Hey Sup Forumsros, who would win, my friend and i have been debating about this for awhile

hey Sup Forumsros, who would win, my friend and i have been debating about this for awhile.

lets say it was just the soviets vs nazi germany with no other country involved.

the Eastern front essentially was just the Soviets vs the Nazis, and the Nazis got destroyed.

yes but with no other ally fighting the germans, germany would have all their forces at the ussr, germany was able to closely reach moscow without their full force during the war

If you actually think this you need to read up

Are you really that stupid or just baiting?

Do both countries know about the war and have time to mobilize?

Also, the United States fought on two fronts and won.

after half of the army was in the west, and the good soldiers were already dead. They had literally Hitlerjugend kids at the end

The answer is always Hitler

Most of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of combat in WW2 were between the germans and russians. It's probably possible that the nazis had the capability to defeat them if it were strictly between those two countries but they'd also have had to played their cards a LOT more intelligently than they did, ie. not attempting to blitzkreig through a winter in russia.

t. armchair historian

The EU front and the Pacific front were kinda different, though. One required millions of troops, tanks, and air, with less naval support; the other was primarily island-hopping and praying to not bump into a Yamato-class.

its like how ww2 would start but without other countries interfering, so im guessing germany would attack first into the ussr

Then Germany would win.

>all their forces at the ussr
>all their forces without supplies
Would end very well. For ussr.

they also entered the war very late, whereas germany was effectively the instigator and was actively using resources since before the war "officially" began. And the method of "winning" in the pacific was kind of like using cheat codes. Not saying it wasn't justified, but it wasn't military might that forced japan to surrender.

...

If the Soviets weren't receiving materiel from UK and later the US, would they have been able to hang on?
If Hitler hadn't been a tard, could he have secured oil supplies?

if there was no jews then he wouldve won... but if there was no jews hitler wouldve never existed

So you agree.

tard yes, because he didnt guve enough trust to his commanding officers abd micro managed everything

I would give it to germany as long as they kept half the troops positioned at their borders. That way they could defend themselves when they started losing ground to ussr. If they held out long enough to finish the h bomb they would have it easy

>it wasn't military might that forced them to surrender

America had contacted the USSR about invading together and splitting Japan's inland defenses to end the war as fast as possible. However, the president realized that Stalin would most likely try and take Japan and its territories for himself. So, the decision was made to drop the first bomb. After the Soviet Union learned about this, they immediately invaded Japan from the north in an attempt to take Japan for themselves. America, after learning of this, dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Soviets didn't stop. It was then that the Emperor signed a non-conditional surrender to America, in fear of being conquered.

tldr: Japan quit because of the USSR invading, not cheats