Communism didn't even exist back then. Democracy, you're thinking of?
No such thing as an honest textbook. Every society on Earth, every country on Earth, and every textbook on Earth, puts it's own spin on history. Any American textbook will spend ages on the valiant struggle against communism and evil in the Cold War, but not one of them will mention in any depth the events in Cambodia, or East Pakistan, or Guatemala, or the Congo. They'll all talk about how we funded the British to fight the Nazis, but they won't mention the atrocities commited by the British on innocent Africans during colonialism. They'll talk about how we "liberated" Greece from the Communists, but they won't mention that we did that by putting former Nazis in charge. They also won't mention that those "Communists" were in fact just leftists who were elected, democratically, into power. They'll talk about how despicable the North Korean invasion of the south was, but they won't mention that fact that the South Koreans we fought next to were most Japanese collaborators who helped to arrange for the systemic rape and murder of thousands.
And keep in mind, these are some of the best textbooks on the planet. America's school system is abysmally bad, but when it comes to history, we're one of the more honest nations on the planet. The Japanese pretend WWII never happened; the Chinese claim that the Great Cultural Revolution was a minor chapter in history (yeah! Only 50 million people died!); the British still have some weird "White Man's Burden" ideal of colonialism; the Russians are just making crap up by this point; and every nation in the Americas celebrates the life and discoveries of a man who wiped out thousands of people, destroyed their culture, made their men into slaves, sold their women into prostitution, and raped their children.
Rapidly running out of men?
I don't even have to cite something here; a quick google search will ascertain that by the end of the war, the Sovs had a larger army than the REST OF THE ALLIES AND THE GERMANS COMBINED.
Three issues with that!
1) Russia HAD a military-industrial complex, and a large one; it was just of ridiculously poor quality. But they had all the raw resources and manpower to produce all they needed.
2) The Germans, even OTL, had vastly superior technology and weaponry. They just didn't have enough. The Soviets were thrown into battle knowing that if they retreated, they would be shot for certain, and their familiies probably chucked into the Gulag. They fought like madmen.
3) The Soviet military outnumbered the German military by a large margin. Even without the Western front, the Sovs just have too many people, too many resources- and, don't forget, they have oil- the Germans DON'T, and have no reasonable way to get it. By 1945, the Soviets were heavily battered, but they were still a match for the nuclear armed West- that's the resultant military analysis of the top Western generals at the time, BTW. The Germans, at that point, were flush outta oil.
USSR v Germany
I believe we were, in this case, assuming western Neutrality.
The PRC shall burn! Burn I say!
Seriously, they have an ongoing insurgency and aren't that popular among their own population, forget the 8 million people they just annexed who hate them (though, y'know, i mentioned them, cause insurgency).
I meant militarily. Even, then, not quite true- the Brits had the Empire, which at this point was still hugely lucrative, and to a slightly lesser extent, so did the French- the Germans did NOT, and that would have told eventually. It might have taken longer, but the Brits and French had the economic power to outlast the Germans- if you don't believe me, there are several sources that back this up.
In any case, the Americans would be working DIRECTLY against their own interests by remaining economically neutral. At this point, the British Empire was still the premier economic power on Earth, something that would only change AFTER the war.
Honestly, once the Germans invaded Belgium, they had at most a couple of months to beat the French. Once that was gone, they were NOT winning, except by a massive stroke of luck.
The Russians were forced out of Germany a week after the battle, and were never able to threaten it again. The poor Russian logistics allowed the Germans to take the initiative from then on.
That's primarily cause they were busy with A-H. Also, no idea what you're talking about- the Russians were back in Germany before Christmas and wrecking things. True, the Germans never were in danger of a total collapse, but the Russians advanced slowly into German territory till the Revolution.
The Algerians, and the Foriegn League. The Algerians were just closer.
Plus, Tannenburg was just the start. The combined German forces in the East had to be marshaled to quell ONE Russian army- the Russians had several others that were dedicated to fighting Germany- AND it was a pretty desperate fight.
US was useless in WWI. We won WWII- but in WWI, we were bit players at best, akin to New Zealand or Canada.
Finns were pretty good, yeah. Surprisingly strong. My guess is it has something to do with the loss of the "winter" advantage.
Guns, you have absolutely no idea of the tanks the Russians did have. Ever heard of the IS-2 or IS-3? The 88mm Tiger II gun was completely outclassed by the IS-2's 122mm. The Soviets had a effective heavy tank first, and in numbers which would have left the Tigers and Panthers lying on the field as burning wreckage. Their T-34/85s were enough, however, so that they didn't really need to deviate much to produce better tanks.
Admittedly, the Tigers had better armour, but IS guns could penetrate their armour. The Panther was good, but not mass produced or as good as it needed to be to stem the tide.
Doesn't matter, cause a Tiger could penetrate IS armor as well. 1v1, depends which was commanded better- and the Germans were trained WAAYYYY better.
Soooo... exactly what I said, then? Panthers were the best, but there weren't even CLOSE to enough.
No, Germany totally could have won. Russia was utterly ineffective, and Britain did jack in the first few months, which is when the war could have been won- when it was straight Germany on France. If Von Kluck hadn't turned, Paris would have fallen without a fight, the French armies would have been encircled- Cannae, indeed.
With France done, Britain negotiates some sort of peace settlement, probably removing any restrictions on the German navy, in exchange for Belgian neutrality. Russia and A-H duke it out. Most likely result, mass uprisings in both nations, and neither one survives the war.
Millions. Absolute Bloodbath, we're talking something like 20 million, mostly Russian.
Depends. If Hitler and Stalin remain in power throughout, Germany loses around 3-4 years in. If Hitler's idiocy is enough to enflame the Wehrmacht, you get something like a successful July 20th maybe two years in, and then the Wehrmacht, who actually know what they're doing, proceed to kill enough Russians to force a ceasefire in Mid-Poland, 6 or so years in.
Which? Germany v Russia, or Germany + Russia v Britain +US?
Well, Spar, history kinda proves you wrong.
In individual battles, yes. Eventually, though...
Standstill? Nah. Russians had numbers and raw resources. Germany spent most of WWII slowly running out of oil to power their tanks with.
The Soviets would, slowly, have pushed the Germans back. Poland's gone, ditto around a third of what we called East Germany.