Eastern front

No, it's more about inherent German autism that overcomplicates everything to the point of uselessness.
I've actually meant the last part as a general recommendation for OP and all the other faggots who don't know basic stuff about ww2.

That's true lol.
Ah, okay. Forgive my autisme Français, then.

They certainly had the ability to the have 1944 production levels at the start, yet didn't go for full war economy.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (602x322, 74.09K)

Fucked by the weather.

It takes time to build factories.

THIS is how you win world war 2

Attached: 1333.jpg (598x448, 103.35K)

Sacredieu, this video is a war crime unto itself.

Attached: angry eyetalian.JPG (500x1250, 210.75K)

Speaking of which, deja vu. I'd seen this before in my dreams.

A work of genius.

All Germany needed to win was Japanese inventing a single tank worth a damn, but the slimy yellow bastards never figured out the purpose of a mechanized division until America slapped them upside the head and raped sense into them. They're kind of like Italy in that sense.

Attached: comparison.png (2614x1575, 2M)

The lack of NCOs and firepower in the Italians is really fucking telling.
No wonder why the Shitviets were shit after Stalin gulag'd the fucking officer corps

Attached: soviet engineering at its best.gif (202x156, 1.99M)

1. Siege battles, the 41 campaign was gained positively due to the open terrain which facilitates the more mobile german army, siege battles slow thing down.
2. Lack of preparation, logistics for the german.
3. Lack of coordination with the japs and italian.

In short, per Xi Ma Guide of win & Sun Tzu, avoid siege battle, avoid war where you don't have allies support.

All the US lend lease

Didn't really start kicking in until '42. UK lend lease started arriving in '41, though.

Attached: 1459730846687.jpg (644x567, 88.68K)

Rail hub is the only thing it was good for, but there were other rail hubs too. Additionally, all the important infrastructure have been moved east halfway across the country, capture of Moscow would've accomplished nothing.

They only had momentum at the beginning of war, right at the time when Soviet military consisted of inexperienced soldiers and commanders because all the experienced ones were executed. By 1942 things got on track and by 1943 they got weapon upgrades to bring them on the level, from that point on Germany couldn't do shit against Soviet army.

Lend-lease helped chiefly with food, at times constituting up to 50% military rations. Fuel constituted about 20% that of Soviet supply and military equipment was less than 5% of total force. I have no info regarding the trucks but the word is that they were rare but significantly better quality than soviet-built trucks, so I guesstimate it's 15-25% of Soviet truck fleet.

Attached: did not comprehend.png (370x596, 188.76K)

>58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
>53% of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
>93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)

Burgers kept you alive.

Attached: 1454538330117.jpg (720x439, 42.05K)

The trucks, jeeps and bren/universal carriers were much more important than their mere % of the total which was pretty significant anyway would indicate since they were able to carry much more than the Soviet equivalents and functioned much more reliably as well. Similarly the combat aircraft in the early years were often superior to their soviet equivalents and came with pilots and mechanics who both flew combat missions and much more importantly provided training to their soviet counterparts.

The railway connection matters though it's possible for the Soviets to have made do without it, the political capital less so since it can be quite easily moved and essential operations were already in less threatened areas. Offset against the huge cost the Germans would have had to expend to take Moscow it would have been a net loss.

Or in short: don't fight a land war in Asia.

And yes, I'm aware the Germans only intended to take European Russia, but the same geography and downsides apply.

Attached: Erich Hartmann's high score.png (475x5309, 875.6K)

It never stops

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x640, 650.04K)

Attached: rain.gif (500x281, 746.48K)

...

Attached: sad_torako.png (755x545, 478.21K)

*grandchildren

Continuing Soviet incompetence in the air doesn't invalidate my statement user.

Radical changes in history are not a good idea even if you make them with the best of intentions. There's no telling what might happen long-term. You'd also probably be killed in the inevitable post-Hitler power struggle/civil war for being too much of a threat.

>implying my life is more important than the very survival of the Aryan race
We had a good run as a nation, even IF uncle Adie wanted us all dead due to irrational nordicist WE WUZ the only desirable genetic trait 400 years of Ottoman dysgenics left us with is our insatiable need for kebab removal, a trait atavistic and redundant if the 1000 years' Reich was to be achieved. Would be arguably better if we went out with a boom taking with us as many muds and roaches as we could than surviving to the end times as a purposeless fragment of what we once were in a world surrounded by our betters out of a mixture of pity and ages past gratitude.

All the major political and military leaders where already evacuated from Moscow at that point and it would've been a nightmare to fight in.

I hate how correct your post was. I really, really, really want a war with Turkey

They tried that in 1939 and failed.

Up until the day the Soviets roll in themselves and add 18 new Soviet republics to the Union and rename Berlin into Karl-Marx-Stadt or whatever.

You mean they didn't do that in history already?

Why do you think the Soviet only stopped at Berlin when they crushed Germany?

Simple answer? The Germans were inferior on genetic, psychological, social and cultural levels.

Germany at the time had similar population, far greater technology, far greater access to resources. The lendlease Russia got did happen,but it arrived in dribs and drabs and so it couldn't be the reason why the German assault broke suddenly. Compare it to Germany which had the industrial power of the entire continent of Europe, more than the allies at one time.

The hordes, tsars and commissars had killed every Russian who was incapable of following orders, this made it impossible to cause a rout. Germany had fairly independent minded people who (although united in nationalism) were still fairly individualistic, and could be caused to rout.
The continental cold had basically killed every Russian that would let depression get the best of him, so their morale was impossible to break. German morale could and did break if they were surrounded, or if they ran out of ammo even. They surrendered in droves while Russians who had no ammo simply fixed bayonets.
Their society was inured to war and went to total war status almost immediately, they split up their population into those who could fight, those who could work in factories, and those who were to be used to clear minefields and run into enemy barbed wires to make bridges for the others.
Also while they are natively aggressive, their culture does not go far into being the first to strike a blow. They generally suck at that. But if you try to take something that belongs to them, or back them into a corner, they're very good at getting out of that. I suspect it's partially survival training from medieval times, after all it is a good survival strategy to pay the ridiculous taxes of the tsar or the commie, but if they come to fuck your wife you better kill them or die trying. That kind of thing is a good group survival strategy.
dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/

You have Karl Marx strasse in berlin till this day so what difference would it make?

Soon. The roach running that country is going to ask too much from the US in what it can gain by threatening the bosphorus. A day will come when the NATO shall liberate Constantinople

That might be true. My question is: for who?

Attached: 393ff57b722d8a4180cabaf7cc826e8ed0cfe1ae7b1700f735ee2e320b028a6b.jpg (680x765, 55.56K)

1. Lack of resources
2. Lack of industrial capacity
3. Lack of manpower
4. allied lend-lease

/thread

5) Lack of helping their own allies

More like

We did send help but we really were in bad shape. Point Germany needed to go the equivalent of `This is how to make Panzer IV and BF109, *go make it! ' to their allies and they would have been in better shape even if it meant only a 100 more tanks that is a 100 more tanks that are good they don't have to make

It'll never happen but still.

They did license out aero engines to Sh*talians which proceeded to make some really nice planes afterwards, not that it helped much when Germany should've licensed radio, radar and leadership tech to them instead.

Attached: MC 202.jpg (700x524 1.4 MB, 318.2K)

unimportant. Better question would be Leningrad, which would have allowed the combining with Finnish and german lines and was already under siege.

Really, though, Germany should have pressured (or even attacked) Turkey more and opened the caucasus front there, so that they could grab the oilfields in Baku. The whole push towards Causcasus through all of ukraine and southern Russia was a logistical nightmare on first sight.

Moscow is where the rails connect.

Having Moscow would at least help the declining germ's logistic.

Or any city at all. By Moscow and Stalingrad, it's clear the germs can't into siege warfare.

Leon De Grelle said that harsh winter decreased speed of attack and after that Soviets launched a counter-attack.

David Irving also said that Hitler had plan to connect two forces behind Moscow and encircle it but he got sick and the generals rehashed the plan and adopted more conservative one which was worse than the Hitler's plan.

But Franco's assistance in the war would've helped things tremendously for the Germans, in my view. Denial of resources to the Allies, a chance to besiege and capture Gibraltar, more (mostly experienced) soldiers for the Axis cause, and a greater control of the Med.

Any help and more competent allies would increase the germ's chance.

The best would be if the war in Pacific didn't fucking happen and Japan provide 100% support against the USSR and support Chiang Kai-shek in destroying Mao.

They should have built an army of SS robots with Jew-seeking missiles

That was on (((Roosevelt))), for provoking the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor.
The Japs were willing to end the war with Chiang in exchange for Japanese suzerainty over the Chinks, which was a damn good deal in hindsight. But the Chinks manufactured the (((Rape of Nanjing))) against the Japanese, and so the war continued needlessly, when Chinks and Japs could have fought together to defeat the Commies.

>That was on (((Roosevelt))), for provoking the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor.
War on Pacific happened before Pearl Harbor, the attack on RoC shouldn't have happened.
Well, here's the thing, the japs shouldn't have attacked the chinks at all.
They should team up with the chinks to remove Mao and attack the USSR to support Germany.

Italy too should drop their fucking Ethopia conquest and provide troop support for Barbarossa.

The War in the Pacific began with Pearl Harbor. What you are referring to, is the War in China.
The Chinese had to be punished for attacking Japanese civilians, and for being yellow niggers.

OK, which was unnecessary.
So happy losing WW2.

You can't win unless you team up with lesser evil to beat greater evils, which are communists.

t. user whose country allied with the greater evil

I'm a vietnamese, but my ancestors were allied with the US.

Is that you, Spergook?

Yep, that's right.

Spanish civil war ended in 1939. Had Franco went ot war, he'd need to actually explain why the fuck he'd doing it to his own populace, who had enough war to last them a lifetime by them. So Franco asked for Gibraltar, French Morocco and parts of Algeria and some of the French colonies lower in Africa, plus supplies that'd solve the shortages left in the wake of the war. Hitler offered essentially nothing since he wanted to stay on Vichy's good side, so that was that. Franco had literally nothing to gain from the war, and while he certainly sympathised and was grateful to Germany, he wasn't going to bet the position he just fought a bloody war for (along with his life) because of it.

Hitler should have simply agreed to hand over the French colonies, as even if Spain proved to be an absolutely useless ally, being able to capture Gibraltar would alone outweight any possible negatives, as the Mediterranean would thus effectively belong to Italy alone – you can't just route everything through Suez because it's so fucking far and thus takes so long, and leaves you open to enemy subs the whole time.

Of course, hindsight's a bitch. Hitler expected an end to the war soon after French surrender, so trying to be on good terms with Vichy made perfect sense.

The burger strelok is correct
Remember how Stalin transfered all those siberian divisions after the non agression pact? If they were to strike north and not give two fucks of how bad the IJA was going to get it's asses kicked, you bet the Stalin would not hesitate to let go of Siberia to defend European Russia.