Who wouldhave won 1v1, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? Circa 1939

Only way the Germans beat the Soviets is if they had unlimited oil, total war economy, luck with the weather and more uboats to destroy the UK. They also needed to be less autistic about building armored vehicles.
There was no way they win the war. Even if USA doesn't join they still lose a few years later.

1v1 they skirmish in the Baltic for a while and maybe the nazis sack Leningrad before beating a hasty retreat. Neither has the capability for war-ending amphibious operations in 1944 let alone 1939.

Plot twist. What about a 1v1 between 1939 Nazi Germany vs. 1939 United States. Just a straight up 1v1, no outside presence at all. I always pondered this.

I think it would end up in a race to see who could develope nuclear weapons first
stop killing my vibe

Germany couldn't invade England which you can see from France.
If US can't use allies for troop movement it's practically a stalemate.

Germany

The thing is, Hitler went too easy on the UK, he hated that war.

germany has less coastline to guard but the usa had far greater industrial capacity

I can't tell you who would win, but I can tell you who wouldn't, Poland.

Germany would lose all these match ups

1930s Germany was a basketcase that messily dissolved over the course of 1939 to 1945 the outcome was never in doubt

None, it would end up with a treaty and both claim victory.As you see there's no way for those countries to fight eachothers on the land because of the borders and air space which could bring others nations into war so everything would go naval and by air above the Baltic sea part and if Krauts have chance to get on Western Russia that side would be armed to teeth and Krauts would be rushed from literally every side.

I would guess Nazi Germany if they had access to trade for all the oil they needed

The US would nuke them

germany,
even with US support the soviets were close to breaking
without it? hopeless

but how and where? Only way for burgers to lose is having Germany teleported right next to New England.

soviet russia was heavily centralized almost all railroads go through moscow meaning if you take moscow you control the soviet railroads central piece, cutting off major production centres from each other, basicly the war would have been won

soviets lost more soldiers etc in the first winter than the germans...

This.
Also if they can trade with oil without the US and British blockade with the outside world they don't have to worry about the Baku oilfields and can just blitz Moscow with more divisions

>1v1
>moar uboats to destroy the UK
dude ltieraly a one front war scenario
germany could have pumped all amterial for kriegsmarine into air superiority and without the USA the soviets would ahve had less fuel and thus worse pilots than the germans

Who the hell do you think? Nazis almost won despite fighting on two fronts and despite soviets being supplied by USA. Germany would have won the war even as it was had USA not supplied the Soviet Union. That's how close it was.

poles, study some history.
Soviet Union had a massive industry, far greater than what Hitler expected.

even with Poles conquered by the Nazi, Germany would have lost.

The Soviet Union was already planning an offensive. They had moved resources and troops to their western border and showed signs of preparation. Germany decided to take them by surprise and strike first, which got them a large amount of ground.

hitler should have used the luftwaffe against britains supply, destroying harbours, and then picking on the ships much more efficient and impactful than submarines.
a british nation never being hit in their homes by a single bomb and close to starvation for a war they never wanted would ahve to give in. evne if this actualy was a no 2 front scenario

TRIPS OF TRUTH

The majority of it was in the west. Soviets were able to move it towards east only because of the American help.

>more uboats to destroy the UK
> Even if USA doesn't join they still lose a few years later.
OP is specifically talking about a 1v1 situation

accectly.

without the ravaged resources from conquered countries in few years German military would have already collapsed.

It would have been completely dependant on oil from friendly Romania, which would have cut the exports for fear of an invasion by Soviets.

partialy true, the nazis suceeded in actualy denieing the soviets the amjority of their production capacity, but the americans gave them the fuel and the machines to rebuild their capacitys further east, if the nazis ahd taken moscow the soviets would have collapsed.

The USSR without a doubt. Germany was heavily reliant on Romanian oil and without the 800,000 men from other Axis countries they would have been doomed. The Germans only BTFO’d the Soviets in 1941 due to the Soviets moving away from their defensive territory and into their new territory from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and also the massive surprise attack that left the Soviets in chaos.

But the Nazis had blitzkrieg

Does 1v1 mean nobody would have support of anyone else?

They could just trade for resources and oil though, its a 1v1 so that probably means there are no blockades and the Germans are free to trade

Probably Germany but I also think it depends if Germany can get resources from other nations.

the thing is without other countrys in the ring, the UDSSR would not ahve been able to stand up so long they jsut did nto ahve enough soldiers, also teh way war works, germany being less overstretched would mean even more massive defeats for the soviets.
the soviets in 1939 were less industrialised and thus even less likely to resist germany, the earlier the war the beter acutaly germanys chances

Blitzkrieg doesn’t mean shit when your supply lines are massively stretched out across the largest nation on Earth who are quickly stabilising and are on the defensive

Russia would have surrendered before Germany ran out of resources. Russians themselves admitted that they could not have won without American help. Had Germany fought solely against the Soviet Union, it really would not even have been a fair fight, and it would not have lasted very long.

Absolutely. A free for all between the two countries

>youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk
This tells you how much Hitler was taken aback by the Russian war capabilities.
Also the Russian technology at one point surpassed even in quality the Germans.

The famous Panzer were pretty much garbage compared to the T34.

underrated

using german nukes ofc

You should study more, before they mobilized and become big we were beating them, at the start of WWII Germany was powerhouse compared to soviets

It all depends on who attacks first, the USSR or Nazi land

>Did not have enough soldiers
The Soviets had the largest army on Earth.

>Germany being less overstretched
Actually conquering France and other countries greatly helped the Germans as it allowed them to seize their industry and force them to support their war effort.

>Soviets were less industrialised
The Soviets were mostly industrialised at this point

soviets had little to know population int eh eastern 2/3

Doesn’t matter, the western part of the USSR was still gigantic and German supply lines were completely stretched, that’s why they retreated in the winter of 1941, they could not keep up their offensive any longer

The US had a quite bigger economy and a larger population, especially in 1945. Germany had the better infantry (best in the world at that time). American troops got BTFO regularly by B-grade and undermanned battalions during the western front campaign for example. The real war was fought on the eastern front. America had better tanks and planes that they could produce more of. I don't think you could have invaded either country if they were concentrated at only each other.

t34 is often over emphasizd the crews were much more strained by the tank, and as far i know they had a shorter effectiv efighting range angles armor was known but it was put back becuas eof other factors

The people who defeated the Mongols, Napoleon, who destroyed the Ottoman Empire and who won WW2 vs the Germans? Hmmm that's a tough one.

I'm sorry but reality trumps your dumb illusions.

wait, didn't we gig in in teh winter of 41 and the soviets suffered evne higher losses due to winter than the germans? that was the first winter right?

In a 1 on 1 it wouldn't be like this though
First of all there is no British blockade so the Germans can get all the oil they need from the outside world, and can focus fully on tank and halftruck production rather than ships and uboats
Secondly they can use that oil to use their tanks and halftrucks to full capacity, that means they can fully mechanise their logistics to improve their supply lines
And thirdly, they no longer need to get to the oilfields of Baku because they don't need oil, so they can focus on Moscow and have a stronger and narrower frontline

how did the USA defeat the mongols?
joke aside, the russians did not defeat napoleon alone,
you know how the tsars defeated the mongols?
GERMAN GUN ENGINEERS
they literaly hired germans to build peak technology artilelry for them to fight the mongols.
kek
also the soviets were commiting to peace talks with germany befor the battle of kursk.

None of that matters one bit. Joseph Stalin said "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."

Just look at the amount of equipment Soviets received from the allies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Allies together would have lost the war without American help. Soviets alone 1v1 would have been absolutely destroyed.

It’s nice talking to you man but you are going to have to improve your English. But anyway I’ll explain what happened, the Germans made brilliant progress in 1941 as a result of their surprise attack and rapid Blitzkrieg, eventually the Germans became overstretched, the railways of the Soviet Union were completely different to Germany’s so Germany could not properly utilise them. The Russians began to stabilise the front and called the Siberian reserves, these mounting pressures (and the coming winter) resulted in the German high command either falling back or being pushed back by the Soviets from Moscow

>The Soviets had the largest army on Earth.
Which was equipped by the Americans. Manpower is not that important, if they have to fight with sticks and stones. Otherwise China would have been the dominant player in the war.

Germany would have won obviously. They almost made it to Moscow, and if they had, Russia would have fallen.
If Germany hadn't expended so many resources on the Western Front, they would have been able to break through Stalingrad and move on to Moscow.

The germans, duh.
>no allied help to commies
>no allied equipment, money, fuel and personnel
>not having to waste resources in bird africa
>not having to prepare for a possible allied invasion.
>kriegsmarine able to focus on the soviets
>t-34 not quite ready
Vs
>no axis help
(Meme all you want but a rifle is a rifle and eastern european SS where amongst the best troops of the war)
>Not as experienced as during normal barbarossa
>no Finnish help
>Poland to fight through?

Seem pretty one sided

We must take in considerations many factors:
was the Molotov Ribbentrop signed?
if not, Russians would have had a stable front in the West and already converted most of the facilities to war economy and in the East.
Also if germany conducted a sort of Befreiungskrieg against bolshevism maybe in one push the Soviet Union would have collapsed, but I think that the Vernichtungskrieg Hitler wanted would have made the war an attrition war.
Without a strong control in the Caucasus and in Archangel, the Germans would have been defeated even if they captured Moscow and Leningrad.