Russia would have lost WW2 if they traded allies with Germany

[Picaro]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

Exaggerated. Mix of 6 million Nazi Party members, probably a third or more survived the war, versus some 40 million dead Soviets alone. So, maybe 3 or 4 million dead Nazis to 40 million dead Soviets equal around 10 to 1.

 

[Picaro]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

 

[harmonica]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

Most of the population lived in the western part, for one, and so was most of its industrial base. With more astute leadership and a better strategists in charge, they most certainly could have easily crushed the Soviets. Population sizes don't mean squat in modern warfare. The Soviet losses, even with almost total air superiority, were massive, even against old men and children.

The British ran India with some 10,000 people, after all, and that was long before WW I.

...there have not been many times where a country has totally defeated another compared to the total number of wars
..France maybe--but Britain was still fighting and France had the resistance...and Germany did not win the war !!
Germany could not have stayed in France forever
...Russia was not giving up
..Japan had 2 Abombs dropped, her cities bombed to hell, and they STILL did not want to surrender
Germany had 2 armies on both sides of her, in Germany, and they still did not surrender
and you think Russia will surrender?? no way

..exactly--''Britain RAN India''---they didn't conquer India
..please list the many countries that were totally defeated post 1900-- country vs country--totally being foreign troops running the country/etc and unconditional surrender
..the great powers Britain and Russia could not do it to tiny Afghanistan
..the superpower US could not do it to North Vietnam
Iran-Iraq Wars
Arab-Israeli wars
it is very rare for 1 country to totally defeat another --that's why Germany's defeat of France 1940 is phenomenal ....but Germany did not win the war!!
Japan 1945 totally defeated

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US, England, and France never would have allied with Hitler's Germany.

 

[harmonica]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

Most of the population lived in the western part, for one, and so was most of its industrial base. With more astute leadership and a better strategists in charge, they most certainly could have easily crushed the Soviets. Population sizes don't mean squat in modern warfare. The Soviet losses, even with almost total air superiority, were massive, even against old men and children.

The British ran India with some 10,000 people, after all, and that was long before WW I.

crushed??? !!!!!! not even close

 

[DOTR]

It’s too bad Russia didn’t lose.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

Exaggerated. Mix of 6 million Nazi Party members, probably a third or more survived the war, versus some 40 million dead Soviets alone. So, maybe 3 or 4 million dead Nazis to 40 million dead Soviets equal around 10 to 1.

Most of the Soviets killed were civilians...

 

[harmonica]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

. With more astute leadership and a better strategists

hahahah
''with better strategists''' .....!!!!??
..ok --so since you are going to change the German aspect --lets change the Russian aspect also---and give them 2 million more troops and 10,000 more aircraft
and let's add 100 ships to the Russian navy --no--no--200 more ships
....hahhaah-----like you want---let's get rid of hitler altogether--hahah---
????!!!!!!! change everything ......hahahahaa very realistic
let's give the Russians better 'strategists---get rid of Stalin and put in a democracy

 

[Picaro]

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

The Soviets had piles of junk that were routinely stopped dead by very small numbers of German forces. If it weren't for Hitler being incompetent, there would have been no 'Soviet Union' by the end of 1943, even with the early British aid that kept Moscow from falling for a few more months. The savages were using ancient 'human wave' attacks, after all, hardly 'modern' warfare. As already mentioned, they couldn't even make their own aviation quality fuel, had to import booster from the British and U.S., along with British aircraft engines, had to import alloys of all kinds, radios, locomotives, even rails for their railroads. Gunpowder for their artillery, ammo for their infantry, all down the list.

You're loony if you think the Soviets could match Germany in modern production; they couldn't even match Finland. Their 'raw materials' did them no good, and especially without imported rail tracks and locomotives, and trucks by the hundreds of thousands. Soviet field commanders literally held battles with other commanders over American made trucks over their own Soviet made ones. The T-34's were pieces of crap until after American engineers studied them and made major changes in their production, which were not implemented until late 1944.

Being 'outnumbered' doesn't mean squat in modern war. If it did, Red China would have already used that to take over Asia and Russia a long time ago.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

The Soviets had piles of junk that were routinely stopped dead by very small numbers of German forces. If it weren't for Hitler being incompetent, there would have been no 'Soviet Union' by the end of 1943, even with the early British aid that kept Moscow from falling for a few more months.

Sure, like the T-34 tank?

 

[harmonica]

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

The Soviets had piles of junk that were routinely stopped dead by very small numbers of German forces. If it weren't for Hitler being incompetent, there would have been no 'Soviet Union' by the end of 1943, even with the early British aid that kept Moscow from falling for a few more months.

ever hear about logistics?

 

[harmonica]

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

The Soviets had piles of junk that were routinely stopped dead by very small numbers of German forces. If it weren't for Hitler being incompetent, there would have been no 'Soviet Union' by the end of 1943, even with the early British aid that kept Moscow from falling for a few more months.

Sure, like the T-34 tank?

and the IS2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The US, England, and France never would have allied with Hitler's Germany.

Not with Uncle Joe's Democrats in the White House. Patton wanted to arm the Germans and defeat your beloved USSR

 

[Picaro]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

. With more astute leadership and a better strategists

hahahah
''with better strategists''' .....!!!!??
..ok --so since you are going to change the German aspect --lets change the Russian aspect also---and give them 2 million more troops and 10,000 more aircraft
and let's add 100 ships to the Russian navy --no--no--200 more ships
....hahhaah-----like you want---let's get rid of hitler altogether--hahah---
????!!!!!!! change everything ......hahahahaa very realistic
let's give the Russians better 'strategists---get rid of Stalin and put in a democracy

Rubbish. I already said the obvious, that even with Hitler the German crushed the Soviets, and nobody including you, can refute that obvious result. The Soviets couldn't even hold Moscow without the timely intervention of the British. You can never establish anything to the contrary.

You're the guy who claimed' Germany could never defeat the Soviet Union'; I merely pointed out they most certainly could have, and easily. You keep moving the goal posts, not me.

 

[Picaro]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

Exaggerated. Mix of 6 million Nazi Party members, probably a third or more survived the war, versus some 40 million dead Soviets alone. So, maybe 3 or 4 million dead Nazis to 40 million dead Soviets equal around 10 to 1.

Most of the Soviets killed were civilians...

So what? Most armies were made up of civilians, not professional soldiers. Total war is war against populations as well as armies. this is why the Soviets never wanted to go to war against the U.S., no matter what the size of their forces were, and still won't.

 

[harmonica]

...Churchill did not like the communist
...he did not like helping the communist resistance groups--but he needed to defeat Germany first
..the US helped the Chinese Nationalist against the Chinese Communist with $$$ and arms, after WW2
---but you are out of your mind to think the Allies would link up with Germany to fight Russia--you are in hilterworld if you think that

 

[Picaro]

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...

Yes, because Eisenhower stopped at his original position he chose before we invaded Europe, and of course the Soviets had to rely on the West to even be in the war at all, dummy. They wouldn't have gotten past their positions at the end of the invasion without western aid, period. they had nothing to fight with, and all the babbling about their 'industrial capacity' is a lot of rubbish propaganda, we now know for certain. They couldn't even produce their own aviation fuel.

Haha, Soviets had more tanks, and aircraft than Nazis, with, or without Western aid.

I think the only one spreading rubbish propaganda is yourself.

For those in the Peanut Gallery who need a clue about this, there are lists of what the Soviets had left after the Germans had reached Moscow and Stalingrad. Anybody claiming the Soviets had all kinds of stuff of their own to resist with is clearly crazy. they couldn't launch a real offensive until the following summer, and after massive numbers of tanks, ammo, food, etc arrived. The Kursk breakout would have been a pipe dream. The only thing the Russian exceled in was mine fields, many miles deep, the only thing that stopped the German advances.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Nazi’s came really close to winning. If not for Dunkirk, as well as 4 U.S. aircraft carriers performing exercises away from Pearl Harbor, Nazism and it’s Asian equivalent would have won. That’s why the rise of Nazism today should worry everybody.

 

[harmonica]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

. With more astute leadership and a better strategists

hahahah
''with better strategists''' .....!!!!??
..ok --so since you are going to change the German aspect --lets change the Russian aspect also---and give them 2 million more troops and 10,000 more aircraft
and let's add 100 ships to the Russian navy --no--no--200 more ships
....hahhaah-----like you want---let's get rid of hitler altogether--hahah---
????!!!!!!! change everything ......hahahahaa very realistic
let's give the Russians better 'strategists---get rid of Stalin and put in a democracy

Rubbish. I already said the obvious, that even with Hitler the German crushed the Soviets, and nobody including you, can refute that obvious result. The Soviets couldn't even hold Moscow without the timely intervention of the British. You can never establish anything to the contrary.

You're the guy who claimed' Germany could never defeat the Soviet Union'; I merely pointed out they most certainly could have, and easily. You keep moving the goal posts, not me.

this is what you said:

With more astute leadership and a better strategists

..so you are saying with different generals/hitler/etc.......YOU are changing crap--it's right there--you can't deny it--everyone can see it
..''easily'' hahahahahahhaha
''crushed the Soviets''???!! ---I thought Germany was the one who lost WW2??
Russian population about 170 million
Germany -about 80 million