WW2 no attack on Russia in 41

And then run into a Russian army that heavily outnumbers, outguns, and has superior leadership their own. At which point WWII becomes a Soviet-wank.

Yep. But let's face it, sooner or later everything becomes a Soviet wank, a zeppelins wank, or an argument about the Armenian Genocide right?
 
Yep. But let's face it, sooner or later everything becomes a Soviet wank, a zeppelins wank, or an argument about the Armenian Genocide right?

In World War II it does. It's because there is no means for Germany to defeat the USSR, it did the best it could IOTL in Barbarossa and it still lost utterly and completely. Remove the democracies from Europe altogether......:eek:
 
In World War II it does. It's because there is no means for Germany to defeat the USSR, it did the best it could IOTL in Barbarossa and it still lost utterly and completely. Remove the democracies from Europe altogether......:eek:

I don't know that I'd agree that Germany did the best that it COULD in Barbarossa. There were plenty of members on the General Staff that recommended concentrating south first and securing the oil fields and food production first rather than opening up such a wide offensive.

In the final analysis though, Hitler fell victim to one of the classic blunders...
 
I don't know that I'd agree that Germany did the best that it COULD in Barbarossa. There were plenty of members on the General Staff that recommended concentrating south first and securing the oil fields and food production first rather than opening up such a wide offensive.

In the final analysis though, Hitler fell victim to one of the classic blunders...

Actually if they had done that, they would have done right what the Soviets wanted them to do. The USSR is unlikely to do very well, but in this case the forces north of the marshes can strike the Germans in flank. And in the south the German advance was already slower.
 
Top