THE EASTERN FRONT: Would better training have helped the Axis? What plan of invasion would have been successful? What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
I've been reading about the Eastern front and i've realized I know so little of this part of the war. This front is the closest we have to truly modern large scale warfare so lets discuss.
dumping some pics just cause
>Would better training have helped the Axis?
no
>What plan of invasion would have been successful?
the kind that doesn't involve invading a country with superior Deep Battle Theory tactics, more men, and more tanks
>What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
unconditional surrender to at least try and salvage some kind of future for the men who weren't dead yet
no, it was entirely a constant leadership fuck up that the army somehow almost overcame multiple times
>Would better training have helped the Axis?
axis were already the best trained at the time, as they spent the longest time pre-war preparing for a full moderm war instead of a crash re-armament program in the late 30s like the others
and it was still not enough
axis failings were at the strategic and grand strategic levels of planning not the tactical
training does jackshit when you still need donkeys to pull your ammo
>What plan of invasion would have been successful?
a limited offensive that doesn't lead to every major power on earth wanting your head
>What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
know when to fold em and aim for a negotiated peace before the soviets reach greater germany
victory is literally impossible
No. Any dumb corporal should know that fighting a war on two fronts is idiotic. Especially if the said dumb corporal actually fought and lost in a prior war on two fronts.
Well what would a good limited offensive look like?
This. Invading the USSR would have only worked if Japan would have invaded from the East as well and they were a little busy planning other shit
>don't invade the Soviets
I don't believe the Soviets were unbeatable and the growing idea that they were is rewriting history. The timing and planning of German leadership were fucked and ultimately destroyed the Axis.
I always wondered why Hitler didn't convince japan to attack the soviets.
german offensive was stopped in 1942, crushed and then reversed in 1942
its not historical revisionism, but simple hindsight
esepcially since the classic idea that germans could have won the war if only they had taken moscow or if Hitler wasnt dumb were from ex-nazi generals serving in west germany who had a vested interest in looking good in their memoirs
taking moscow was a flat impossiblity in hindsight, as their logistical capabilities were stretched to absolute breaking point
germans never secured essential war resources in the caucasus and they never got close to touching russian industry which might as well have been on the moon
the only way case blue was going to work was if barborassa was going to work, and barborassa working wasnt a factor of leadership or strategy, but a brick wall caused by a front line 3x larger than france more than twice as deep as their supply train was capable, and all of it being served by donkeys and horses
>4188
So close.
Anyways, there are three things the Russians had that the Nazis didn't which were advantages: fuel, disdain for the value of human life, and shitfuck terrain.
Every day that the Nazis were at war with the Soviets and not totally victorious, the Soviets were mobilizing entire armies of shitty peasant levies with garbage weapons. Rather famously, early in the war, the Nazis encircled 750,000 Soviet soldiers and it barely made a dent in the Soviet lines because the entire lost army group had been replaced by year's end. The Nazis needed to end the war quickly, but they couldn't, because they needed fuel. Donkeys and horses had sufficed in the past, but the front line was far too big, and the shiny new Soviet railways couldn't be used to move supplies because superior Soviet engineering had built them to a different gauge than the civilized world for some reason. When the Nazis did have fuel, then they still couldn't make full use of it because of the shitty, muddy, hilly, forested terrain.
Some say that taking Moscow was an impossibility. Well, the beginning of the offensive was known to the Soviets beforehand for weeks and yet when Barbarossa started everyone was out of position and unprepared. An entire army group was surrounded and lost. A defending army lost three times as much as the half of the army which was attacking. The war had already gone much better for the Nazis than anyone could have guessed due to incredible incompetence in the Soviet officer corps. The real question was "would taking Moscow have fixed it?". The answer is not really. The Soviets would have their supply ability wrecked by losing the center of their rail infrastructure, their industry would be knocked down a few pegs, and the morale blow would be severe, but they fought under worse conditions at other points and "won".
Not having the lend-lease is the same deal, honestly. It would've helped, but the Soviets had plenty of men left over to throw away.
Right the timing of their invasion and the planning of the invasion is what made it impossible. It is however revisionism to say it was an impossibility to ever accomplish, which is what most people touting this believe. better coordination with their allies, better logistical build up and a better political strategy would have accomplished their end goal. There is no reason they had to invade Russia before reaching peace with the other allied countries. Without the lend lease program and allied air power the Soviets would have been at a much larger disadvantage, Japan taking land in the east would have occupied the Siberian divisions and having a buildup of trucks and trains built for soviet rails would have made a huge difference. The Soviets had a wealth of manpower to pull from but they struggled to supply them and better logistic capabilities would have kept german momentum at a pace that the Soviets would not have been able to stop in time.
Getting more Russians into ROA and SS RONA and teaching them guerrilla warface against the reds.
fuck meant warfare....this is gonna backfire isn't it?
a two-front with japan is just flat out impossible, and yet the only semi realistic option on the table
japanese were never going to declare war on russia because they had already decided they werent going to bother with the northen strategy and focus solely on the greater east asian co-prosperity sphere
going to war with russia would go against their main goals and to think they would listen to Germany is wishful thinking
timing was so something they had no choice in the matter in
British blockade cut oil production by 85%
they had only a few months of reserves with them
they enacted barborassa because that was the only day available before they ran out of fuel and couldnt attack at all, attacking earlier wouldn't help and neither would attacking later
I disagree on taking Moscow and the lend lease, I don't think the Germans could have taken Moscow but if they did the loss of leadership would most likely disband the rapidly forming defense. As far as lend lease goes, if you cant feed and supply the men then they are useless to the defense.
This i dont like vatniks here trying to make the soviets seem like the impossible to conquer nation because they certainly weren't and without american help they would have been really fucked up
>What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
Killing Hitler and suing for peace
>July 44 plot
Welp, might as well cut the middleman and hang yourself with pianowire
If they came to a ceasefire with Britain and America then they would have the oil. As far as Japan goes that is a failure of political leadership.
it doesnt really matter if the soviets were alone or not
the simple fact is that soviet russia, as it existed in real life lend lease and all, was not ever going to be conquered by germany unless reality as a whole took a sideways trip into fantasy
germans over extended themeselves to breaking point just to achieve what they did in real life, while the soviets only got stronger as the war progressed
its wishful thinking that a change in tactics or leadership would make any difference in the long run besides prolonging the war, because the ability to continue the offensive in any meaningful way was competent dried up
no general can magically make oil, trucks, and favorite appear out of nowhere or make aryans into unstoppable super soldiers who dont eat, drink, or need ammo who can press a 800 mile front with a supply line only good for 500
>I always wondered why Hitler didn't convince japan to attack the soviets.
soviets convinced the japs not to attack soviets.
>it doesnt really matter if the soviets were alone or not
Bullshit, absolute bullshit. The battle of Britain, British intelligence, British blockades, American supplies and allied invasion made such a huge difference in the war. Here is where the revisionism starts showing. with normal oil production, full force of the Luftwaffe, armored divisions and Material the Germans would absolutely succeed. The soviets would not have been able to feed their army, transport it and stand up to the Axis war machine without the armor, aircraft, instructors, raw materials the allied gave them. Especially if confronted by the full force of a well equipped Wehrmacht.
>while the soviets only got stronger as the war progressed
this was a direct result of Allied aid.
im not saying the soviets couldn't win it alone
i am saying that the distinction between soviets with allies and soviets without allies is meaningless cultural posturing
because the soviets as they existed in real life had western allied support and they made liberal use of them and there exists only a very few realities where they dont get it
>it doesnt really matter if the soviets were alone or not
That is exactly what you were saying
The entire Soviet leadership being murdered at the hands of Hitler and his armies might have had an overall positive effect on the Soviet army, since pulling out people randomly to replace them might have resulted in better commanders than they had had previously. There is a little-known battle who's name I've forgotten where one commander who had won some of the Soviet's best victories so far lost tens of thousands of men charging at the German defensive line repeatedly and at no benefit. The retaking of Stalingrad happened during the battle, so it got swept under the rug. That's the level of competence we are at.
The Soviets were the impossible to conquer nation. Just not for any reason they should be proud of. The greatest military seen yet having it's advanced units disabled by your fucked-to-nonexistent infrastructure and muddy and hilly land, and then its dismounted crews being swarmed by hordes of barely-trained and barely-equipped levies until the attackers run out of ammo and have to pull back. Was it really worth it to survive when you needed to lose a double-digit percentage of your population in order to do so?
and he'd be exactly right. stalin was far more competent than hitler at letting his generals actually command a military.
how do you think stalingrad happened? hitler fucked with case blue objectives and ordered 6th army not to retreat. how do you think citadel happened? hitler chose some retarded middle of nowhere salient to attack.
as long as hitler was in charge, stalin was always going to win by virtue of being the lesser retard.
more pics, also what lessons could we learn from this war?
i was responding to people who say soviey russia wouldn't have been unbeatable if it wasnt for lend lease
and therefore "just" soviet russia is beatable
what i was trying to say is that you cant just point to lend lease and say "without that it doesnt count" because its meaningless cultural posturing that will only be relevant in a universe where the US and the UK go full stupid and decide they don't need the soviets
because it doesnt goddamn matter, because ultimately the end result is the same, russians in berlin and Hitler shoots himself
political leadership was not however. They weren't impossible, the Axis was simply cut off of the materials they needed.
Motherfucker, Stalin prepared to invade Poland by murdering most of his high officers, Stalin oversaw Russia entering the industrial age with a different guage of railroad than everyone else, Stalin oversaw the breadbasket of the Soviet Union having a fucking starvation crisis, and Stalin oversaw the spread of Lycenkoism into the scientific literature after having loads of actual artists and scientists executed. Hitler, meanwhile, was plagued with officers who didn't share his sheer ambition and so let doubt and insecurity slow them down. Hitler was only the problem if you ask the people who had to explain why the war got lost, after the man who would call them on any bullshit had already died.
Maybe so. The Red Army could keep fighting on the new starvation rations from the rails being cut off, since that was about their level beforehand, but could they keep the rest of the country subjugated as the Kremlin had? Peasant uprisings cut into the food/soldier budget. I would have to know more about Soviet politics to answer, but you might be on to something.
>Hitler, meanwhile, was plagued with officers who didn't share his sheer ambition and so let doubt and insecurity slow them down.
Nigga are you serious. He had some great minds working under him in OKH General Staff and did incredible things despite his autistic meth-fueled interruptions and ramblings.
Also if Hitler was so great why did he lose and ragequit with a pistol and cyanide capsule?
They are arguing it because people constantly tout the idea that the soviets were a invincible competent military which they were not. The US and UK may have "gone full stupid" if the War dragged on without soviet involvement.
Oh, sure, his generals did great things when they were told that they had to stop putting it off for fear of failure.
As for the second bit, suicide was a common in the Third Reich as atonement for bad officership. One admiral killed himself for getting a pocket battleship stuck where it could only be destroyed by the enemy. Erwin Rommel was told to kill himself by Nazi command for his support of the 1944 coup, as most of the other conspirators who survived the fighting did of their own volition.
Yeah the general public would most likely be defeated morale wise without their capital and political figures. As we saw in German occupied areas there were plenty who disliked the politics of the kremlin
>Also if Hitler was so great why did he lose and ragequit with a pistol and cyanide capsule?
because Germany didnt have the raw material, industry, or logistics to beat the soviet union
plain and simple, it boils down to the simple fact that even the best general would have no ability to make operation barborassa work
they grossly underestimated soviet manpower reserves, overestimated their ability to supply their troops, and set unrealistic goals for their troops to reach
their only hope of winning was to take the caucasus oil fields then hold it long enough to set up the needed refineries
however, this failed not due to any dramatic mistakes on the part of the generals at the height of case blue, but the reality that their troops would need to advance across terrain nearly twice the length of their best case their supply lines could go
In planning Barbarossa all the logistics generals said we'll never make it, bros, and all the strategy guys said the logistics guys are fags, don't listen to them, boss.
>Be 18-year-old trooper
>Ready to serve fatherland!
>Hey s-s-Sarge it's fff-freezing, are we gonna get winter gear?
>Die of cold in the Moscow stepped one -40 night in summer uniform
- IRL example of Hitler's genius
>Be 21-year-old German tank commander
>Already fought in Poland
>Already fought in France
>Make it to Stalingrad
>Ok get out of your tank you infantry now we're gonna finish this shit lol tanks don't work in this city
-all your tank xp is useless now
-instantly new killed
- IRL example of Hitler genius at work
Germany can't into operational level of warfare. That's why they lost WWI and that's why they lost WWII.
if the US goes to war with China is there anything they would do that was similar to the German invasion of Russia?
This. Instead of invading Russia, send half the men home to be with their families for a few years. Send the other half down to quell Greece and flank Montgomery from the east. Ally the arabs for oil.
Before invading Russia, all the axis had to fight were the allies of Poland and France. By opening up another front and literally being at war with the entire world was just plain, bad ju-ju. It disrupted the balance of the universe and spelled doom for the third reich.
>This i dont like vatniks here trying to make the soviets seem like the impossible to conquer nation
I would say the exact opposite: the Soviets were absolutely doomed to fall until Hitler declared war. A common foreign enemy to unite against and the infusion of British and American money is the only thing that kept the country afloat.
The biggest realistic change would have been to leave the Italians out to dry in North Africa and use those divisions as part of Barbarossa
Because there's a whole lot of nothing in the Russian Far East, and the Soviet Union kicked their asses badly in 1939
Would the Russians have suffered if they were forced to fight the offensive while Germany defended? It seems to me the Soviet army barely existed and only really won because invading Russia in winter is a fool's errand, but also if Germany had not attacked I feel like some kind of battle over Poland would have started eventually.
You can't escape the winter if you are fighting for years... also the winter wasnt the issue as much as the spring was.
Hitler got cocky. He saw the success of Blitzkrieg in Russia and the bombing raids were stalling England to an acceptable degree. He was so hopped up on confidence that he refused to accept any sort of defeatism, but you need some pessimism to balance the optimism.
soviets have way more resources and manpower than germany, therefore more capability to wage war
germans went on the offensive because they had no choice, they only had 15% their pre-war oil supply and russia was the only place for it
waiting for the russians to come to you would leave you at their mercy
germans didn't lose because of winter, it wasnt even the largest factor
german assault halted because the ground they took was so wide that the pack animals couldnt properly supply the men at the front
in a defensive war, Germany is now losing men still
but they arent gaining any strategic assets, especially oil
russia will be losing more men on the attack, but they are now setting the initiative, and with Germany on defence they dont need to worry about losing the caucasus
The germans were basically fucked by that point. There is no fucking way they could have taken on the 3 largest world powers at the same time and won. They could have made slightly better decisions and made the war last longer, but that would have just made them the country to survive long enough to get nuked first.
The real question is what if the axis worked togeather instead of doing their own thing.
Or if germany went after russia during eartly purges, long before the commie fucks got their shit together. Everyone kinda hated russia, I think the rest of the world would have been much less likely to get involved if the russians were the only ones the germans were fucking with.
>The real question is what if the axis worked togeather instead of doing their own thing
this would require a fundamental change in japanese government
japanese didnt want to pursue russia after the khalkin gol told them it would be a bad idea
they also were short on oil and pursued their own agenda in south east asia and china which got the US mixed in
also,supporting a german invasion would be stupid for Japanese long term interests as while germany gets the breadbasket of ukraine, oil fields of caucasus, and the prestige of capturing moscow, japan will have to abandon its goals of a greater east asian co prosperity sphere and distract its war on China and cause thousands of casualites and all they will get it a whole lot of nothing in siberia
unless you are playing axis and allies, and both japan and germany are being controlled by the same person with the exact same goals, a joint japanese-german invasion is only slightly more realistic than wishing the soviets out of existence
resources were still scarce for the soviets, just not as dire as the Germans.
I know its completely unrealistic not that it would have helped much either, but Italy not being fucking retarded would have helped too.
If your going for hypothetical what ifs for germany, theirs pretty much no 'winning' situation unless you go into alt history territory.
Germany basically only had one chance to make it work and that was having decently competent allies. But it didn't have any of those.
Italy basically only joined because "hey we're fascist too, right guys?" and pursued their interests in North Africa, poorly.
Japan joined because all attempts at negotiations with America had fallen through and having some ally is better than nothing at all in their eyes. Japan was only going to pursue interests in Southeast Asia anyways.
Are you saying USSR would have just decayed from shitty economy and pissed off citizens if they never invaded?
>invading in the winter
Can this shitty meme please stop, like said the spring actually was worse because in russia everything melts very fast + lack of roads and infastructure meant big, big supply problems, also besides all that they didn't invade in winter and the war lasted three years meaning they fought over 3 cycles of seasons, the germans actually did good in their winter fighting, knowing retreat would cause dosaster they set up fortified positions that were concentrated it left them open to flanking but that didn't happen because the cold effects the russians just as badly
Its all very easy to wargame history after the fact. To claim that 110%, the German plan would have failed and lololol they never had a chance. I don't know what could have gone better or different. To change that would be to change the force that fundamentally got to that place in time in the first place. I would note that a return to mobile warfare and away from the material battle alone would have given the Germans a chance to delay things for longer. Longer for English money and will to wear out, longer for Stalin to bleed more to death. Maybe.
We could learn the necessity of heavy industry for long term war time survival. That a second best airforce costs more than the best, that conscription is necessary in the modern age and best if done over a long period of time.
Soviets weren’t unbeatable. If the other fronts hadn’t opened up, Germany would have pushed the Soviets to the Urals and stalled there. It would have stabilized into a stalemated meat grinder, while Germany worked on assimilating the new territories.
>two nuclear powers going to direct military conflict with one another
Ok yeah
Gehlen started doing that, when OKW found out they shit Twinkies and told him to stop recruiting untermenschen.
>using axis unironically
stop italy lost against bongs quick as fuck the only reason their was an African campaign was because hitler was retarded
I've often thought about how things might have gone if the Germans had focused on the Mediterranean in 1940-41.
If, immediately after the fall of France, they had realized that bombing Britain into submission was a stupid dream, and instead focused on, at a minimum, taking Egypt.
Step 1: take Malta (at that point, poorly defended) with massive Luftwaffe deployment, Fallschirmjager, Italian Navy-supported landing with Luftwaffe and U-boats tasked with keeping the Royal Navy at bay (something that was within the capacity of land-based airpower in Sicily and Tunisia).
Step 2: Larger German deployment in North Africa. Feasible, because Malta has been eliminated. At this point (summer/fall 1940) British buildup in Egypt is not very far along and fall of Malta will seriously hamper that. Operation Compass never happens, preserving the Italian Army in North Africa. Now, a smaller British force in Egypt must face a larger Italian force, a larger German force and more Luftwaffe than it did historically. Taking the Suez Canal becomes likely, and could have realistically been accomplished by the end of 1940 or early 1941. Britain may respond by precipitating hostilities in the Balkans earlier but that can't alter the fundamentals enough to prevent the fall of Egypt.
Step 3: Ideally at this point, the string of defeats forces Britain to the peace table. If not, a smaller force pushes for Iraq, aided by Vichy Syria, as German propaganda encourages Arab uprisings. Taking Basra means Germany gets oil, although it's an incredibly long, difficult supply, and Britain will be beefing up Iraq's defenses with forces from India and Australia which historically ended up in Egypt. They might have succeeded.
Even if Germany doesn't get the oil, the British will be seriously weakened, and Barbarossa can happen in Spring 1942 with more Luftwaffe, a larger Italian contribution, and no possibility of a Mediterranean front anytime soon.
in a one front war without allied lend lease + bombings, germans mobilizing the soviet population and building a long range bomber to destroy the soviet infrastructure, and generally having better military intelligence + not being full of enemy spies leaking every plan
the soviets could have been defeated.
it will absolutely happen in the future
this would consume nearly all german fuel supplies very quickly
and require the entire german high command to think that there was going to be oil in the middle east, when at the time there was no infrastructure in place to drill or refine oil
the germans never considered the mediterrenean an important front at all until the british were within striking range of italy, because it would put romania in danger
the plan is also contingent on UK doing absolutely nothing in response to german build up near the Mediterranean
so the plan would require being able to work so quickly that the british would do nothing to protect the suez canal while also convincing the entire german high command you would be able to get enough oil out of the underdeveloped saudi oil fields
the british would also be unlikely to surrender to negotiate a peace even if north africa fell, because they can count on the US being able to replace all their losses very easily and because they can still enact a blockade on germany
and finally, the soviets would be only too happy to have barborossa happen later because it gives them more time to prepare for an invasion
the russians werent sitting on their asses the whole time until barborossa came
I use Axis because it wasn't just Germany participating in the eastern front. If you cannot understand that then you shouldn't be participating in this thread.
>THE EASTERN FRONT: Would better training have helped the Axis? What plan of invasion would have been successful? What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
No. The Axis were profoundly lucky that the Soviets were as unprepared as they were.
Just stop and think for second about what they were actually proposing: that they'd push like 800km to Moscow when facing 4:1 odds in men and 3:1 odds in tanks and hope that would cause their enemy to surrender.
If the Soviet Union even had an iota of competency at the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa we'd all be looking back and asking ourselves "what the fuck were those morons expecting??"
>disdain for the value of human life
That's false, that is it's exaggerated bullshit.
It was a total, genocidal conflict. Soviets HAD to make up for lack in training, officer corps, ammo (early on).
It wasn't "lmao lets send people to die for no reason", rather "we are prepared to accept higher losses in order to stop the enemy".
Why the fuck would Japan do your bidding?
Resources they needed were more accesible down south, defended by weak colonial garrisons.
Soviets maintained large forces in the Far East during the entire war.
>wealth of manpower
1. You're ignoring loss of Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia.
2. German workforce was same as Soviet. Except Germans had equal number of slave labour. So in effect they had TWICE the workforce.
"Soviet horde" is a bullshit myth.
Russian POWs offered that early on, except Germany wasn't "fighting communism", they were in it for colonial empire in the East. Slavs were subhumans to be displaced, murdered and starved. Ideological and economic reasons prevented them from doing such thing.
They did it later on, but only out of desperation.
Deploying more troops to Africa was logistically impossible. Lack of port capacity and lack of infrastructure led to that, not Malta.
Taking Malta would change shit.
Not to mention any oil fields you capture would be 100% wrecked and it would take shitload of resources and time to restart oil extraction.
Germany invested to much effort and man power into the camps.
Every camp prisoner weather politicial or other should have been infantry or assigned to labor battalions.
Especially SS troops. Operation what was essentially a second army for himmlers wet dream was a colossal waste of resources.
not to mention Japan's skirmishes against the Soviet Union in the 30s had not exactly gone well
Germans could have easily won by winning over the local populace and portraying themselves are liberators from Stalin's regime.
but instead they decided to fucking murder, rape and pillage every single Russian village they came across.
resulting in unbreakable soviet morale and willingness for self-sacrifice the germans had no way to beat.
end of story.
If they had stayed mobile, and exploited their superiority in training and generally better generalship they could have won.
Hitlers orders and the half dozen pockets they created cost them the war. How many men did they lose all together in pockets? A million? How much gear?
If you look at the tactical or strategic retreats - fighting retreats - the Germans pulled of incredible feats of maneuver. Exploit that.
It was the pockets that fucked them in the end, if they had kept their mobility and focused on conserving men (only accepting losses when there was something to be gained) they could have bogged down the soviets for many more years.
Deep-battle only works if the enemy stays fixed.
As soon as Germany decided to invade Russia they lost the war. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually defeated Russia because the result was a depleted military that could not withstand the UK and America to the west.
If Russia never happens and Stalin/Hitler arrive at a mutual agreement not to fuck with each other then Germany can successfully defend its territory against the US/UK to the west.
It is likely that Stalin moves in and conquers Germany after that anyway, enjoying the same advantage of fighting a depleted military that the US/UK enjoyed, and Germany along with most of Europe would be a communist shithole.
fucking this. preach on brothers.
sick to death of the morons who perpetuate the grotesque myth that it was the "clean german army" vs the "big bad commies" who only won because they outnumbered the germans 10-1
often wondered why they didnt use the millions of disgruntled soviet POW's and all the newly "liberated" soviet states as a manpower pool
>esp Ukraine
if your planning on subjugating them anyway, why not get some value out of the millions you intend on killing and displacing?
because according to the nazis, they were all inferior human breed, that is only good for slave labor and dropping dead by the age of 30.
although they did have the Ost Battalions which were mostly used as cannon fodder and were shot by the officers at the first signs of doubt
An important thing to remember is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public knowledge while the battles of Khalkhin Gol were going on. In fact, by the time it went public the Soviets were in the middle of their counter attack.
This betrayal must have been in their minds when they heard of Barbarossa.
>Would better training have helped the Axis?
No.
>what kind of invasion would've been successful
I'm tempted to say "Fall Blau" from the beginning, but even then I have little confidence that the Axis forces would be capable in taking the Caucasus, and barring that, whether those fields wouldn't be destroyed by the Soviets.
>What would the best strategy for the Axis post Stalingrad have been?
If by best you mean "most likely to prevent losing the war" then there wasn't one.
>If Russia never happens and Stalin/Hitler arrive at a mutual agreement not to fuck with each other then Germany can successfully defend its territory against the US/UK to the west.
Making a lot of assumptions there buddy.
>It is likely that Stalin moves in and conquers Germany after that anyway, enjoying the same advantage of fighting a depleted military that the US/UK enjoyed, and Germany along with most of Europe would be a communist shithole.
Assuming that GB somehow gets knocked out by the Germans or they agree to a white peace, or something close to one, what reason would the US have to declare war on the Germans?
The main problem with the USSR was the fact that the Allies were supplying them, and I find it hard to believe that the US would enact something like lendlease when not directly at war with their Geopolitical enemies.
I read
>can successfully defend its territory against the US/UK to the west.
As
>>can successfully defeat the US/UK to the west.
>because according to the nazis, they were all inferior human breed
Are you unironically suggesting that Slavs aren't subhuman?
>In planning Barbarossa all the logistics generals said we'll never make it, bros, and all the strategy guys said the logistics guys are fags, don't listen to them, boss.
Which is why he planned to take the Caucasus, while those same strategists decided "nah fuck this" and went for Moscow.
>>Be 18-year-old trooper
>>Ready to serve fatherland!
>>Hey s-s-Sarge it's fff-freezing, are we gonna get winter gear?
>>Die of cold in the Moscow stepped one -40 night in summer uniform
>
>- IRL example of Hitler's genius
They had to make a choice between clothes and food, guess which is more important.
>Be 21-year-old German tank commander
>Already fought in Poland
>Already fought in France
>Make it to Stalingrad
>Ok get out of your tank you infantry now we're gonna finish this shit lol tanks don't work in this city
That's just blatantly wrong.
Don't declare war on the USA.
They were already getting involved thanks to Britain's bribes, FDR's autistic rage, and finally Japan's attack.
I have little doubt that they would've attempted to link the wars together no matter what, had Germany remained disengaged.
Pretty much what happened after the war, and that was with an empire of client states. US economic pressure and outsized military spending helped, but it was mostly an internal collapse.
nothing could've helped Germany during operation Barbarossa they didn't have recources, manpower or fucking will
to win a war you need friends
>clothes and food
Stop this meme
EVERY PERSON IN THE WH, LW, AND SS HAD
>Greatcoat
>Sweater (two if you bought one or got mailed one from home)
>Wool tunic
>Service shirt
>Long Underwear
>Gloves (maybe mittens, and maybe other gloves if you bought your own or got them mailed to you)
>Wool socks (Nice thick winter ones, captured Soviet ones, ones from home)
>Footwraps
>Belly warmers
>Ear muffs
>Toque
>Scarf
>Wool Trousers
>Wool blanket
>Zeltbahn
>Several different means of starting fires
The winter of '41-'42 is one of the coldest winters Europe had ever seen at that point
The Soviets weren't doing any better in the cold
The cold is NOT why the Germans lost
Terrible morale, lack of food, lack of reinforcements, and lack of sleep are unironically probably why the Germans did so poorly against such a numerically superior enemy.
t. war reenactor
Sorry for tagging I meant to tag You both fell for the meme though, so idc
another misconception/meme/lie is level of german army motorisation
particularly after seizing the soviet motor stocks they had the largest truck fleet of any nation
horses are for moving equipment short distances they relayed trucks and used rail for deployments
Logistics was their weakness.
Also better cordination between axis members would have immensely helped
Friendship is Magic. I mean the Key to Victory.
>Would better training have helped the Axis?
Erm yes? What kind of retarded question is this?