4 ms·

That's a hindsight analysis, and not very useful for planning in the future. Germans v Russia was a fight among equals and the Germans lost.

Retric 9y ago
I don't think Germany considered Russia even close to it's equal, and 1 vs 1 Russia without massive outside aid and unusual weather it would likely have folded quickly. Japan attacking the US is a better argument, but the US was not exactly neutral either. Anyway, I am not saying you're wrong, just that history is vastly more complex than just looking at the relative sizes of each nation on a map.
- greedo 9y ago
  Even without US aid via Lend Lease, the only chance the Germans had against the USSR was if they had managed to capture Moscow and Stalingrad quickly. Once they failed to do so in the fall of '42, their fate was sealed. The Russian economy and population was too large and strong. The Germans were at the long end of a logistical tail, and weather in Russia (as Bonaparte found out as well) is a bitch. The only thing that would have saved Germany was if Japan had fought the Russians in the Far East. But after the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol (1939) where the Soviets handily defeated the Japanese, this wasn't going to happen.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That's in context of a multi front war. In a 1 on 1 confrontation without vast foreign aid to the USSR it would have been at a massive disadvantage in 1941. Lend lease providing 30% of USSR's aircraft, 58% of their aviation fuel is no small thing. This was as far as I can tell a view shared by both sides with Stalin fearful of the German war machine. So, I agree it was a strategic blunder, but perhaps a closer fight than many assume.
    - greedo 9y ago
      Lend Lease didn't begin to help the Soviets until middle of '42, though some British gear appears to have helped play a crucial role in the Battle of Moscow. If Germany hadn't achieved a knockout blow by Christmas, they were doomed by demographics and geography.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Lend Lease was critical before then. USSR lost ~20500 tanks late 41, that's the kind of production scale they needed to stay in the war. It's true England provided a significant material directly at the end of 41, but IMO a larger role was covering critical shortages. The Soviet Union could cover gaps in their supply chain with foreign assistance vastly increasing the value of that aid independent from the total quantities of aid. A factory without a few critical pieces of equipment can be crippled. On top of that, 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces at Moscow was from lend lease but that's not just useful there it also means they could spread forces around more of the front. Under a minimum number and tanks are far less useful and fairly easy to take out. Longer term all those trucks and other equipment allowed the soviets to focus more production on the war effort. They had finite steel production for example and needed to make the best use of it possible. So, assuming Germany a one front war where Germany would have advanced further and forced the USSR to deal with even more decimated supply chains. AKA, a pure 1v1 situation I suspect the USSR would have folded fairly quickly abet still inflicting heavy casualties. Again though, this is an alternate history without a England or USA being involved so no resistance in Africa etc.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  Who cares. You don't fight countries in perfect conditions. You can only determine "who's your equal" in retrospect, not in the moment.

Retric 9y ago

I don't think Germany considered Russia even close to it's equal, and 1 vs 1 Russia without massive outside aid and unusual weather it would likely have folded quickly. Japan attacking the US is a better argument, but the US was not exactly neutral either. Anyway, I am not saying you're wrong, just that history is vastly more complex than just looking at the relative sizes of each nation on a map.

greedo 9y ago
Even without US aid via Lend Lease, the only chance the Germans had against the USSR was if they had managed to capture Moscow and Stalingrad quickly. Once they failed to do so in the fall of '42, their fate was sealed. The Russian economy and population was too large and strong. The Germans were at the long end of a logistical tail, and weather in Russia (as Bonaparte found out as well) is a bitch. The only thing that would have saved Germany was if Japan had fought the Russians in the Far East. But after the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol (1939) where the Soviets handily defeated the Japanese, this wasn't going to happen.
- Retric 9y ago
  That's in context of a multi front war. In a 1 on 1 confrontation without vast foreign aid to the USSR it would have been at a massive disadvantage in 1941. Lend lease providing 30% of USSR's aircraft, 58% of their aviation fuel is no small thing. This was as far as I can tell a view shared by both sides with Stalin fearful of the German war machine. So, I agree it was a strategic blunder, but perhaps a closer fight than many assume.
  - greedo 9y ago
    Lend Lease didn't begin to help the Soviets until middle of '42, though some British gear appears to have helped play a crucial role in the Battle of Moscow. If Germany hadn't achieved a knockout blow by Christmas, they were doomed by demographics and geography.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Lend Lease was critical before then. USSR lost ~20500 tanks late 41, that's the kind of production scale they needed to stay in the war. It's true England provided a significant material directly at the end of 41, but IMO a larger role was covering critical shortages. The Soviet Union could cover gaps in their supply chain with foreign assistance vastly increasing the value of that aid independent from the total quantities of aid. A factory without a few critical pieces of equipment can be crippled. On top of that, 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces at Moscow was from lend lease but that's not just useful there it also means they could spread forces around more of the front. Under a minimum number and tanks are far less useful and fairly easy to take out. Longer term all those trucks and other equipment allowed the soviets to focus more production on the war effort. They had finite steel production for example and needed to make the best use of it possible. So, assuming Germany a one front war where Germany would have advanced further and forced the USSR to deal with even more decimated supply chains. AKA, a pure 1v1 situation I suspect the USSR would have folded fairly quickly abet still inflicting heavy casualties. Again though, this is an alternate history without a England or USA being involved so no resistance in Africa etc.
notfromhere 9y ago
Who cares. You don't fight countries in perfect conditions. You can only determine "who's your equal" in retrospect, not in the moment.