death.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 11:25 pm to Centinel
quote:
The US probably would have stayed out of it if Japan hadn't touched our boats, giving Germany a pretty good chance.
You never touch our boats.
We were already in an undelared naval war with Germany before December 7. War with Germany was coming no matter what.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 11:51 pm to Penrod
quote:
The main Russian resource was the United States of America. Without support from the USA, Germany would probably have conquered Russia.
So the US could’ve soloed Nazi Occupied Europe by itself? You can’t cry lend lease and ignore how much burden the USSR took off the Western Front.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:05 am to ClemsonKitten
quote:
So the US could’ve soloed Nazi Occupied Europe by itself? You can’t cry lend lease and ignore how much burden the USSR took off the Western Front.
I didn’t ignore it. Nor did I imply that the US could have done anything by itself. I wrote that the US was Russia’s main resource and that they would have likely lost the war without the US. Unless you consider men, or a cold winter, Russian resources, it’s true. Stupid commies couldn’t even feed their armies.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:16 am to Gondor
quote:Japan did attack in '39 and got whipped. They didn't want any of that.
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.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:55 am to Penrod
quote:
I didn’t ignore it. Nor did I imply that the US could have done anything by itself. I wrote that the US was Russia’s main resource and that they would have likely lost the war without the US. Unless you consider men, or a cold winter, Russian resources, it’s true. Stupid commies couldn’t even feed their armies.
The US stood no chance in the Western front if the USSR hadn’t done the bulk of the fighting. The USSR passed Germany in production during the war, so the Lend Lease act just bought time morseo. Meanwhile, there’s no possible argument that the US didn’t need the Eastern front to be successful in the western front.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:14 am to ClemsonKitten
quote:
The US stood no chance in the Western front if the USSR hadn’t done the bulk of the fighting. The USSR passed Germany in production during the war,
Again, this does not bear on my point one iota, even if it was true. The second statement is silly. Of course a nation, being defeated and relentlessly bombed, will see its production drop. I would not doubt it if Germany’s production was exceeded by The Maldives’ by the end of the war.
And Russia’s production was allowed to flourish because the US was pouring materials and equipment into Russia - warmaking and industrial materials. The critical question is; What was their relative production in 1941?
As to whether the US could have defeated Hitler without an Eastern Front? That’s a complicated question. Does Hitler get the Caspian oil? If so, that is such a weird counterfactual that it’s like a kid asking, “Who would win between Superman and Santa Claus?” Certainly the US would not accept the millions of casualties it would have taken to beat Hitler alone. I imagine the US would have used the formula the British used to defeat Napoleon - they’d have isolated him economically, pecked at him relentlessly using our naval superiority, then they would have invented the atom bomb and killed Hitler.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:20 am to Canon951
Yes. They divided their forces on two fronts.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:46 am to Penrod
America still defeats Germany. Industrial production far outclassed that if Germany. So much so that those Intel officers who tried to tell hitler were punished.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:49 am to Canon951
quote:
The soviets were falling back but were steadily building up and rearming.
The soviets were starving and beaten.
They had the man power to win but not the ability.
What you are describing was a result of American supplies flooding their army. Even with less than a month to do so, over 300000 tons of supplies hit their shores in 41. It was over 2.5 million in 42, including 3000 planes and 2000 tanks.
They weren’t building up shite.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:50 am to Canon951
If the soviets had no allied support they would have lost to Germany. Hitler didn't want all of the Soviet Union either, just the chunk west of the Caspian Sea
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:54 am to LB84
quote:
just the chunk west of the Caspian Sea
Which is basically the entire country.
Not geographically no, but in terms of population and development?
You could get the rest for resources at your leisure after
Posted on 1/27/26 at 6:55 am to prplhze2000
There is a documentary series on Prime that talks about how the Russians moved their entire manufacturing economy to the other side of the Ural Mountains basically and did it in under 9 months essentially.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News