[Thunderhawk]

We're not talking about 'realistic scenarios', we're talking about an alternate history where no other nations are involved in any way.

Would the leaders of Nazi Germany, its puppet states and Stalin and his puppet regimes have known no other countries would get involved? If so, the Soviets could have pulled units out of Siberia that were guarding against Japan.


If your talking about a strait Nazi German vs Soviet fight "where no other nations are involved in any way" then the Nazi war machine grinds to a halt for lack of Romanian (and international) oil.

[RonPaulalways]

We're talking a scenario where all other countries are for all intents and purposes neutral vis-a-vis Germany vs USSR. In this case, Germany is not going to totally empty its western regions of troops, and neither is the USSR going to empty its eastern regions, but the advantage would go to Germany, since it had a far greater proportion of its resources diverted to the front opposite the German/Russian line to face other threats than the USSR.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
Re: production. Germany produced more of every basic material (except oil) than the USSR, by a factor of 3-4 times. Every estimate of GDP shows Germany's production being greater than the USSR's.


Germany was also putting more resources into their civilian economy that the Soviet Union, right into 1943.

Irrelevant to my point about relative economic productive capacity.

As another nail in the coffin of your GDP analysis - there is no significant shift in German GDP from 1942 to 1943 (compared with previous years), despite 1943 being notable as the year that Germany finally went into a true war production footing. As you noted already, German war production leapt in 1943, so how do you account for the limited shift in your chosen indicator of industrial strength?

Germany shifted from consumer to more war production, how does this dispel what I said about GPD?

Quote:
We're not talking about 'realistic scenarios'

Then why even bother debating facts and figures?

Why bother debating any thing at all? We're discussing Germany vs USSR in a 1on1 war, so it can't be a realistic scenario.

Quote:
we're talking about an alternate history where no other nations are involved in any way

This isn't actually what the OP was proposing, so when you say "we", you mean "you".

Fair enough. If you want to discuss a realistic scenario where Germany somehow knocks other countries out of the fight but they still contribute in some other way, then we have nothing to debate.

Quote:
In this scenario, Germany wouldn't have had to dedicate 30% of its arms production for anti-aircraft weapons to prevent allied bombing of its western regions and have an extensive submarine program to try to cut off supply shipments to the UK.


Then I refer you to my point about industrial facilities not being so easily converted to other purposes. Further if you bothered to look, the Soviets produced more artillery (which includes anti-aircraft guns) than the Germans did in WWII.

It's not just artillery, but anti-aircraft ammunition that Germany was producing to counter allied bombings.

Quote:
I looked at the figures you gave me, and if you noticed, I acknowledged them. They are not production figures, but figures specifically for production of land war weapons


Why shouldn’t we focus on war production (and land forces being the most decisive), in a discussion about the war?

You're missing my point. I'm saying that Germany had more productive capacity, and one main reason it wasn't capitalized on to outproduce the USSR in land weapons was due to the threat in the western front, something they wouldn't have faced in a one-on-one war.

Quote:
In relative terms, Germany was definitely profiting from the invasion, as it significantly reduced Soviet steel/food production

Cutting off your neighbours head to appear taller does not in fact make you taller. Your original basic statement is still wrong, no matter how you ‘slice’ it.

In a war, if you inflict more damage to your opponent than you incur, that gives you an advantage.

Quote:
In absolute terms, I don't see how you can estimate a net loss from the invasion

Because I’m taking into consideration the cost of those gains, unlike yourself, for example:

Based on what statistics?

Quote:
given that Germany hauled away equipment

A lot of Soviet equipment had to be re-tooled for use by the Axis. For example many trains were seized and put to work, but not before they were either altered to match Western gauge rails, or the formerly Soviet rail system was re-gauged. Much store is placed in German seizures of 76mm artillery pieces, to be returned as anti-tank guns, but this required building a new industry around effectively recycling other peoples weaponry. In other words, to exploit these resources cost was incurred.

You're speculating on relative costs.

[Smilin' Dave]

Irrelevant to my point about relative economic productive capacity.

So in Nazi Germany used its entire economic might to crank out ball point pens instead of war materials, this would still translate into an advantage against the Soviet Union? No, of course not. Hence identifying that the Germans were effectively ‘wasting’ their notional production advantage (the only evidence of which is apparently their GDP, rather than actual weapons production) is quite relevant.

Germany shifted from consumer to more war production, how does this dispel what I said about GPD?

I’ll spell it out for your: At a time when statistics show that German production increased significantly by shifting resources around (both by cutting back on consumer sectors and putting factories on extra shifts etc.), your chosen indicator of production strength, GDP, didn’t increase significantly. Therefore GDP isn’t a good indicator of production power.

Fair enough. If you want to discuss a realistic scenario where Germany somehow knocks other countries out of the fight but they still contribute in some other way, then we have nothing to debate.

If you wanted to discuss something else, you should have started a separate thread, rather than sneak into this one.

It's not just artillery, but anti-aircraft ammunition that Germany was producing to counter allied bombings.

Yeah, that’s right, the Soviets built such a large artillery park as to dwarf the German effort, but they didn’t think to produce ammunition for it. You are just getting more and more absurd.

I'm saying that Germany had more productive capacity

Again, you have failed to properly demonstrate this. Your evidence is contested, my figures are excepted even by you. In a war, only war production capacity should be relevant. The threat of a western front wasn’t why the Nazi economy was misallocating resources. Even when it was allocating resources to military sectors, they were not always the most productive. Consider the penchant for superweapons instead of replacing aging designs like the Bf-109.

In a war, if you inflict more damage to your opponent than you incur, that gives you an advantage.

Not denying this, I object to your claim that the Axis profited, which is defined differently.

Based on what statistics?

Where are the statistics for your claim that the Germans were profiting?

You're speculating on relative costs.

First you want the speculative history, now you reject speculation. Totally absurd.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
Irrelevant to my point about relative economic productive capacity.

So in Nazi Germany used its entire economic might to crank out ball point pens instead of war materials, this would still translate into an advantage against the Soviet Union? No, of course not. Hence identifying that the Germans were effectively ‘wasting’ their notional production advantage (the only evidence of which is apparently their GDP, rather than actual weapons production) is quite relevant.

It's a separate argument that doesn't refute the point you were supposedly rebutting: which is that Germany had more economic productive capacity than the Soviet Union.

Quote:
Germany shifted from consumer to more war production, how does this dispel what I said about GPD?

I’ll spell it out for your: At a time when statistics show that German production increased significantly by shifting resources around (both by cutting back on consumer sectors and putting factories on extra shifts etc.), your chosen indicator of production strength, GDP, didn’t increase significantly. Therefore GDP isn’t a good indicator of production power.

Well of course shifting production from consumer goods to weapons is not going to change the total GDP, it's only going to change the composition of GDP (less consumer production and more war production).

GDP still remains a good indicator of war production potential.

Quote:
Fair enough. If you want to discuss a realistic scenario where Germany somehow knocks other countries out of the fight but they still contribute in some other way, then we have nothing to debate.


If you wanted to discuss something else, you should have started a separate thread, rather than sneak into this one.

I was under the impression that no other countries were involved in any way in this scenario. You're right though, if this scenario has some involvement of other countries (i.e. a 'realistic scenario), then my argument doesn't belong here.

Quote:
It's not just artillery, but anti-aircraft ammunition that Germany was producing to counter allied bombings.

Yeah, that’s right, the Soviets built such a large artillery park as to dwarf the German effort, but they didn’t think to produce ammunition for it. You are just getting more and more absurd.

Anti-aircraft guns use more ammunition than anti-tank guns, and it's not just the ammunition used by the anti-aircraft guns, but the over half a million Germans that had to man them, which would otherwise have been used for production.

Quote:
I'm saying that Germany had more productive capacity

Again, you have failed to properly demonstrate this. Your evidence is contested, my figures are excepted even by you.

I've clearly demonstrated this. The evidence is the production of basic materials, and the fact that there are no credible sources that place Soviet GDP above German GDP.

Quote:
In a war, if you inflict more damage to your opponent than you incur, that gives you an advantage.


Not denying this, I object to your claim that the Axis profited, which is defined differently.

In the context of war, getting a comparative advantage can be seen as profiting IMO.

Quote:
Based on what statistics?

Where are the statistics for your claim that the Germans were profiting?

It's obvious that their production would increase from the territories they captured from the Soviets, if not immediately, at least eventually.

Quote:
You're speculating on relative costs.

First you want the speculative history, now you reject speculation. Totally absurd.

You are doubting my claims of Germany outproducing the Soviet Union even when I show statistics from reputable sources, yet you want me to accept your unbacked speculative claim that Germany incurred a loss from the territories it captured.

[Smilin' Dave]

It's a separate argument that doesn't refute the point you were supposedly rebutting: which is that Germany had more economic productive capacity than the Soviet Union.

Capacity is irrelevant if it is being wasted in practice. Do you see the relevance yet?

Well of course shifting production from consumer goods to weapons is not going to change the total GDP, it's only going to change the composition of GDP (less consumer production and more war production).

If that were all I had said, you would have a point. However you are ignoring a fundamental point, which you actually quoted! Production didn't just shift sectors, it INCREASED, but GDP didn't increase in proportion in the period where this took place. Your continued attachment to GDP as sole production indicator is mind boggling.

Anti-aircraft guns use more ammunition than anti-tank guns

Anti-aircraft shells are generally of smaller calibre (so for example by 1942 there were few 40mm AT guns or smaller being produced), reducing the materials required per unit produced and also making it easier to produce with lighter machinery. So a change in production doesn't necessarily result in equal results.

The evidence is the production of basic materials

How cares, if every item of war production shows a significant Soviet advantage (again, suggesting wastage in the Nazi economy)? Given the Axis could draw fairly easily on the resources of much of Central and Western Europe, they would tend to have an edge in raw materials, having denied the same to the Soviets.

In the context of war, getting a comparative advantage can be seen as profiting IMO.

Congratulations, you have managed to contort your original discussion to the point where you salvaged some credibility from it. Clearly it was my fault in not seeing into the future of this discussion to see what you “really” meant.

It's obvious

Everything I’ve said is obvious too, you just refuse to accept it. To demand statistics from me without having any of your own is a double standard.

production would increase from the territories they captured from the Soviets

Production might benefit to some degree, but the question is if the economy overall didn’t suffer from the costs of extracting that advantage. If nothing else that advantage was bought at the cost of a massive invasion and maintenance of an occupation force.

if not immediately, at least eventually

If eventually means the end of the war, then naturally the full advantage may never have been achieved.

You are doubting my claims of Germany outproducing the Soviet Union even when I show statistics from reputable sources

Actually you haven’t shown me the statistics, you only referred to them and never sourced them. I at least linked my sources, those links in turn show where their data comes from. Secondly, you really should acknowledge that you only have one statistic in your favour: GDP. Too bad you fail to demonstrate its relevance or accuracy for the purpose you intend.

yet you want me to accept your unbacked speculative claim that Germany incurred a loss from the territories it captured.

This is misleading. You provided no hard evidence, backing as you put it, of overall profit from the occupied territories. If nothing else, your comparison isn’t equal. You haven’t disproven the logic of my explanations, but I have done the same to yours. You have no leg to stand on, so you insist on evidence, hoping that its absence will be mistaken for proof of your own position.

When the real situation doesn’t suit you, you cry that it’s just speculation. When I speculate, you demand hard facts.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
It's a separate argument that doesn't refute the point you were supposedly rebutting: which is that Germany had more economic productive capacity than the Soviet Union.

Capacity is irrelevant if it is being wasted in practice. Do you see the relevance yet?

And we have no idea how much of its productive capacity Germany would have ended capitalizing on. In the real time line, Germany started increasing its war production and decreasing consumer goods production towards the end of the war. If the war had continued, and Germany had fully capitalized on its productive capacity, it could have outproduced the Soviet Union in every arms category.

Quote:
Well of course shifting production from consumer goods to weapons is not going to change the total GDP, it's only going to change the composition of GDP (less consumer production and more war production).


If that were all I had said, you would have a point. However you are ignoring a fundamental point, which you actually quoted! Production didn't just shift sectors, it INCREASED, but GDP didn't increase in proportion in the period where this took place. Your continued attachment to GDP as sole production indicator is mind boggling.

No, when you decrease consumer production and increase war production, the GDP doesn't change, since both count towards GDP. That's what Germany was doing in 42-43. It wouldn't have led to a GDP increase.

Quote:
The evidence is the production of basic materials


How cares, if every item of war production shows a significant Soviet advantage (again, suggesting wastage in the Nazi economy)? Given the Axis could draw fairly easily on the resources of much of Central and Western Europe, they would tend to have an edge in raw materials, having denied the same to the Soviets.

Every item? Aircraft? No. Submarines? No. Antiaircraft guns/munitions? IIRC No.

Germany also had a better weapons development program and was experimenting with anti-aircraft missiles, that it would have deployed if the war had continued.

Quote:
production would increase from the territories they captured from the Soviets

Production might benefit to some degree, but the question is if the economy overall didn’t suffer from the costs of extracting that advantage.

The cost of taking the territory is a one time cost, which also inflicted a massive cost on the Soviet Union. The benefits of having that territory accrue periodically.

Quote:
You are doubting my claims of Germany outproducing the Soviet Union even when I show statistics from reputable sources

Actually you haven’t shown me the statistics, you only referred to them and never sourced them. I at least linked my sources, those links in turn show where their data comes from. Secondly, you really should acknowledge that you only have one statistic in your favour: GDP. Too bad you fail to demonstrate its relevance or accuracy for the purpose you intend.

I linked to a book that showed basic material production by Germany to be significantly higher. Also, here's the wikipedia article showing the GDP of various WW2 participants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... ovietUnion

Table data source: Harrison, Mark, "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge University Press (1998).

[Smilin' Dave]

And we have no idea how much of its productive capacity Germany would have ended capitalizing on.

Having argued with you for days about the relevance of GDP as an indicative of war production, you pull this hypothetical rubbish again. Explain to me why Nazi Germany would be more inclined to go to a full war economy sooner if it were only fighting one nation on one front, which as you noted, would reduce the stress on their system.

No, when you decrease consumer production and increase war production, the GDP doesn't change, since both count towards GDP.

This assumes that war production increases match consumer production reductions, but the fact is war production increased far more proportionately. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear already, but clearly you learn through repetition.

Every item? Aircraft? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... _all_types
In the individual breakdowns you can also see that the only category Germany had an advantage in was training aircraft!

Submarines? No.

The Soviets didn’t need submarines to wage its war, submarines primarily of use as a raiding vessel. However:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... I#Cruisers
In the category of cruisers and destroyers, the Soviets are winning the race again.

Antiaircraft guns/munitions? IIRC No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... #Artillery

Germany also had a better weapons development program and was experimenting with anti-aircraft missiles, that it would have deployed if the war had continued.

Except the driver of anti-aircraft technologies in Germany was the threat of allied strategic bombers. Remove the allies and you remove the incentive for funding such programs.

The cost of taking the territory is a one time cost

Wrong. Occupation has ongoing costs in terms of provision of resources to maintain control, including the costs of garrisons.

I linked to a book that showed basic material production by Germany to be significantly higher.

Which was just another one of your irrelevant statistics that you interpret to prove your point. I’ve challenged you on this assumption in my last point and you have no response.

Also, here's the wikipedia article showing the GDP of various WW2 participants:

Judging by the rest of your comments, you didn’t even read the whole article.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I remember reading somewhere, a long time ago, that the big conventional wars of the last 100 years were won buy those with the biggest steel production. I honestly cannot remember where I read it but it might be interesting to see the steel production figures of the USSR and Germany (with or without allies, as you please).

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
And we have no idea how much of its productive capacity Germany would have ended capitalizing on.

Having argued with you for days about the relevance of GDP as an indicative of war production, you pull this hypothetical rubbish again. Explain to me why Nazi Germany would be more inclined to go to a full war economy sooner if it were only fighting one nation on one front, which as you noted, would reduce the stress on their system.

You are not bothering to read my arguments and then claiming they're rubbish. I never said that Germany would have shifted to all-out war production sooner had it been one-on-one, but rather than the war would have gone on longer, something which would have been to the USSRs disadvantage given that Germany was shifting to more war-production towards the end of the war, and had greater total productive capacity than the Soviet Union.

Quote:
No, when you decrease consumer production and increase war production, the GDP doesn't change, since both count towards GDP.

This assumes that war production increases match consumer production reductions, but the fact is war production increased far more proportionately. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear already, but clearly you learn through repetition.

I don't recall you making this claim and in any case see no reason why you would conclude this to be so.

Quote:
Every item? Aircraft? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... _all_types
In the individual breakdowns you can also see that the only category Germany had an advantage in was training aircraft!

I stand corrected.

Quote:
Submarines? No.

The Soviets didn’t need submarines to wage its war, submarines primarily of use as a raiding vessel.

I didn't say Soviets needed submarines, I said Germany could have refocused from Submarine production to other weapons in a war against only the Soviet Union.

Quote:
Germany also had a better weapons development program and was experimenting with anti-aircraft missiles, that it would have deployed if the war had continued.

Except the driver of anti-aircraft technologies in Germany was the threat of allied strategic bombers. Remove the allies and you remove the incentive for funding such programs.

And you would have more resources available to develop weapons programs useful against the Soviet Union, like the jet-fighter aircraft.

Quote:
The cost of taking the territory is a one time cost

Wrong. Occupation has ongoing costs in terms of provision of resources to maintain control, including the costs of garrisons.

That's not "taking the territory", that's occupation, or in other words "holding the territory".

Quote:
I linked to a book that showed basic material production by Germany to be significantly higher.

Which was just another one of your irrelevant statistics that you interpret to prove your point.

How on earth can you say basic material production is "irrelevant"? This is turning into a pointless debate.

[Smilin' Dave]

but rather than the war would have gone on longer, something which would have been to the USSRs disadvantage given that Germany was shifting to more war-production towards the end of the war, and had greater total productive capacity than the Soviet Union.

The idea that the Axis could have waged a prolonged war with the Soviet Union without anyone intervening ever is even more preposterous than than the idea that no one be involved from the start. In any event allow me to restate my question: Why would the Nazi economy shift to a war economy without the pressure of multiple fronts, as you insist will happen in this hypothetical?

I don't recall you making this claim

Oh really?

Production didn't just shift sectors, it INCREASED, but GDP didn't increase in proportion in the period where this took place.

Look familiar?

in any case see no reason why you would conclude this to be so.

If we accept GDP as the best indicator of total industrial output (which isn’t exactly what GDP measures, but anyway...), then surely a period in which production is significantly higher would result in a significantly higher GDP. This clearly isn’t the case if you review the figures for German GDP between 1942 and 1943.

I said Germany could have refocused from Submarine production to other weapons in a war against only the Soviet Union.

As I already pointed out, the submarine infrastructure wasn’t easily converted into resources for waging what was effectively a land war featuring significant tactical airpower (with missed opportunities for strategic airpower).

And you would have more resources available to develop weapons programs useful against the Soviet Union, like the jet-fighter aircraft.

The German jet aircraft projects were focused around intercepting strategic bombers, with some diversions into jet bombers. The bombers didn’t prove effective compared to their prop-driven counter parts, particularly with respect to operational range. A true strategic bomber would have been quite useful to the Germans in both the East and West, but ultimately they never deployed one. I think this indicative of wastage/efficiency in the Nazi war economy model, and another reason why they wouldn’t necessarily be any better off in a revised war.

That's not "taking the territory", that's occupation, or in other words "holding the territory".

So you didn’t want to take into account the cost of occupation? Taking land doesn’t product resources (unless you are familiar with some kind of drive-by coal mining), which was the basis of your point.

How on earth can you say basic material production is "irrelevant"?

As I already said: on the basis it didn’t translate into more finished products. Good luck trying to fight a war with nothing but coal. That is why it’s irrelevant.

This is turning into a pointless debate.

I agree. You have been consistently avoiding my counter points and appear to either not realise this, or are deliberately attempting to create the impression that I have no grounds for disagreement (witness your repeated denials that these very points have already been discussed). You can have the last word on this, I no longer have the patience to deal with you.

[RonPaulalways]

The idea that the Axis could have waged a prolonged war with the Soviet Union without anyone intervening ever is even more preposterous than than the idea that no one be involved from the start. In any event allow me to restate my question: Why would the Nazi economy shift to a war economy without the pressure of multiple fronts, as you insist will happen in this hypothetical?

First of all, that is the scenario we're debating. If you want to discussanother scenario, then we have nothing to debate. I'm only holding that Germany would have won a one-on-one war with the Soviet Union.

Second of all, I just said that it wasn't the lack of pressure on multiple fronts that would have resulted in the German economy shifting to a war economy, but the TIME that Germany would have had. In 42/43 Germany shifted to more of a war economy, and had the war continued past 45, which it undoubtedly would have without US/UK involvement in the way of direct action and supply shipments to the USSR, Germany would have had more time to convert its production to war aims.

If we accept GDP as the best indicator of total industrial output (which isn’t exactly what GDP measures, but anyway...), then surely a period in which production is significantly higher would result in a significantly higher GDP. This clearly isn’t the case if you review the figures for German GDP between 1942 and 1943.

Production higher in what? Armaments? Consumer goods? If Germany was reducing production of consumer goods and increasing war production, that would not change total production or GDP.

Quote:
I said Germany could have refocused from Submarine production to other weapons in a war against only the Soviet Union.

As I already pointed out, the submarine infrastructure wasn’t easily converted into resources for waging what was effectively a land war featuring significant tactical airpower (with missed opportunities for strategic airpower).

It wouldn't have been converted. It would not have been built in the first place. Germany would not have needed so many submarines without British involvement, and those basic materials and manpower that ended up going to its submarine program would have gone into other programs, which I assume would have been focused more on the land war against the Soviet Union.

Quote:
And you would have more resources available to develop weapons programs useful against the Soviet Union, like the jet-fighter aircraft.

The German jet aircraft projects were focused around intercepting strategic bombers, with some diversions into jet bombers. The bombers didn’t prove effective compared to their prop-driven counter parts, particularly with respect to operational range. A true strategic bomber would have been quite useful to the Germans in both the East and West, but ultimately they never deployed one. I think this indicative of wastage/efficiency in the Nazi war economy model, and another reason why they wouldn’t necessarily be any better off in a revised war.

A timeline without the western front and allied bombings could have likely seen a very different weapons development program in Germany that would have created weapons useful against the Soviet Union, like the jet bomber you cited.

Quote:
That's not "taking the territory", that's occupation, or in other words "holding the territory".

So you didn’t want to take into account the cost of occupation? Taking land doesn’t product resources (unless you are familiar with some kind of drive-by coal mining), which was the basis of your point.

Now you're changing your argument. At first you cited the massive cost of taking the territory, and when I point out that this massive cost would have been a one-time cost, you change the argument to the cost of occupying the territory, which is a totally subject and is not comparable to the costs of gaining territory through war.

Quote:
How on earth can you say basic material production is "irrelevant"?

As I already said: on the basis it didn’t translate into more finished products. Good luck trying to fight a war with nothing but coal. That is why it’s irrelevant.

It doesn't mean it wouldn't have if the war had gone on longer. Being able to outproduce the Soviet Union in basic materials is indicative of greater productive capacity in Germany, productive capacity that would have increasingly been utilized for weapons production as the war continued.

[jwljacl]

In my opinion, Nazi Germany would have won in one on one war against Soviet Union. Since Germany had ability to hold on for several years during the war when many other countries were attacking them from all around(including US, Britain and Soviet Union), I think they could have control eastern front easier unlike the past reality when they had to control both western and eastern side. But it surely wouldn't be easy to fight against Soviet Union where they have one of strongest army in the world.

[Thunderhawk]

@ jwljacl

There are two pages here of insightfull debate. You should consider reading them.

[Waltanheri]

As I already pointed out, the submarine infrastructure wasn’t easily converted into resources for waging what was effectively a land war featuring significant tactical airpower (with missed opportunities for strategic airpower)

This is epic. Maybe lets just give the money we are giving for submarine producing to airplane industry?

[secator553]

Since Germany had ability to hold on for several years during the war when many other countries were attacking them from all around(including US, Britain and Soviet Union), I think they could have control eastern front easier

Don't think so simple, compare number of troops and losses in western and eastern front and u'll see that western front (USA and Britain incl. Afrika) are small skirmishes that couldn't be called ''many other countries were attacking them from all around".

Soviet Union was attacked not only by Germany, but Italy, Romania, Bulgary, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia and Spain - which part on the eastern front was not less than part of Britain and US in WWII. Do topic (one on one) means that Germany is one without this part? For example if Finland was neutral - it could be another fate of Leningrad siege

[Smilin' Dave]

This is epic. Maybe lets just give the money we are giving for submarine producing to airplane industry?

I suggested no such thing. The reality is that Nazi Germany had already invested money in R&D into strategic bombers, but tended to end the projects before they went anywhere in favour of yet more tactical airpower (hence the missed opportunity). So assuming I were recommending reinvesting materials etc. into aircraft (which I didn't really, after all why would I do this having rubbished the idea of magically throwing money from subs into tanks?) I wouldn't be talking about all the materials available as your statement implies.

I could claim your failure is itself epic, but that wouldn't be correct.

[Tailz]

Hard to say really, there are too many things in the Second World War that would have had to change in order for Germany to stand a chance of fully crushing Soviet Russia. Troops and material are the two biggest issues. How could Germany hope to defeat the soviets while a large amount of its man power and materials are tied up in Africa and France?

In the initial invasion the Germans did come quite close to knocking out the Soviets, but were lacking manpower and materials to give it that extra... umpf! to push forwards.

Plus Nazi doctrine, and the ideals that Russians were untermench sub-humans garanteed that brutal treatment of russians would create a vast partisan army against the occupiers. Although it is curious to note that many Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators, liberating them from the oppressive Soviets. But when they saw what the Germans were really after, this vision of liberators was washed away with the vision of invaders.

So had Germany been able to carry off the act of being liberators, maybe they could have pulled in a Russian resistance against Soviet oppression, a resistance movement hopeing for independance after the defeat of the Soviets, that the Nazi's could turn into a giant puppet state? Doubtful with Nazi idelodgy in the background.

But Germany could not have defeated Russia with so many troops tied down in Africa and France, so Germany would have had to leave Italy (its strongest ally) in the lerch in North Africa. Next it would have had to ether come to some arangement with France and the other European state, or turn them into puppet states quick smart to free up German manpower for the Russian campaign.

But even then, could germany have done it - Russia is so vast.

The campaign would have to be waged over several seasons - curiously a German general (I forget his name) put forwards a bite and hold plan of attack to slowly chew through the Russian terratory - but this was rejected in favour of a swift campaign based on the thought that one swift kick would bring the whole rotten structure down.

So I don't know - too many things would have to be changed for Germany to fully defeat Soviet Russia.

[Igor Antunov]

I find this thread ridiculous considering in real history it was, for all intents and purposes, many vs one. Germany and her european allies threw everything they had at the soviet union. EVERYTHING. They got bogged down and in the end lost a war of attrition. 5 million troops for fucks sake. How much more do you want. They never even made it past the urals, where soviet industry was relocated and where it's reserves were massing.

Moscow was irrelevant. It had been burned by the russians themselves before, when they couldn't defend it from nappy.

Yet this time they could defend it. Hitler didn't even come close.

[Tailz]

I find this thread ridiculous considering in real history it was, for all intents and purposes, many vs one. Germany and her european allies threw everything they had at the soviet union. EVERYTHING.

On the level of political entities, it was one verse many, Soviet Russia verse Germany, Itality, etc.

But on a manpower level, were the tables as unballanced in the favour of the Germans? I don't think so. As we saw, the Germans were vastly outnumbered by Soviet troops. Sure the Germans had the better toys in the beginning, and the better training, but the vastness of Russia and the pure number of troops the Russians could call on. And the practical enslavement of the population to Soviet State industry for war manufacturing - so, were the tables really that unballanced?

Not to forget that Germany had a lot more on its plate than just attacking Soviet Russia - so all of Germanys resources were not focused souly on one goal.

The Germans were not prepaired for a long campaign, or the weather (Napolian must be spinning in his grave), or the distances involved (how much of the German supply and artillery was horse drawn?!?!).

They got bogged down and in the end lost a war of attrition. 5 million troops for fucks sake. How much more do you want. They never even made it past the urals, where soviet industry was relocated and where it's reserves were massing.

Germany could never win a war of attrition anyway, this was demonstrated during the 1st World War.

And the German high command failed to learn from the campaigns in Russia throughout history - they were still on a euphoric high from their Western conquests and thought Russia would be a push over after having seen how badly the Red Army faired against the Finns.

Moscow was irrelevant. It had been burned by the russians themselves before, when they couldn't defend it from nappy.

Yet this time they could defend it. Hitler didn't even come close.

I totaly agree that Moscow was completely irrelevant - it was the natral resources of Russia that were the key. Capture and hold those, and Russia would be starved of resources to fight back.