LoL… I think he held all these equipment/ammo/weapon to pose for the pic. When that’s done I’m pretty sure he dispose of most of the stuff haha ~
My completely ignorant response is:
My Head says the Germans would have won.
My Heart says the Russians would have won through horrendous attrition on both sides. Stalin, in my view, would have done whatever was necessary in terms of expending lives to win. In the occupied Soviet territories many men were forced in to the partisan movement through the threat of reprisals if they did not join the Partisan movement when the lands were regained. Coupled with German brutality in these regions I suspect that the Germans would have had to sink ever greater resources in to just maintaining control over the occupied territories in terms of partisan groups, sabotage on LOC, etc. The Russians also had some world beating tanks and aircraift (T34 and the ??? aircraft (sorry forget what it was called now)).
Whilst Stalin and his “grip of terror” were around and the Germans were ruling with a grip of iron I coud see Germany winning the battles but not the war - a bit like the USSR in Afghanistan??? I don’t think Hitler could have ruled Russia for more than a few years at most - no one else seems to have! They woudl have lost thousands of troops killed a month just trying to rule the place.
I vaguely recollect that Hitler’s objectives were not to take over all of Russia but to take over all of the induatrialised and oil producing Western part with a defensive line somewhere down the middle of teh current country we know as Russia. I remember reading this somewhere but don’t know where. Perhaps he thought the Japs could have the Eastern part???
PS - where is the pic of the ammo leaden bloke that people are commenting about with Siberian Rifleman? I can’t see thsi - where should I be able to see it?
Sorry if thsi is all c**p - I am semi-drunk at mo.
Every time the Germans would make an offensive, they would be pushed back by the winter :lol: .
No doubt they would. It would took a lot more time, then only 5 years, but Russians surely would have defeated fashists.
Another what if. If we assume than that Britain and France did not declare war on Germany in 1939 and let them take Poland so that from Oct 39 Germany was free to deal with Russia.
With the possible exception of Operations in the Balklans in April 41 delaying Operation Barbarossa by a couple of months allied activity did not realy hamper German activity in Russia before late 1942.
The Battle of the Atlantic was caertainly a big effort to Germany and the U-boat crews were possibly the best of her manpower. German activity in Africa prior to Operation Torch was limited to a Panzer Corps and a few aircraft and the Allied Bombing campaign had not really got started before early to mid 1943 though it is worth noting the 10,000 88mm FLAK guns that would have been really useful against Russian tanks.
In short because Germany was so concentrated against Russia until D-day I don’t think the lack of a second frond would have made so much difference till 1944.
But I can’t see the Russians breaking through the German lines in 1944 without a second front. I think the war would have dragged on well into 1946 though its worth noting that the USSR had a greater appetite for an attritional struggle than the Germans so I think the advantage would still lie with them.
If Germany was fighting them with no outside aid and without any other enemy or any other front the answer is yes, absolutely.
No chance russians alone to beat german forces - me thinks 
Almost all soviet production was converted to military production, meaning, they produced zero locomotives, only handful of trucks, etc. They lost most of their food fields etc. Still they had lot of locomotives, trucks, food etc etc. Where did they came from? From UK, US.
After third war-year russians were running out of men, and pretty much forced everyone in the re-captured area to join in the armies etc. This of course never stopped the myth of endless soviet resources…
And Hitler kept most of the production to civil products until the last couple of years - only minor percentage of german production was military related. And still german forces cruised to capture 50% of several resources in Soviet Union.
So, the question is: could Stalin have won without food, trucks, locomotives… No.
Ha ha ha ha… No.
Yeah the US and UK sent a lot of supplies to Russia, but Russia could produce the amount given to them themselves in the course of a couple of months, the Red Army was very powerful at the end of the war. Sure, a lot of crop fields were burnt in Western Russia, But what about the East eh? Have you seen the rest of the Russia that’s not in Europe? It’s pretty big if you ask me, but that’s just my opinion. No offence, but you rub off on me like someone who thinks Sherman tanks were the best… And they were not sir…
-Sincerely StalingradKMuch of the east of Russia was largely undevelopped - one of the aims of the slave labour programme of the GULAG was to develop these areas, but they never properly succeeded. The SU was, IIRC, a net importer of food right up to its downfall (for example Kruschev was shocked to learn in 1956 that the USSR was producing less grain then than Russia in 1913 due to disasterous agricultural policies).
The US and UK sent not only food and vehicles but huge quantities of things the Russians were lacking such as cloth and aluminium (aluminium being what you build aircraft out of). You really cannot underestimate the quantities involved, and the impact they had. Even things like rubber boots were sent!
How on earth could the Russians produce the huge quantities given to them “in a couple of months” if they didn’t have the infrastructure to do so?
But WHY soviets could produce decent amount of tanks?
BECAUSE there wasn’t need for soviets to produce several key components: trucks, locomotives, engines, food etc etc etc etc.
Some figures: “After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons.”
… And since you cannot make tanks out of snow…
What about the East? There was nothing there, take a look at where the soviet naturel sources were located, where population was, where factories were… West West West. Take a look at the calculations made how many percentages germans managed to capture of natural sources.
More figures: “Areas occupied by the Germans until Nov 1941 accounted for 63% of the coal, 68% of pig iron, 58% of the steel, 60% of the aluminum, 38% of grains and 84% of the sugar produced in the entire Soviet Union before the war.”
Ok, soviets had decent amount of ice, snow and cold in the east, but I fail to see how that helped soviets to build tanks etc.
Sorry, this is my fault, should have been more specific, when I mean Eastern Russia, (WW2 Wise) I usually talk about anything east of Moscow, usually up until Siberia.
Yes…I strongly believe the Germans could of beaten Russia… Read this article that I found… one thing that sticks out… in FY 1942… Germany produced 30 million tonnes of steel… but only 8.5 million tonnes of that was for military use…!!!
I just dont know what they were thinking…
Here’s the link… http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html
Don’t forget that strategic bombing by the Western Allies tied up considerable manpower and weaponary for the air defence of Germany that would have been sorely needed on the Eastern Front. This is in addition to the damage actually done by bombing, especially oil related infrastructure.
By the Russians’ own admission, the Germans got close enough to Moscow for the artillery battle to be heard in the Kremlin. Moscow was a vital transportation node for the Soviet Union and its capture may well have disrupted their ability to manoeuvre and support large formations sufficiently to prevent a substantial counter attack. This would allow the Germans to consolidate their hold of the Western USSR over the winter. Critically, if the Russians could not press the Germans as hard, the German logisitics train would be better able to provide the necessary support to survive the Russian winter. The psychological effects of capturing Moscow would have been considerable. Note that there weren’t been sufficient Soviet formations lying in reserve to trap and destroy the German formations in Moscow.
The Germans came very close to defeating the Soviet Union despite the help of the Western Allies. Without this help, Moscow would have been taken with devastating effect on the Russians’ ability to resist the Germans. Capturing the entire Soviet Union is another matter and may well have been regarded as disproportionate effort for the possible gains. When considering the raw numbers, it is important to bear in mind that the difference between catastrophic defeat and glorious victory can be very small indeed and the numbers associated with the Western Allies’ support of the USSR may well have been those that tipped the balance from defeat to victory, despite being small relative to the total Soviet effort.
Good points… without the continuous bombing of Germany… think of how many extra 88’s could of been used in the Soviet Union. The Germans would never be able to match the tank for tank production… but they could make up for it with tank and anti tank guns working together.
Good points… without the continuous bombing of Germany… think of how many extra 88’s could of been used in the Soviet Union. The Germans would never be able to match the tank for tank production… but they could make up for it with tank and anti tank guns working together.[/quote]
good points but also don’t forget about the Luftwaffe! Squadrons in France and Germany which were trying to defend German cities from RAF bombs wouldve been freed up for use on the Eastern Front.
also depending how far back you take this “What if scenario” if Britain hadn’t been in the war then the Luftwaffe wouldn’tve suffered such devastating losses during the Battle of Britain and couldve focused on Russia instead.
by mid November 1940 the Luftwaffe had dropped 13 000 tonnes of high explosives and over a million incendiary bombs on London, if those bombs had been falling on Moscow instead of London then surely it wouldve had at least some effect on Russia’s ability to build tanks etc?
Wow…what’s nice points, gentlemens. 
I think it’s not correct questions -could USSR alone won the Germany
because Germans satellite was practically all the Europe in 1941. The Fashists United Europe include hi-industrial Chehoslovakia (which was “presented” for Hitler by Britan and France in 1938), France (which was “unexpected captured” in 1940), Italy (which was voluntarily joined ) and ets. Those all countries had a powerfull industry and farming which began work for the Germany. The England was practically isolated after the “victory” in battle for britan and didn’t considered by Hitler as serious enemy.
Therefore the question is -could USSR won the fashists Europe?
It’s opened question.
The most critically period in Eastern front was end 1941 during battle for Moscow, when germans blizkrig plan “barbarossa” went down and germans troops were tied near Leninggrad
Only after then allies began war supplieses for gold and lend lise.
Total allies aid (including civil and martial production since 1942) was amount about 4 % of Soviet war output. Certainly it’s a essential ,particularly in murderous battles like Slalingrad or Kursk. But i don’t think that it was decisive part.
And don’t forget that rendering aid for Red Army allies saved their ass.
If about 2000 germans fighters which were losed in Eastern front in 1941-44 encountered allied bombers do you seriosly think that without air superiority bombing would “effective”?
As wrote Housefield, the 4/5 of germans war machine was absorbed by Eastern front.Let’s imagine it enourmous forces meet allied landing of troops in Normandia. I think the resoult would be catastrophic for allies. Who ,in this case ,could saved private Rayn?
:?
:lol:
If about 1 500 000 tonnes germans bombs ,which were droppet to the soviet cities in 1941-42, would falled to London, could anybody to find british capital on map?
Considering that soviets had a lot of factories producing tanks/parts around the Soviet Empire what difference would have destruction of couple of factories in Moscow caused?
And especially since basically everything that wasn’t nailed down was evacuated away from Moscow.
And one should remember that Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad in ruins, and yet factories produced and repaired tanks inside ruined city in collapsed buildings.
Germany would win lol. The Soviets won by leading tech from the Americans such as the Bazooka. its air force would have failed against the luftwuffe.What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?
Befor the writing something, will try to think a little 
What was role of Bazooka in Slalingrad battle, battle for Moscow and Kursk - the most inportain strategic battles in the Eastern front?
Certainly Amercan Lend-lise (famouse P-39 Aircobra, Studdebeker, jeeps and material and product supplies) played importaint role in Soviet strategical offensives in 1944-45 yy. But to talk that “Germany would won the USSR”- this is slobbery fairy tales.
Actually, Germany would won the USSR if Japanes was not so stupid and attacked not the Perl-Harbor but the Syberia. But the thanks for the god ( and maybe soviet diplomacy) they imagined itself by the “powerful sea state” and involved USA into the war.
What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?
Absolutly nothing. V-1/V-2 was mostly psychological weapon not realy war ( What was military effect of application it on London? )
And the distance from german position to the evacuated soviet plants in 1941-42 (Ural region) was more then 1000 km this is out of range V-1/V-2.
Cheers.