The Soviets had after defeating the Germans in Kursk in 1943 the upper hand on the eastern front. Their Air Force got the upper hand, their tanks got the upper hand.
By 1943, Germany have already suffered a lot in the war with Britain and the US, Germany suffered 1,700 lost of Luftwaffe Combat power in just 3 months (which is more or less the same number during the rest of their war when they have total ~4,000 combat aircraft lost) and the production of the aircraft for Germany at that time is about 500-750 per year, which would mean by the time Germany had started Operation Barbarossa in 1941, they haven't even replenish half of that lost (actually not even 25% of that lost) which mean if they did not engage in Battle of Britain at all, they could have spare another 1700 aircraft and 2900 airmen for bombing, by then I don't think the Russian tank would get a upper hand. Even still, the number may just as well be able to push the Germany over the Stalingrad had they got more air support.
The main point is, US/UK did not just sit on their arse and do nothing in the British Isle, the moment Britain still outside Germany Control, the German will then be facing a two front war (in fact, three because later in the game, the Allied launch the Italy Front which Germany were directly involved) Just because the Allies does not launch an offensive until 1944 does not mean Germany do not need to put troop there and dilute the concentration on the East. In fact, either German are too underestimated Russia or overestimated the Allied, they had station twice the number of troop in Western Front than in Eastern Front (8,500,000 in the West vs 4,500,000 in the East) that contribute to the ease of Russian Offensive.
Germany was out of fuel as the Soviets kept constantly bombarding Romanian oil fields. Germany was out of iron and coal as both the Turkish supply through the black sea and the Swedish supply in the Baltic were effectively cut off by the Soviets.
For oil, that is the reason why US/UK launch the North African campaign, had the Allied did not defend Egypt, Germany and Italy would have had direct access on Middle Eastern oil field in Iraq and Saudi Arabia today, and that, as we all know, is basically the biggest oil field on earth, that would mean the German would no longer need to engage in Caucasus Region, and Soviet bomber have too short a range to bomb oil field in the middle east, and no control in the Med, which would have been the link between Middle Eastern Oil to Germany (forom the Suez to the Med to Germany)
Russia do not have reach that far into the North Sea, the trade route between Sweden and German was blocked by Royal Navy, and to be honest, it wouldn't do much to begin with, because Swedish Iron Ore were transported via a land line thru Sweden to Denmark to Germany via Schleswig.
Further more the Soviet army had completely reshaped itself after 1942 and the most casualties it suffered were before reshaping. The prime example of USSR using all its might against the whermacht is the battle of kursk.
Still, if you look at it, the casualty number is not much different, and you are still looking at 3 times time casualty number between Germany and Soviet Union, in Kursk, the German Death is around 60,000 and the Soviet Union death is about 180,000, the reason why Soviet Union won at the end is simply they have more man power than German and the German was pin between the West, the South and the East. Had Germany had more men and equipment, the Soviet Union casualty rate could not be possibly sustained, and they would if the Allied would not ever invade Italy and France.
Both empires threw in the bed too the best. Katyusha's, ferdinands, tigers su 85's fw190e ju-88g panthers zis 3 flak 8,8. Yet the Soviets triumphed as they had more men , more industrial power and more aircraft.
again, they triumph because they can spend more people, and the material came from the US and Canada mostly.
The problem is that Soviet Union fight the war with the best they can do, which is keep throwing men in it, and Germany can only use a quarter of their troop because they are fighting a 3 fronts war, and only be able to resist as such, the mistake was made when Hilter decided to attack Russia even after the failure of Britain of Britain and without an effective air force, they cannot fight the fight they did with Poland, Netherland, Belgium and France, which mean they would blog down and they will lose eventually, which mean they lost that campaign even before they fight it.
People dying for their country is romantic and brave, it would make good movie, but in realty of war, what you don't see is how close the Russian had to hand their defeat, what if the German did not counter attack in the Bulge but gone eastward? What if the German did not attack Britain and what if The allied did not defend the Middle Eastern Oil field? All that would have push the war to the other direction.
Had Churchill progressed with unthinkable, let's say Britain and America invade. The Soviets had all their military might at the front where as the British and American were also engaged in the pacific and had to keep troops to occupy colonies. America would have also had to bring in all its forced by sea. The Soviets had more airfields and airplanes and fuel and resources. Although America had a large industrial base , the Soviets wasn't much smaller but was many times nearer to the front.
Problem is, the US have A-Bomb, and the Russia would not have it until 1949 (which is some 3 and a half year after WW2. And it was unimpeded (they were not fighting at that point so all the resource can be brought to bear in the research) The question you need to ask is if Russia can withstand a 3 and a half year one sided Nuclear War with the US had US/UN invaded back in he end of WW2?
Also, by the end of WW2, the Russian is actually at their weakest because they have to completely dislodge Berlin's last million men army, and they have lost around 3 millions after Stalingrad, on the other hand, the US, even if they were heavily engage with the Japanese in the Pacific, they weren't losing that much (US Combat lost for the whole war is only at 450,000) and you also need to factor in by the time the US had finished Japan and German, the US had the largest fleet than the world combine, even larger than the fleet they have now (Which is already stronger than the world combine), and they can attack Russia in Both Atlantic -North Sea route and thru the Pacific. Can Russian withstand a 2 fronts war with one of them so close they can literally walk from Alaska to Siberia (well, figuratively speaking), now that is a question that worth scratching our head.
I am not going to guess whether or not the US/UK will be successful, or will the Soviet Union be successful, but if there is a time to invade Russia in any given time in History, that time would have been in 1945 after the Russian just finish off with Germany. I don't think anybody can find a time that Russia are weaker than at that point, and if a invasion cannot be made then, the invasion cannot be made
AT ALL.
If the Americans or British actually had a chance of winning they would have done it but they didn't
Yes, you are right, but then I never said American and the British thought they can win the war alone, on the other hand, so does the Russian, Russian cannot win the war alone, even with immense man power, you need to know the Russian contribution to WW2 is limited on Eastern Front, which in effect is to destroy the 4.5 millions German troop stationed on Eastern Front, but then the Russia was not involved In the North Africa campaign, The Italy Campaign and the Western Front at all. And you cannot defeat Germany until these problem were dealt with.
As I said, Russia, US, UK won their part of the war, nobody actually win the war alone, the relationship is so complex we cannot separate one entity to another. Each nation help the other nation in some form or way. But most importantly, the assistance is not one way, so again, I don't think any nation had won the war alone.
