How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Aellex]

Wheraboo's boner for "muh German War machine".

I shouldn't be surprised people don't understand the production element of War and reduce to it more memes considering this thread has repeatedly seen Youtube videos cited as evidence.

You're pulling numbers out of your ass, without sources, context nor units; that coupled with your blatant and brazen bias push me to believe it's all bull, yes.

Take the steel bit, what are you even talking about? Tons? Metric cubes ? Beams? Ingots? During what time period was it produced? Where exactly?
What about the Aluminium ? What about the coal? What about the machine tools? Is it all the same?

Real world ressources don't work like they do in Victoria 2 and just coming and telling high number differences isn't much convincing at all.

[Confederate States of German America]

You're pulling numbers out of your ass, without sources, context nor units; that coupled with your blatant and brazen bias push me to believe it's all bull, yes.

Take the steel bit, what are you even talking about? Tons? Metric cubes ? Beams? Ingots? During what time period was it produced? Where exactly?
What about the Aluminium ? What about the coal? What about the machine tools? Is it all the same?

Real world ressources don't work like they do in Victoria 2 and just coming and telling high number differences isn't much convincing at all.

I know English isn't your first language, but what part of this was that hard to understand for future reference:

Some things to be pointed out because the Soviet meme is hard in this thread. All figures in thousands of tons:

Since you wanted citations: Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy.

[Aellex]

You're pulling numbers out of your ass, without sources, context nor units; that coupled with your blatant and brazen bias push me to believe it's all bull, yes.

Take the steel bit, what are you even talking about? Tons? Metric cubes ? Beams? Ingots? During what time period was it produced? Where exactly?
What about the Aluminium ? What about the coal? What about the machine tools? Is it all the same?

Real world ressources don't work like they do in Victoria 2 and just coming and telling high number differences isn't much convincing at all.

I know English isn't your first language, but what part of this was that hard to understand for future reference:

Some things to be pointed out because the Soviet meme is hard in this thread. All figures in thousands of tons:

Since you wanted citations: Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy.

Hangover hitting harder than I thought it would apparently because I missed that bit, my bad my bad.
Thank for the sources.

[Vassenor]

Wheraboo's boner for "muh German War machine".

Well at least he ain’t talking about how German tanks were the best tanks in the war and how they destroyed everything they fought.

If anything it just makes the Germans look even worse. All that resource production and they still got their collective asses handed to them by an allegedly inferior foe.

[Crysuko]

Realistically, they couldn't. give the motivations and politics, any scenario in which the axis win is pure fiction.

[Costa Fierro]

Wheraboo's boner for "muh German War machine".

I wonder what the giveaway was.

Well at least he ain’t talking about how German tanks were the best tanks in the war and how they destroyed everything they fought.

That hasn't happened...yet.

Quite obviously that the Soviet economy was totally inferior to the German economy in terms of necessary war elements; it's a pretty firm rebuttal to the notion the Soviets could not be beaten by the Reich.

That hasn't been a demonstration at all. Nor is it a rebuttal.

I shouldn't be surprised people don't understand the production element of War and reduce to it more memes considering this thread has repeatedly seen Youtube videos cited as evidence.

And unlike what you've provided me, those Youtube videos (especially Potential History) are well researched.

[Costa Fierro]

There is considerable debate on that matter. The Germans maintained a positive K/D against the Soviets up until the end in tank engagements, but a 1954 study by the U.S. Army found that American tankers generally were able to get the better of engagements by 1944. Some caveats:

1) By 1944, the Panzerwaffen had long since been ground down, meaning crew quality had declined
2) Specific tactical features, in that it in general was found that on average 2-3 Shermans vs German tanks was the normal engagement profile

Largely because German tank doctrine between 1944 and 1945 was, with some exceptions, purely defensive. Thus it would require multiple tanks to flush out and destroy German tanks which were usually well camouflaged and hidden.

Yes, the Germans could knock out more tanks with ease, but what losses the Allies incurred were not problematic, as they had the means to replace them. The Germans did not, despite German tank production reaching its peak in 1944.

If anything it just makes the Germans look even worse. All that resource production and they still got their collective asses handed to them by an allegedly inferior foe.

We're assuming of course that those figures are correct and not different periods slapped together to make German industry look good. In saying that the Germans were surprisingly inefficient and reliant on a limited amount of resources, something which understandably leads to difficulties when fighting wars on two fronts.

[Confederate States of German America]

That hasn't been a demonstration at all. Nor is it a rebuttal.

You can only believe that in good faith if you're blind or unable to read English. Since you clearly aren't either of those, unless you have a really good tech setup, it's pretty clear you're grasping at straws. What was demonstrated was that the USSR was completely outclassed, both in material inputs and in raw industrial base, and that to claim the Reich could not beat them is beyond ignorant.

And unlike what you've provided me, those Youtube videos (especially Potential History) are well researched.

Since you evidently missed it: Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy.

With that out of the way, no a Youtube video is not a fucking source nor will it ever be; try that in an academic environment and your Professor will fuck your shit up.

Largely because German tank doctrine between 1944 and 1945 was, with some exceptions, purely defensive. Thus it would require multiple tanks to flush out and destroy German tanks which were usually well camouflaged and hidden.

Which isn't a rebuttal in any form and actually ignores entirely what I said.

Yes, the Germans could knock out more tanks with ease, but what losses the Allies incurred were not problematic, as they had the means to replace them. The Germans did not, despite German tank production reaching its peak in 1944.

Which is false. Soviet production over the course of WWII was around 70,000 vehicles, losses were 80,000 however.

[Andsed]

That hasn't been a demonstration at all. Nor is it a rebuttal.

You can only believe that in good faith if you're blind or unable to read English. Since you clearly aren't either of those, unless you have a really good tech setup, it's pretty clear you're grasping at straws. What was demonstrated was that the USSR was completely outclassed, both in material inputs and in raw industrial base, and that to claim the Reich could not beat them is beyond ignorant.

And unlike what you've provided me, those Youtube videos (especially Potential History) are well researched.

Since you evidently missed it:Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945 and Steel, Coal and the German War Economy.

With that out of the way, no a Youtube video is not a fucking source nor will it ever be; try that in an academic environment and your Professor fuck your shit up.

Largely because German tank doctrine between 1944 and 1945 was, with some exceptions, purely defensive. Thus it would require multiple tanks to flush out and destroy German tanks which were usually well camouflaged and hidden.

Which isn't a rebuttal in any form and actually ignores entirely what I said.

Yes, the Germans could knock out more tanks with ease, but what losses the Allies incurred were not problematic, as they had the means to replace them. The Germans did not, despite German tank production reaching its peak in 1944.

Which is false. Soviet production over the course of WWII was around 70,000 vehicles, losses were 80,000 however.

So basically even if a YouTube video is heavily well researched providing evidence and reasoning for their claim it is not a source? Okay sure..

[Confederate States of German America]

Well at least he ain’t talking about how German tanks were the best tanks in the war and how they destroyed everything they fought.

If anything it just makes the Germans look even worse. All that resource production and they still got their collective asses handed to them by an allegedly inferior foe.

Except the Germans were not just fighting that one foe, but in fact an entire coalition. Despite that, they damn near pulled it off.

[Confederate States of German America]

So basically even if a YouTube video is heavily well researched providing evidence and reasoning for their claim it is not a source? Okay sure..

As I said, go try it in an academic environment. An anonymous person posting a Youtube video you can't be sure of their credentials, whether they are correctly using their sources, and other possible errors, such as not being subject to peer review.

[Andsed]

If anything it just makes the Germans look even worse. All that resource production and they still got their collective asses handed to them by an allegedly inferior foe.

Except the Germans were not just fighting that one foe, but in fact an entire coalition. Despite that, they damn near pulled it off.

Not really. While yes the Soviet Union had taken massive casualties the Germans only capitulated a few countries at the beginning of the war. But other than that none of the major allies powers were even close to collapse by 1945. Germany was no where close to pulling it off.

[Confederate States of German America]

Except the Germans were not just fighting that one foe, but in fact an entire coalition. Despite that, they damn near pulled it off.

Not really. While yes the Soviet Union had taken massive casualties the Germans only capitulated a few countries at the beginning of the war. But other than that none of the major allies powers were even close to collapse by 1945. Germany was no where close to pulling it off.

Yes, really.

The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR during World War II, by William Moskoff -

"The central fact behind the increased importance of the collective farm market was the drastic drop in food production, especially in 1942 and 1943, and the diminished proportion that went to the civilians. In 1943 overall agricultural production was only 38 percent of the 1940 level. In 1943, however, the Red Army began to recapture agricultural areas of the Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Caucasus and by the next year, 1944, agricultural output had risen to 54 percent of the 1940 level. Not surprisingly, the collapse of the food economy led to astonishing increases in prices. The most rapid rate [Emphasis by author] of increase in prices took place in 1942 and began to taper off in mid-1943."

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945, by Walter Scott Dunn -

"By November of 1941, 47% of Soviet cropland was in German hands. The Germans had 38% of the grain farmland, 84% of the sugar land, 38% of the area devoted to beef and dairy cattle, and 60% of the land used to produce hogs. The Russians turned to the east and brought more land into cultivation. In the fall of 1941, the autumn and winter crops increased sharply in the eastern area. But despite all efforts, farm yields dropped from 95.5 million tons of grain in 1940 to 29.7 million tons in 1942. Production of cattle and horses dropped to less than half of prewar levels and hogs to one fifth. By 1942, meat and dairy production shrank to half the 1940 total and sugar to only 5%. Farm production in 1942 and 1943 dropped to 38% and 37% of 1940 totals."​

Bagration, 1944, Osprey Campaign Series -

"Soviet rifle divisions were generally smaller than their German counterparts, averaging 2500-4000 troops. At the time of Operation Bagration a concerted effort was made to bring these units up to an average of 6000 troops. No serious effort was made to bring them up to their nominal TOE strength of 9600 troops."

Red Army Handbook, 1939-1945, by Steven J. Zaloga -

"By this time, however, it was becoming apparent that the Soviet force structure of 500-plus Divisions simply exceeded their capacity to support it. [..] in mid-1944 more drastic action was necessary. Either some of the rifle divisions would have to be demobilized and their personnel used to fill out other units, or divisional strengths far below envisioned norms would have to be accepted. The Stavka opted for the latter alternative."

Soviet Military Doctrine from Lenin to Gorbachev, 1915-1991, by Willard C. Frank -

"Soviet sources reflect manpower deficiencies by emphasizing the low strength of rifle units and the draconian measures used to enlist soldiers in liberated regions. By 1945 Soviet rifle divisions were often under strength, with only 3,500 to 5,000 men each."

Would you like me to go on?

[Novus America]

Not really. While yes the Soviet Union had taken massive casualties the Germans only capitulated a few countries at the beginning of the war. But other than that none of the major allies powers were even close to collapse by 1945. Germany was no where close to pulling it off.

Yes, really.

The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR during World War II, by William Moskoff -

"The central fact behind the increased importance of the collective farm market was the drastic drop in food production, especially in 1942 and 1943, and the diminished proportion that went to the civilians. In 1943 overall agricultural production was only 38 percent of the 1940 level. In 1943, however, the Red Army began to recapture agricultural areas of the Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Caucasus and by the next year, 1944, agricultural output had risen to 54 percent of the 1940 level. Not surprisingly, the collapse of the food economy led to astonishing increases in prices. The most rapid rate [Emphasis by author] of increase in prices took place in 1942 and began to taper off in mid-1943."

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945, by Walter Scott Dunn -

"By November of 1941, 47% of Soviet cropland was in German hands. The Germans had 38% of the grain farmland, 84% of the sugar land, 38% of the area devoted to beef and dairy cattle, and 60% of the land used to produce hogs. The Russians turned to the east and brought more land into cultivation. In the fall of 1941, the autumn and winter crops increased sharply in the eastern area. But despite all efforts, farm yields dropped from 95.5 million tons of grain in 1940 to 29.7 million tons in 1942. Production of cattle and horses dropped to less than half of prewar levels and hogs to one fifth. By 1942, meat and dairy production shrank to half the 1940 total and sugar to only 5%. Farm production in 1942 and 1943 dropped to 38% and 37% of 1940 totals."​

Bagration, 1944, Osprey Campaign Series -

"Soviet rifle divisions were generally smaller than their German counterparts, averaging 2500-4000 troops. At the time of Operation Bagration a concerted effort was made to bring these units up to an average of 6000 troops. No serious effort was made to bring them up to their nominal TOE strength of 9600 troops."

Red Army Handbook, 1939-1945, by Steven J. Zaloga -

"By this time, however, it was becoming apparent that the Soviet force structure of 500-plus Divisions simply exceeded their capacity to support it. [..] in mid-1944 more drastic action was necessary. Either some of the rifle divisions would have to be demobilized and their personnel used to fill out other units, or divisional strengths far below envisioned norms would have to be accepted. The Stavka opted for the latter alternative."

Soviet Military Doctrine from Lenin to Gorbachev, 1915-1991, by Willard C. Frank -

"Soviet sources reflect manpower deficiencies by emphasizing the low strength of rifle units and the draconian measures used to enlist soldiers in liberated regions. By 1945 Soviet rifle divisions were often under strength, with only 3,500 to 5,000 men each."

Would you like me to go on?

Had it not been for Lend Lease the Soviets would have been in very bad shape.
Their logistics were lacking, but American food, medicine, locomotives and trucks made up the difference.

You are correct to the Soviet military reached its maximum size in 1943.
After that point they were unable to bring in enough new recruits to replace losses.
The Soviet military shrank slightly in 1944 and then massively in 1945 (even before the end of the war).
The Soviets did not have unlimited manpower at all.

Of course by then it was way too late for the Germans.

Had the Germans only fought the Soviets the Germans probably would have won.

[Costa Fierro]

You can only believe that in good faith if you're blind or unable to read English. Since you clearly aren't either of those, unless you have a really good tech setup, it's pretty clear you're grasping at straws.

I'm not the one grasping at straws here. Putting two vague tables together and then telling me that the Soviets were inferior and could be beaten by the Germans is grasping at straws.

What was demonstrated was that the USSR was completely outclassed, both in material inputs and in raw industrial base, and that to claim the Reich could not beat them is beyond ignorant.

Except it's not ignorance, it's fact. Not only was Germany limited by resources and did not match any of the Allies in industrial output, the Germans for a significant amount of time were not even devoting a majority of resource production to military needs, something which virtually every single country, including the Soviet Union did.

Which is false. Soviet production over the course of WWII was around 70,000 vehicles, losses were 80,000 however.

Soviet combat vehicle production between 1939 and 1945 reached a total of 118,583 units. Total German combat vehicle production was 49,777 units. Losses of these vehicles was correct for the Soviet Union, but to even claim that Soviet losses were higher than production is flat out wrong.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Space that it never uses to its defense? Do you know where the Urals are? Do you know how many times the Russians have had to hide behind it? Never.

Yeah I am.

Okay but 90% of Russia's vast size isn't a key aspect.

Russian industry being behind the urals was key to Russian strategy in WWII, because it was out of range of German bombings.

Only one instance of hiding behind the Urals and it's not even that they're retreating inward, it's just their industry is moved out of bomber range.

[Manokan Republic]

Russia allied itself with Germany, and they started WWII together, invading Poland. If the soviets used their 10's of millions of men and actually decent technology (many german weapons, notably the G43, were based on soviet weapons), then possibly, they could have achieved more results, although winning is unlikely. Taking over swaths of Europe and Africa, yes. With the development of the Ak-47, which occured in 1947, and soviet manpower nad weapons not being drained by the germans but assisted, and the soviets giving oil to Germany who drastically needed it (with massive oil shortages), they could have done alright. Granted much of soviet industry was due to allied help, but it was still better than the germans in many way, and the germans had things the soviets didn't. If the americans had to face 28 million Russians and 12 million germans, it would have been more likely that only half of Germany was taken, like what happened in the cold war, but that the german government would still exist in some capacity.

Instead of a victory per se we get a stalemate, like the real cold war that actually happened, but only with the soviets and germans both considerably better off. That's my prediction anyways. I tried to imagine what would happen in my head, and I figured that there would be a stalemate with germany retaining chunks of it's property and the soviet union being largely unscathed by the allies, and ironically that's kind of whath happened in real life. There is a lot of difficult terrain in this region of germany, even a mountain, and the berlin wall was part wall and part natural terrain features. It would have been difficult to push through and capture the whole of germany, which in real life proved to be the case.

[Andsed]

Russia allied itself with Germany, and they started WWII together, invading Poland. If the soviets used their 10's of millions of men and actually decent technology (many german weapons, notably the G43, were based on soviet weapons), then possibly, they could have achieved more results, although winning is unlikely. Taking over swaths of Europe and Africa, yes. With the development of the Ak-47, which occured in 1947, and soviet manpower nad weapons not being drained by the germans but assisted, and the soviets giving oil to Germany who drastically needed it (with massive oil shortages), they could have done alright. Granted much of soviet industry was due to allied help, but it was still better than the germans in many way, and the germans had things the soviets didn't. If the americans had to face 28 million Russians and 12 million germans, it would have been more likely that only half of Germany was taken, like what happened in the cold war, but that the german government would still exist in some capacity.

Instead of a victory per se we get a stalemate, like the real cold war that actually happened, but only with the soviets and germans both considerably better off.

One flaw with this plan. The flaw is that it would never happen. The Nazis and Soviets hated each other they were never going to ally.

[Vassenor]

Russia allied itself with Germany, and they started WWII together, invading Poland. If the soviets used their 10's of millions of men and actually decent technology (many german weapons, notably the G43, were based on soviet weapons), then possibly, they could have achieved more results, although winning is unlikely. Taking over swaths of Europe and Africa, yes. With the development of the Ak-47, which occured in 1947, and soviet manpower nad weapons not being drained by the germans but assisted, and the soviets giving oil to Germany who drastically needed it (with massive oil shortages), they could have done alright. Granted much of soviet industry was due to allied help, but it was still better than the germans in many way, and the germans had things the soviets didn't. If the americans had to face 28 million Russians and 12 million germans, it would have been more likely that only half of Germany was taken, like what happened in the cold war, but that the german government would still exist in some capacity.

Instead of a victory per se we get a stalemate, like the real cold war that actually happened, but only with the soviets and germans both considerably better off. That's my prediction anyways. I tried to imagine what would happen in my head, and I figured that there would be a stalemate with germany retaining chunks of it's property and the soviet union being largely unscathed by the allies, and ironically that's kind of whath happened in real life. There is a lot of difficult terrain in this region of germany, even a mountain, and the berlin wall was part wall and part natural terrain features. It would have been difficult to push through and capture the whole of germany, which in real life proved to be the case.

So how does the AK-47 get developed without the sort of streetfighting that precipitated it?

[Costa Fierro]

Russian industry being behind the urals was key to Russian strategy in WWII, because it was out of range of German bombings.

Only one instance of hiding behind the Urals and it's not even that they're retreating inward, it's just their industry is moved out of bomber range.

Which allowed it to survive and produce the necessary materiel to support the war effort. Contrast that with what happened to German industry and you can easily see why having that ability is beneficial.

[Traveling Salesman]

Hiring an army of salesman and out selling the world

[The Black Party]

How?

Uh what? No offense but that makes little sense.

I mean, if Goebbels had done better as Minister of Propaganda, and had the BUF fought harder to the point of influencing, or even winning in British Politics, with or without force, Hitler could've easily secured the Western Front. The primary reason Germany lost the second world war is because they couldn't divide and conquer the enemy, and had to fight in both the East and West (Lack of oil comes as a result of this). If the British are pacified, which could only have happened with a stronger BUF and greater popularity and well-treatment of the British Free Corps, there's a good chance Britain would've agreed to make peace with Germany. If the British don't care, neither would have the Americans. There would be no Western Front, and Iceland wouldn't be occupied, or released. Assuming the rest of WWII plays out, with the might of Finland, a more or less united Balkans, and a Germany freely supplied by Swedish iron, the Soviet's would have much less of chance, even with lend lease.

Maybe if Goebbels did his job better and presented the horrific regime in a better light, Finland would've agreed to encircle and help destroy Leningrad in a full-scale assault, and Heeresgruppe Nord wouldn't have had to starve them out.

But that's wrong, sillyhead.

> no further input

[The Empire of Pretantia]

How?

Uh what? No offense but that makes little sense.

I mean, if Goebbels had done better as Minister of Propaganda, and had the BUF fought harder to the point of influencing, or even winning in British Politics, with or without force, Hitler could've easily secured the Western Front. The primary reason Germany lost the second world war is because they couldn't divide and conquer the enemy, and had to fight in both the East and West (Lack of oil comes as a result of this). If the British are pacified, which could only have happened with a stronger BUF and greater popularity and well-treatment of the British Free Corps, there's a good chance Britain would've agreed to make peace with Germany. If the British don't care, neither would have the Americans. There would be no Western Front, and Iceland wouldn't be occupied, or released. Assuming the rest of WWII plays out, with the might of Finland, a more or less united Balkans, and a Germany freely supplied by Swedish iron, the Soviet's would have much less of chance, even with lend lease.

Maybe if Goebbels did his job better and presented the horrific regime in a better light, Finland would've agreed to encircle and help destroy Leningrad in a full-scale assault, and Heeresgruppe Nord wouldn't have had to starve them out.

But that's wrong, sillyhead.

> no further input

I put in as much effort as you did.

[Andsed]

How?

Uh what? No offense but that makes little sense.

I mean, if Goebbels had done better as Minister of Propaganda, and had the BUF fought harder to the point of influencing, or even winning in British Politics, with or without force, Hitler could've easily secured the Western Front. The primary reason Germany lost the second world war is because they couldn't divide and conquer the enemy, and had to fight in both the East and West (Lack of oil comes as a result of this). If the British are pacified, which could only have happened with a stronger BUF and greater popularity and well-treatment of the British Free Corps, there's a good chance Britain would've agreed to make peace with Germany. If the British don't care, neither would have the Americans. There would be no Western Front, and Iceland wouldn't be occupied, or released. Assuming the rest of WWII plays out, with the might of Finland, a more or less united Balkans, and a Germany freely supplied by Swedish iron, the Soviet's would have much less of chance, even with lend lease.

Maybe if Goebbels did his job better and presented the horrific regime in a better light, Finland would've agreed to encircle and help destroy Leningrad in a full-scale assault, and Heeresgruppe Nord wouldn't have had to starve them out.

But that's wrong, sillyhead.

> no further input

That completely ignores how the British felt toward Germany. The Brits would never make peace with the Germans especially with Churchill in power.

[Vassenor]

How?

Uh what? No offense but that makes little sense.

I mean, if Goebbels had done better as Minister of Propaganda, and had the BUF fought harder to the point of influencing, or even winning in British Politics, with or without force, Hitler could've easily secured the Western Front. The primary reason Germany lost the second world war is because they couldn't divide and conquer the enemy, and had to fight in both the East and West (Lack of oil comes as a result of this). If the British are pacified, which could only have happened with a stronger BUF and greater popularity and well-treatment of the British Free Corps, there's a good chance Britain would've agreed to make peace with Germany. If the British don't care, neither would have the Americans. There would be no Western Front, and Iceland wouldn't be occupied, or released. Assuming the rest of WWII plays out, with the might of Finland, a more or less united Balkans, and a Germany freely supplied by Swedish iron, the Soviet's would have much less of chance, even with lend lease.

Maybe if Goebbels did his job better and presented the horrific regime in a better light, Finland would've agreed to encircle and help destroy Leningrad in a full-scale assault, and Heeresgruppe Nord wouldn't have had to starve them out.

But that's wrong, sillyhead.

> no further input

Methinks you're overestimating the strength of the BUF here. Especially after Cable Street pretty much showed it to be completely impotent.