Well that's the end result of counterfactual history. Change one small thing and you'll change everything.
That is why counterfactual history is a practice in futility.
Two things from this thread: A) Most important, questions like this are a futile excersise. B) Due the the simple reality of the situation, economically, industrially, politically and militarily, there is no possible outcome that leads to German victory, unless God almighty descends from Heaven and smites all their foes.
they could've got Staling seeking for a peace agreement.
Not even remotely in the realm of possibility. Stalin would not sue for peace no matter what, since that would mean the end of his regime and the end of his life. There is not a possibility of the communists suing for peace no matter of Stalingrad falls, if Moscow does or even Jaroslav.
Only option for that is the communists falling from power due to internal struggle or civil uprising, which was never even close to happening.
(Its unclear if the Germans and Soviets would have fought. I've heard claims that Stalin was just as interested in attacking the Germans as Hitler was in attacking the Russians. Its just Hitler beat him to it in June 1941.)
That would be the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov and then jumped on by certain apologists.
In general these views are very much debunked in academia. There simply isn't any sufficient evidence that point towards that idea, the Red Army at any point would be woefully inadequate in 1941 and would need years to prepare.
Usual response to that is "yeah but they would have attacked in 44-45!" Which is based on nothing but air.
The good: You can paint a picture with words a skill not all have.
The structure of your sentences are overall well executed.
Not so good:
Reduce the amount of characters that we follow. It gets very hard to keep up when you are switching every third paragraph between an entirely different perspective.
Do not mix realism with fantasy, do not make xovers. I'm sorry but no. It might make sense in your head but it will not make sense to others.
Honestly just a story of the American paratroopers getting in with the Soviets is quite an interesting bit, but when its mixed with the Valkyria Chronicles you loose anyone not familiar with both "lores".
Read up on Joseph Beyrle and on Aleksandra Samusenko
He was an american paratroopers that was captured by the Germans, escaped a POW camp and ran into the First Guards Tank Army. Specifically he fought with Aleksandra Samusenko's battalion, supposedly the only female tank battalion commander of the war.
You can probably build a very good story from that.
The powers that be participate in this glorious discussion, so fear not Madame Commissar.
Here goes nothing.
My lack of proofreading screwed me here, funny denglish is funny.
But yes, in terms of armaments, the situation had certainly improved greatly by 1944. In 1941/42 however it was actually indeed not uncommon, not so much when it came to rifles, but already so in terms of Mgs, sidearms, and heavy weapons of all kinds.
Ah yes no complaints from me there. I was under the impression you implied on the scene in the movie with "one man gets a rifle the other gets ammo" but yes, support weapons were seriously lacking in 41-42.
I agree, then again, its a movie, and and essentially a lovestory for a Western audience, catering for their perceptions and confirmation biases. It really does indicate a telling lack of emotional maturity to work yourself into some fit of patriotic rage over the matter, sadly. I mean, what are us Krauts to do? Start WW3 because in Hollywood our cruelty is only matched by our incompetence? The outrage!
No no, no rage here, not at all. *grumble*
Yes naturally it is just a movie and of course it isn't made to be a documentary but rather about selling tickets. I'm just grumpy it sometimes seems that movie is the only time the general population comes cross the Soviet-German war. And it kinda enables the misconceptions.
I hope I don't come across as 'raging' it was not my intent, I bit annoyed sure, but not in an all out rage.
I'm curious to know why the T-34 is designed with the turret so far forward, while nearly every other tank has it located centrally. Which seems the more intuitive place to put it.
Engine layout mostly, but check out the BT-5. See any similarities?
Well, it may be, actually, any command unit, not nessecerly NKVD Commissar. It may be Politruk, it may be any officier, but USSR needs them.
Again "Комиссар НКВД" is not a thing. Sure "Комиссар ГП 1/2/3-гo Ранга" was used in lieu of General titles, but "Комиссар" refers exclusively to Political Officers of the equivalent rank of major or higher, and in everyday speech to political staff in general.
What you want to say is "not necessarily NKVD officers, it may be commissars, it may be a regular officer, but USSR needs them."
Im sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine and somebody named after the institution and seems to indicate being knowledgeable should at least have the very basics right.
1
Sweden
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
