Well it did multiple things. It slowed German industrial growth which more or less gave Germany no chance of being able to compete against the Allies in arms, it severed communications and caused logistical problems, it consumed large parts of the German Air force and consumed large amounts of air defenses, it also consumed more German resources that had to be used to rebuild the damaged areas.
You mean 2.5 million russian soldiers that cut off 600k german soldiers in a city and starve/froze them to death. You should be admiring Chuikov for Stalingrad. It was his "bear hug" tactics that really messed the Germans up in city fighting, of course it still resulted in high soviet casualties but this just seems to be a common trait.
If we play the numbers game and take Russia with a pre-war population of 168 million against Germany with a pre-war population of 69 million; and include the Soviet conscripts from Ukraine, Belarus...as examples. There is no doubt Russia was a competent manufacturer of bullets, guns, artillery, tanks and planes...they equip a very formidable military. The Germans also, competent manufacturers of bullets, guns, artillery, tanks and planes who also could equip a very formidable military. Russia wins on the basis they could absorb the most casualties and still retain a significant fighting force. This is the assumption the rest of the globe stays out of their way entirely. There is no lend-lease, no western front opens up...there is no "final solution" yet, so Germany would be fully focused on defeating the Soviets; it would be bloody, but the Soviets would prevail eventually given a protracted war lasting far beyond that of the entirety of WW2. Germany's only hope would be a technological edge equivalent to the Atomic bomb, maybe chemical or biological agents would be introduced. There would no quarter given, that's for sure. Less than 10% of captured POWs would survive, so it would literally be a fight to the death. I would give the edge to the Soviets given this scenario and their willingness to absorb significant casualties in the cause of victory. Arguing purely from a numbers perspective. The key would be game changing technology and who would develop it first. The Germans were quite advanced in the science of rocketry, so it's possible the development of mid to long range ballistic missiles, even while delivering conventional warheads,..might save them. A more likely payload would be chemical agents. It would be an epic confrontation to say the least.
In my first post in this thread, #60, I did indeed praise Chuikov. Here's an excerpt: "We Americans tend to consider only our own military commanders as candidates for being "best", but in truth, both Soviet Army commanders, Marshal Zhukov and General Chuikov were probably the most effective WWII commanders, because of the victory they were able to accomplish against the Germans in Stalingrad. It was, by far, the most horrible theater of battle in all of World War II, and that is saying a great deal!" As you know, Zhukov was a listed choice, but Chuikov was not, so, I simply chose Zhukov.... At that point in the war, the Soviet Army was short on materiel, but it had lots of men. They did the best they could, and, to nearly everyone's surprise, they won, but at a horrible human cost.
Well if the soviets were without lend lease then it would hamper their ability to conduct war with that huge army. They wouldnt have been able to supply it without those 1million+ gmc trucks. Having all the men and weapons is one thing. Being able to maintain them and supply them would be another huge task, something the Germans even struggled with. Also, if the Germans were only fighting on one front it would have eased their logistical issues and the Germans would have had more ability to hold their lines. I dont think the Soviet Union would have beaten Germany alone. It would have ended in a stalemate, or until one of the country's people got tired and overthrew their own government.
The USSR might have been pushed all the way back to Irkutsk, but the Nazis would have payed dearly to get there. For reasons mentioned above of manpower and size, the USSR would have no doubt prevailed. It would have just taken longer. Moi
Your going under the assumption that the Germans would continue to push as far into the Soviet Union as they could and that would not be the case in such a scenario. The Soviets would have had a very hard time reaching German territory, while Soviet territory would continue to be destroyed. Without lend-lease the Soviets would have struggled supplying any type of large scale movement. Things like Bagration would never have happened. It would have come down to whichever side got tired of fighting and overthrew their leader.
American strategic bombing accomplished two very specific things a) It drew out and ultimately destroyed German fighter defenses- and this was important for Allied advances b) Americans tried several strategic objectives, and most of them didn't work- perhaps they would have if the Americans had continued with one specific strategy but they kept switching. What finally worked though was rail centers. American strategic bombing shut down transportation in Germany- ultimately they were down to bombing small railroad exchanges because they destroyed every large and middle size ones- and that strategy worked.
