Could Germany have won WW2? Starting from the fall of France if the German leadership had made different decisions could they have kept control of Western Europe or at least avoid total defeat?
>>306033
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, and this thread as already made tonns of times.
>>306033
If they captured Moscow instead of pushing into Crimea that would have helped (would have brought Japan into the war).
declaring war on the United States was a mistake.
Making a better mass produced tank would have helped with their armor shortage.
It really depended on if Hitler could make peace with the West so he could attack Russia unimpeded.
It could have easily ended in a ceasefire, but Germany could not have won. And even had they stopped at the Western front, the Russian probably would never have stopped.
>>306033
Not in a total war, there was too much population and too much industry arrayed against them.
The only way Germany can win is to negotiate some kind of ceasefire after making advances, but that requires a totally different Nazi party and a totally different political setup to how war breaks out.
And you're not keeping Western Europe, I don't think anyone's going to accept that, the only gains that the international community would recognize are out east, in Soviet turf, and that only because of general pre-war Soviet isolation.
You can't do it starting from the Fall of France, you need to start changing things in 1936 at the very least.
>>306038
If you don't want to see the same topics mentioned over and over again, you shouldn't be on a history board
If they actually focused on Horten's project to develope the first Stealth bomber 30 years before anyone else then they would pretty much have won the Londonbowl.
>>306425
These delusional "super weapons", supposed to turn the tide of war, couldn't have helped Nazi Germany too much.
Nuclear weapon made before 1945 could've helped on the other hand.
Yes, they may very well have.
I believe it's kind of pointless to try and discuss how, when and if they had as it's just speculation.
>>306435
How about nuclear weapons carried by the delusional "super weapon" stealth bomber?
>>306467
Well, obviously that could've potentially turn the tide of war, but not the stealth bomber alone or any supertank, megacannon, VTOL plane or other gimmick.
>>306435
>Nuclear weapon made before 1945 could've helped on the other hand.
You don't have enough uranium to manufacture them en masse and you have no delivery system. Won't be a game changer.
>>306467
The ho 229 didn't have a bomb capacity nearly large enough to carry a nuke. Those things weighed 4-5 metric tons.
>>306864
Because literally everyone in Europe is an idiot, and having seen Hitler break his promise with Czechoslovakia and then embark on a huge militarization project, would have stood around with their thumbs up their asses and just waited for the hammer to fall, amirite?
Yes, if they'd have reached Moscow the war would be over. For a time at least.
The allies did little to break the German war machine, it was all the Soviets, with them out of the way it would be over.
When the Soviets started pushing Germany back the allies were more concerned with how much land the Soviets would take since defeating Germany was a given by that point.
>>306894
Which is of course why the bulk of the Luftwaffe causalties were inflicted by the Western Allies.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
The strategic bombing campaign just didn't happen.
Because taking Moscow won the war for Napoleon, it would have won the war for Hitler, right?
>>306901
yeah, Soviet industry survived because stalin migrated everything westward towards the Urals, probably the largest forced migration in history. Moscow would've been another Stalingrad to ruin Germany's day even more.
>>306894
the germans lost it for themselves.
a more realistic, less racially exclusive and, frankly, stupidly brutal regime would have fed those soviet POW's as a basis for a russian national army to fight against stalin from the get go.
if napoleon had been in charge of the third reich, and not the sperglord and his weirdo proto-hippie retards, bullies and fools who were, then a more canny strategy could have been utilised, i.e. vichy/quisling governments all across poland and the USSR, with hundreds of thousands if not millions of willing volunteers ready to fight for their own nationalist cause.
weirdly, brutal reprisals, mass killings and starving 2 million POWs to death while forcing millions of others into slave labour tends to alienate people and make them think twice before supporting your regime. lord knows why.
20 divisions of vlassov volunteers would have been useful for the push on moscow, i reckon, especially if you can then install vlassov himself as a nationalist puppet in a newly liberated kremlin to sow massive dissent in the russian ranks and cause mass paranoia and purges in the red army ranks (with the attendant morale costs and potential defections).
>>307049
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/DefenceExpenditure
You are quite literally and objectively wrong. UK defense spending shot up like a rocket post Munich. It was too little, too late to stop things, but they were already preparing for the year before the war started. Give them 5 more, when their total resources in industry and manpower exceed the Germans, and you've made the situation worse for Germany, not better.
Fucking Neville Chamberlain saw this, literally everyone did.
>>306047
>If they captured Moscow instead of pushing into Crimea that would have helped
how? they were already doomed since Soviets would just retreat futher east and german supply lines would get even longer
>would have brought Japan into the war
no it wouldn't. Japs were too scared of soviets after the beating they took in 1939. They needed oil and starting another huge land campaign in desolate siberian wasteland wouldnt be in their best interests
>Making a better mass produced tank would have helped with their armor shortage.
what's the point of a good tank if you don't have the fuel to make it actually drive?
>It really depended on if Hitler could make peace with the West so he could attack Russia unimpeded.
West would never accept seperate peace with germans after Churchill came to power
>>306033
>if Germany had made all perfect decisions and the Allies had made all terrible decisions could Germany have avoided complete annihilation
I wonder.
>>306033
YES
Of course Germany could have won if it had made different choices. But there would have to have been a great many choices that would have to have been made.
>focus on north african front instead of opening eastern front
>opening eastern front after securing north africa
>streamlining production far earlier (before the war) and not producing 20 different types of tanks when 7 will do
>bypassing stalingrad
you get the point. if all of these choices had been made then the war would have had a completely different outcome. Stalin was close to suing for peace in the Soviet's darkest hour. He was also afraid of being arrested and killed by the Politburo for his perceived failure in defending the Soviet Union. Things could have played out differently.
>>308053
>focus on north african front instead of opening eastern front
>opening eastern front after securing north africa
>streamlining production far earlier (before the war) and not producing 20 different types of tanks when 7 will do
>bypassing stalingrad
But these are all retarded ideas.
How are you going to "Focus on North Africa"? You have no railroads in Libya, and the truck fleet could barely keep Rommel's tiny force going as he tried to push east. If you ship more troops, they just run out of food and bullets and fuel that much faster, you're never going to "secure" North Africa unless you want to take about 30 years to build a railroad from Tripoli to Tobruk, and I think they'll have bombed Germany to bits in that time.
Streamlining production will get you nothing, as quite often, recruitable manpower to use the weapons was the bottleneck, go look at Gunther Rall's memoirs after Speer "streamlined" the Me-109 production. He wound up with a whole yard of fighters he had nobody to fly, and when the B-24s bombed them on the ground, he didn't care.
>Bypass stalingrad.
Yeah, you know, in real life, one of the reasons that Uranus was so devastating was that the Germans were so stretched, they had to guard the flank with half-strength Romanian and Hungarian units, who nonsurprisingly didn't fight all that well.
Where are you going to get another 30 or so divisions so that you can bypass the city safely and march on the Caucasus.
>>306047
>If they captured Moscow
Great plan
I like it
>>308078
>How are you going to "Focus on North Africa"? You have no railroads in Libya, and the truck fleet could barely keep Rommel's tiny force going as he tried to push east. If you ship more troops, they just run out of food and bullets and fuel that much faster, you're never going to "secure" North Africa unless you want to take about 30 years to build a railroad from Tripoli to Tobruk, and I think they'll have bombed Germany to bits in that time.
Enforce the luftwaffe, gain air superiority (and thus naval superiority), make the (remnant) of the italian fleet keep up with supplies.
>Streamlining production will get you nothing, as quite often, recruitable manpower to use the weapons was the bottleneck, go look at Gunther Rall's memoirs after Speer "streamlined" the Me-109 production. He wound up with a whole yard of fighters he had nobody to fly, and when the B-24s bombed them on the ground, he didn't care.
This problem did not occur until later in the war.
>>308090
>Enforce the luftwaffe, gain air superiority (and thus naval superiority), make the (remnant) of the italian fleet keep up with supplies.
Your ports won't keep up.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
>This problem did not occur until later in the war.
Because later in the war, factory production was almost double what it was in 1939, whereas recruitment was at the same plodding rate. If you increase the production, you're just going to give yourself the problem sooner.
>>306033
>Could Germany have won WW2? Starting from the fall of France if the German leadership had made different decisions could they have kept control of Western Europe or at least avoid total defeat?
I don't think a somewhat "realistic" scenario allows for such a possibility. The amount of "different decisions" and more importantly their scope would be just too vast - too unrealistic. Showdown with the Soviets was the political and ideological endgame of all of their conquests and aggression. At the same time the invasion of the Soviet Union in real life went quite well initially - but even that was not enough. And the moment you wait to build up you give the Soviets more time to rearm (more T-34s, perhaps even an army using semiautomatic rifles) and recover from the purges (and thus less likely to succumb to the sweeping strategic successes of real life Barbarossa).
Certainly they could have achieved a non-defeat of sorts but for that, very unlikely things would have to happen basically across the board - from politics to inner ideology to industry and economy.
>>308102
>Because later in the war, factory production was almost double what it was in 1939, whereas recruitment was at the same plodding rate. If you increase the production, you're just going to give yourself the problem sooner.
Fine, here's another choice they could make:
Stop exterminating people. Force labor, the lot of them. ALL.
>Your ports won't keep up.
They will if I take Egypt.
Germany was screwed the minute they annexed Austria. France and the UK entered into an alliance with the Soviets.
If Germany had not invaded Poland. They would have been attacked by the Soviets eventually.
What if the Germans consolidated and took their time after conquering France? Make a cease fire with England or make the war with England somewhat defensive and don't attack the Soviet Union until things are calm.
>>308156
>Stop exterminating people. Force labor, the lot of them. ALL.
Ok, and now you've got several million Slavs, Poles, Jews, etc.; If you want to use them for forced labor, they'll need to be watched, they'll need to be allowed near semi-sensitive areas that are building something or other for the war. The V-2 already killed more people working on it than any other reason, and a bunch failed to fire correctly, very likely due to slave worker sabotage.
How much do you really think you can squeeze out of them?
>They will if I take Egypt.
You are never, ever going to get Alexandria, let alone further. You'd need to project something like 120,000 troops almost 2,000 kilometers to have a shot at attacking the burg. Along the way, you'll have to deal with RN and RAF shooting at your supply ships, the aforementioned lack of railroads, hostile natives, and sand getting into literally fucking everything.
And once you get outside of airplane range from Italy and Sicily, it gets way worse. Distance ensures that air assets based in Sicily can't cover shipments to places like Tobruk, and the Royal Navy's advantage in ships will begin to assert itself. But if you want to re-deploy Luftlotte II (let alone more air assets) onto Libya proper, then suddenly you'll need to deliver supplies there too. It's going to take thousands of tons of supplies per day to keep it operational, mostly in the form of fuel and spare parts, which is going to strain the already extremely limited port capacity in places like Benghazi, Bardia, and Tobruk, which are already going to have a hell of a tough time supporting an advance further east with "just" the troops that you're giving Rommel.
It's like the rocket problem on a world with higher gravity than Earth. To add more thrust, you need more fuel, but you then need to propel the weight of the fuel, which means you need more thrust, and it spirals out into infinity. You get the same problem with force and supply here.
>>308171
France and the UK didn't ally with the Soviets until after Germany attacked them.
Hell, quite a few of the British wanted to bomb the Soviets because they were supplying oil to the Germans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike
>>308185
If you can get a ceasefire with England, than maybe, just maybe, since it's England's plight that drew the U.S. into the war and made things really unwinnable.
Problem is, Churchill is never going to give you peace ever. And quite a few of the British establishment agreed with him. You can hurt the UK with the bombers and the u-boats, but you can't really kill them; it's too hard to interdict supplies completely when your u-boats are slower than their prey underwater and vulnerable as all hell on the surface, and you don't have the sealift to try a Sealion.
Plus, the number of broken treaties the Nazis had makes it very very hard for anyone to trust you with a ceasefire offer.
The war with England was already defensive post 1940 for all practical purposes: it didn't get all that far.
>>308191
>Ok, and now you've got several million Slavs, Poles, Jews, etc.; If you want to use them for forced labor, they'll need to be watched, they'll need to be allowed near semi-sensitive areas that are building something or other for the war. The V-2 already killed more people working on it than any other reason, and a bunch failed to fire correctly, very likely due to slave worker sabotage. How much do you really think you can squeeze out of them?
Enough for sure. And the V2 is an isolated piece of weaponry. It does not prove awhole lot better.
Slavs and poles were treated badly. I would not treat them as bad. They would prefer me over Stalin.
>You are never, ever going to get Alexandria, let alone further. You'd need to project something like 120,000 troops almost 2,000 kilometers to have a shot at attacking the burg. Along the way, you'll have to deal with RN and RAF shooting at your supply ships, the aforementioned lack of railroads, hostile natives, and sand getting into literally fucking everything.
Watch me.
>>306033
probably yes...
in every "world" war there's a time and place where both sides go in a standoff and the whole campaign can be decided within a single battle.
it happen mostly during the napoleonic campaigns (first "world" war in my opinion since the world was europe at the time) where napoleon was ultimately defeated at waterloo but if won the coalition would probably have to declare an armistice and negotiate with napoleon thus giving him the legitimacy he needed.
the same happened during the ally invasion on nazi-controlled territories - it was a last effort that if failed they wouldn't be able to replicate it in a newer future and they would have to do the same as i said they would have to do with napoleon.
so yeah, there's always a point in most campaigns where all can end for both sides - when both sides are already sore and weaken by attrition and where usually all it's decided there if both sides decide it that way
>>307018
You do realize that the bulk of Soviet soldiers and citizens at the time were pro-stalin?
I think the German success against the Russians in the First World War made them overconfident. They did get similarly sweeping victories early on but the Soviet government was far more secure than the Czarist monarchy was during WWI, so they never had an internal conflict to give them the needed advantage.
>>306347
>you need to start changing things in 1936 at the very least.
This.
The Nazi problem was not playing politics like the game of chess that it is.
>>306033
>>306347
I would argue it could have been done if they had just pushed harder on Dunkirk and prevented the evacuation. Losing 300000 troops might have caused Britain to fold as well if Hitler was aggressive enough fast enough about finishing that front.
Germany needed above all to not be fighting a war on two fronts to have a chance against the soviets, and I think that given the breathing room they'd have pulled ahead of Stalin enough that they'd have been able to take full advantage of technologies they they developed too late in WWII.
The ME262 Jet Fighter and the V-2 rocket would have been major game changers if they had time to properly be deployed before everything started falling apart on the Nazis, especially against the Russian Air Force which was utter crap at the time.
hold up
what if
just
what if
they never started the war in the first place
>>310178
DUnkirk wouldn't have cost the British 300,000 troops. That's how many were evacuated, but almost half of them were French and Belgians, most of whom went straight to German prisoner camps.
>as well if Hitler was aggressive enough fast enough about finishing that front.
How? His 2 divisions worth of sealift on mostly re-purposed river barges are lucky if they make it to England across the channel even with no resistance whatsoever. And there will be resistance.
>The ME262 Jet Fighter
Expensive, mechanically unreliable, poor accuracy. It's telling that both the U.S. and the British had jets historically: Theirs were built about 8 months after the Me-262. They didn't use them, thought they weren't worth the trouble. Jets wouldn't become clearly better than props until you had targeting computers on planes, they're too fast for their own good. It's not going to win the war.
>and the V-2 rocket
Now you're just in the realm of fantasy. Absurdly expensive means to deliver a 3,000 lb payload, you'd literally need tens of thousands of them to wreck a city like London, and the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign showed that it's pretty damn hard to wreck either a government or a war economy that way.
>>310209
Then the Nazi government would have likely have been overthrown because they needed a war time economy to prevent their house of cards from collapsing.
>>306033
If they had stopped at France or maybe focused on England instead of trying to kill the Soviet Union. Second the Soviets got into the war it was over.
>>306033
read a book, nigger
If they had taken Moscow and then teamed up with the Japanese to attack Russia without either of them bothering the United States they could have taken a lot of Soviet land and kept their new acquisitions.
>>306033
Doubtful, they didn't have access to the resources to win a long war.
And a decent German leadership would never have put them in that situation.
>>307018
>late summer 1941
>German troops enter southern Ukraine
>Ukrainians hate the USSR and want independence
>Ukrainians celebrate the Germans as liberators
>German military leaders have preliminary talks with Ukrainian independence army to join the fight against the Russians
>Hitler orders that Ukrainians are subhumans and are to by systematically starved to death and/or used as slave labor in Germany
>Ukrainians now enemies of the Germans and fight for their independence from the Germans
>>306425
>Gain super weapon
>Its too expensive to mass produce
>Its only as good as 2-4 units of the same type, while costing 20-50x more per unit
The only superweapon the Germans could develop was Jet planes, and they couldnt do that because they had no nickel mines. So instead they developed crippled Jet Planes, with many unstable flaws.
They also didn't enter War Time Production until 42 or 43, instead of in 40 or 39.
>>310215
>They didn't use them, thought they weren't worth the trouble. Jets wouldn't become clearly better than props until you had targeting computers on planes, they're too fast for their own good. It's not going to win the war.
The Allies already had insane air superiority and early jet engine technology was just too fuel hungry for long range bomber escort.
>>306425
>Let's put a semi-functional jet engine into a non-functional fuselage.
>Hitler, you're a genius!!!
>Radar stations
>What's that?
The Allies like to play up German technical "superiority" because it makes their incompetent handling of the war effort look better.
>>310178
I agree that Dunkirk is the only point that could have conceivably won them the war, if they'd pushed and prevented the evacuation. Not because of the logistical loss of 300,000 troops, which as >>310215 pointed out were not all British, but because the morale boost of the Dunkirk Evacuation bolstered British willpower to continue the war. It's possible that, had the Allies sustained the loss of another 300,000 troops so quickly, the British populace would have lost enough hope that the government would have been forced to sue for peace with Germany.
>>308080
>hurr durr there's no difference between 1812 and 1941
That's how you sound
>>312750
I'm not so convinced even an utter disaster at Dunkirk would have caused the British to throw in the towel. By the time of the evacuation, Churchill is PM, and he can blame a failure like that on his predecessor, which eliminates a lot of the soft factor of it.
And especially with Germany unable to follow up and attack the UK in any meaningful sense, I think you're vastly overestimating the morale factor, the soft values.
>>312814
I'm just saying, if there ever was a point where a German military success could potentially have turned the outcome of the war into victory for the Reich, it was Dunkirk. The only hope they had for victory was if the British could be knocked out so they could concentrate on the Soviets, and even in a single front war it wouldn't have been a guarantee.
The British and/or US are going to have nuclear weapons in a few years, so Germany's only hope is to end the war. It's hard to see how they could possibly make peace with Britain short of pulling back to status quo ante bellum and getting rid of Hitler.
>>312880
To add to it, I agree they had no meaningful capability with which to take the British Isles. Which means a morale victory against the British, forcing them to bow out due to internal pressure, was the only hope they had of knocking out the UK.
>>312916
Here's a question; if the evacuation was prevented and the Brits lost an extra 100,000 troops, could that have conceivably had enough of an impact on the North African theatre (as I'm assuming at least some of those evacuated ended up in NA) for the Axis to make more headway against Commonwealth forces there? That would further decrease morale.
>>312931
I don't think so. Bear in mind, most of the troops that fought in North Africa were already present before the Battle of France; and furthermore, supply considerations, not manpower, was often the dominant issue. Wavell had 340,000 men under his command, but could barely put 2 divisions in place to try to stop Rommel at Sunflower.
And Rommel's problems advancing were mostly in the form of him not having enough supplies to extend across Libya either, which would get worse and worse as he pushed further east.
And add in that a disproportionate amount of the troops that fought in NA were Australians and Indians, and I don't think it would have had a vastly different outcome.
>>306033
If they chose to devote a ton of resources to the atomic bomb.
>>306835
you could have set it in a uboat and run around nuking port cities with a bit of luck.
Russia is too fucking big to conquer with an army the size of Germany's. Just look at how the US does in Afghanistan *today*. It simply cannot be occupied without being constantly raided by an endless tide of slavs. Hitler was a fool for trying to conquer it.
>>306033
If Hitler hadn't
>made the effort to piss off everybody on the planet before the war even started
>started a two front war like a tard
>devoted resources and manpower to a massive genocide
>pursued ridiculous research goals like super artillery on rails
>constantly ignored his generals because of his inflated ego
>survived an assassination attempt
Yeah, Germany might have had a chance.
>>306038
Kill yoruself faggot
Winning =/= taking over the world, if they had beaten Russia, and not dragged the USA into the war they could have forced a favourable peace. They had fought Britain to a stalemate. Britain didn't have the manpower to invade Europe alone and Germany didn't have the air and sea power to take their island. Eventually the public would have gotten sick of Churchill's stubbornness and sued for peace.
>>306347
Yeah exactly this is what I am talking about, they would have had to had dug in, stop declaring war on people and hope the allies agree to peace after a while. Instead they kept on invading and declaring war until they overstretched themselves.
>And you're not keeping Western Europe
All they had in Western Europe was France. Spain was not in the war, Italy was on their side and Portugal and Britain wasn't defeated
>>306435
>These delusional "super weapons"
The Me-262 had a 4:1 kill to death ratio when it was finally deployed. The V-2 could have devastated southern England had the Nazis not been pushed back from the coast. Also Britain only won the battle of Britain because of radar and the fact that the Luftwaffe didn't bother bombing airfields. If they had sent the stealth bomber out against the airfields in 1940 it would have been game over
>>313149
France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Greece, even possibly Yugoslavia are all places that the "West" (I.e. Britain and America) would care about and probably be extremely upset if the Nazis tried to hold onto.
>>313162
>The Me-262 had a 4:1 kill to death ratio when it was finally deployed.
That depends a lot on how you count casualties. If you count all the ones bombed on the ground post-completion, the ratio drops to about 1:2
>he V-2 could have devastated southern England had the Nazis not been pushed back from the coast.
How? It has a tiny payload and is expensive to manufacture.
>Also Britain only won the battle of Britain because of radar and the fact that the Luftwaffe didn't bother bombing airfields. If they had sent the stealth bomber out against the airfields in 1940 it would have been game over
Again, how? Say you do this, you bomb the airfields. The British pull FG 11 back to the Midlands, outside of your fighter escort range. Now what do you do? You haven't destroyed their airpower, you've bought yourself a slower reaction time over southern England, but you're still either going to need to bomb things for years (giving them time to build up, very bad since the UK is turning out more planes than you are), or try to invade in the autumn, knowing that they'll sortie out when your invasion fleet sails.
>>310215
Allies never believed in the jet engine as much as the Nazis did. They laughed at Frank Whittle.
>V-2 was useless
It's random and unexpected and unstoppable it's mostly the fear and uncertainty that made it good. It's like Hamas rocket attacks, they don't do much actual damage but they are enough to force ceasefires because random explosions every day are unnerving.
>>306033
The only thing that seems plausible to me is that not Churchill but Lord Mountbatten would lead the government after the fall of Chamberlain. Mountbatten would definitely aim for a ceasefire between the UK and the Nazis somewhere in 1940. A ceasefire between the UK and the nazis BEFORE December 1941 would possibly have prevented the need for Japan to invade South East Asia, as part of the deal between the UK and Nazis could have included an ending of the japanese embargo from the UK-side. Then there would't have been any need for the japanese to attack the US. A combined German-Uk-Japan offensive on Russia could have taken form then, while the US could only have declared war against the nazis somewhere in 1943, as the isolationists in the US would have been FAR too strong without a Pearl Harbour. This would give the combined UK-Nazi-Japan offensive 2 years to beat the Sovjets, and Stalin wouldn't be able to transfer the siberian divisions to the west front because of the Japanese threat in the east. A beaten Soviet Union would imply that the US would have to go to war against ALL of the other major powers in the world sans China, and that would definitely be a struggle.
Thankfully it was Churchill, and not Lord Mountbatten.
>>313009
Fair enough, thanks for the info.
>>313206
>Allies never believed in the jet engine as much as the Nazis did. They laughed at Frank Whittle.
And because they didn't exactly like the idea of something that needed a new engine every 12 hours of flight time, and whose accuracy in firing was awful.
>t's random and unexpected and unstoppable it's mostly the fear and uncertainty that made it good. It's like Hamas rocket attacks, they don't do much actual damage but they are enough to force ceasefires because random explosions every day are unnerving.
Which are generally tertiary considerations in a total war: You win or lose on material factors, not morale ones. Against the level of commitment Britain historically displayed, you need to destroy, not annoy.
>>313208
Did the UK actually sell oil to Japan? I thought the Nips were getting all of theirs from the U.S. and the NEI.
And just because the UK bows out, assuming it does, doesn't make them likely to attack the Russians. And a Japanese thrust into Siberia isn't going to get much further than Vladivostok, if it even takes that.
> and Stalin wouldn't be able to transfer the siberian divisions to the west front because of the Japanese threat in the east.
You are aware that Soviet troop levels in the Far east went UP, not down, from June 41 to December 41, right?
>>313165
America never gave a fuck before Hitler dragged them in. Britain was the only one left to care and they were on the verge of collapse.
>If you count all the ones bombed on the ground post-completion
C'mon be serious we are talking about in-air effectiveness
>How? It has a tiny payload and is expensive to manufacture.
No defence + random. Britain would have gotten sick of it after a while.
>The British pull FG 11 back to the Midlands
Good, now we are un-opposed by the RAF for a cross-channel invasion.
>>313208
I mean Halifax, fuck me
>>313227
>C'mon be serious we are talking about in-air effectiveness
In air effectiveness is meaningless if you get blown up on the ground. A jet is just as wrecked in the latter as in the former, and the irreducible vulnerability means that putting your eggs in that particular basket might be unwise.
>No defence + random. Britain would have gotten sick of it after a while.
Germany didn't get sick of being bombed way, way harder historically, it took troops on the ground to occupy the country to get them to quit.
>Good, now we are un-opposed by the RAF for a cross-channel invasion.
Are you stupid? First off, you wouldn't be unopposed, since the RAF planes can fly out to the channel. Secondly, there's no such thing as a "quick cross-channel invasion". You land 2 divisions worth of troops. They have to fight for the beaches,, they have to advance and seize a port, and hold it long enough to ferry in reinforcements, all the while fending off the over 25 divisions Britain had historically for just an event.
http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/webeasycms/hold/uploads/bmh_document_pdf/40.09_Order_of_Battle_UK.pdf
Then, once you've done that, secured a beachhead, built up forces and supplies, you advance towards major enemy centers, most notably London, where you get to fight street to street for at least a month.
I'm pretty sure that in all that time, the RAF is going to do something to stop you.
>>313225
The UK could sell the Basra and Brunei oil to Japan, and I was under the impression that Stalin couldn't go full scale on the western front until Richard Sorge in september 1941 had assured him that japan would NOT attack the soviets during the battle of moscow, which gave Stalin the ability to reinforce the Moscow front. A Japanese attack during that time, even if it wouldn't have been a big success tactically-wise would still force some soviet divisions to be in the far east permanently, and while the UK wouldn't have gone on a full-scale war against the Soviets ( but who knows why not? as the conservative establishment was almost as furiously anti-red as anti-nazi, and we assume here that not Churchill but Halifax leads the Cabinet, this is all before the whole Jewish extermination came into the public eye of the UK, so the animosity against the nazis wasn't at its height yet )
>>313265
*they would still be able to supply the nazis and japanese, while the german industrial heart would stay intact.
>>313265
>The UK could sell the Basra and Brunei oil to Japan,
Kuwait's first oil export was in 1946
https://www.kockw.com/sites/EN/Pages/Profile/History/OilDiscovery.aspx
Burnai's was under control of the Dutch, not the English.
>I was under the impression that Stalin couldn't go full scale on the western front until Richard Sorge in september 1941 had assured him that japan would NOT attack the soviets during the battle of moscow, which gave Stalin the ability to reinforce the Moscow front.
It's a popular myth, but it is in fact a myth.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/
And dammit, I had something somewhere about Soviet troop levels in the far east over the course of the war, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it if I can dig it up later.
>>313256
Wehrmacht>Dad's Army
>>306033
Strangle britain into submission instead of terror bombing them. Keep stalin on good terms until britain falls. Nourish good relations with the united states, cut japan loose if needs be. The US had plenty of people who sympathized with the white supremacist ideology of the nazis. Like Charles Lindbergh. An annexation of britain could very well force the western world into a truce. Which could leave germany free to build up strength to take the fight to the soviets (if stalin lets him do that that is).
The main priority is to avoid a two-front war. The russians can wait. Not like the red army was in tip-top shape at the time. Just look at the debacle that was the winter war. And when you do enter soviet controlled territory, treat the local people as actual people instead of looting and killing them. And pack winter gear for heaven's sake. If you assume that you will beat russia in under a year you're gonna be dissapointed. And leave mussolini to his fate. Let him fuck up in greece. Maybe it will force a reorganization of the italian army. Germany needs every single resource for the eastern front.
Oh and hitler should have let his generals do the actual planning. As a strategist and tactician hitler was a disaster. His no-retreat orders where foolhardy and idiotic. Leave him to do speeches and things like that. Just keep him far away from the war room. His generals were brilliant but his constant veto and overall romantic view of warfare led to countless hardships for the wehrmacht.
>>313703
>Strangle britain into submission instead of terror bombing them.
How? Your u-boats are slower than their prey, and will, for the most part, have to operate in areas where your enemies can send planes and you can't.
Your bombers are tiny and you don't have that many of them, certainly not the sort of air power to do the campaign that the Americans and British unleashed in 1943.
"Strangle Britain into submission" sounds nice, but the particulars are quite difficult.
>An annexation of britain
Now you're just in pipe dream land. How are you going to conquer Britain with your 2 divisions of sealift?
>>306033
Define won. If they had avoided opening any fronts aside from France and Britain, and managed to break the british convoy system, then they could probably have managed to get Britain to cut their losses and discuss terms.
Was there any way whatsoever for Germany to win against a coalition of 75% of the world? No mate there was not.
>>314034
>Was there any way whatsoever for Germany to win against a coalition of 75% of the world? No mate there was not.
B-but muh Aryan masterrace!
- I doubt It is actually possible to conquer and hold Russia. Modern armies failed in asymmetrical wars in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
- in the rest of occupied Europe were active various resistance groups
- cornerstone of British foreign policy is not to let one power to rule whole continental Europe - thats why they fight Napoleon, why switched enemy form Frenchmen to Germans and why they joined EU
- USA would not let UK to fall, especially after Lend and Lease
>>313206
>>313227
you overestimate effect of V2 on society used to blitz
>>313142
naziboos are the worst
>>313227
>America never gave a fuck before Hitler dragged them in
I don't understand why so many people think that. By the time the Reich declared war on the US, the Americans were already deeply involved in the war in every way but actual fighting. Besides, the declaration changed nothing about that stance: The military involvement of the US only kicked in almost a year later, so the declaration of war was mostly symbolic.
>>306033
>Dont invade Russia
>Instead use troops to invade mainland Britain, probaby starting near Scotland.
>IF they can get past the British Royal Navy
