Did the Nazis stand a chance to win WW2?
>>513182
No. We have this thread a zillion times. Please look in the archives or something.
Yes, if the British joined them. Obviously they didn't though.
>>513182
>Nazis not being/acting like Nazis
Also, would victory had been possible with Hitler as their Führer?
>>513182
No. Germany cannot win a multifront war.
Is geographically impossible.
Germany has only one natural barrier on the French side (a river) and no natural defenses of the other side (Polish plains).
One enemy can pretty much skateboard into Germany the moment their attention is diverted.
>>513233
He said Nazis not Germans Rtard. Also France had its shit pushed in at the onset of the war, 2 front war only occurred because Hitler (Nazis) were impatient. Soviets were not prepared for an offensive so two front wasn't likely.
>>513229
Victory isn't even plausible unless you go way, way back, into the mid-30s at least, and change the political framework surrounding the war into something other than a total war; it's quite possible for Germany to win limited wars against her adversaries, but not a full industrial deathmatch.
Hitler's blunders during the war have little to do with this. In fact, in terms of getting the most out of the resources he had, Hitler/Germany probably fought the best of everyone.
Just as a thought experiment, think of what you think Hitler's worst wartime blunder was. You can take it back, institute a policy of your choice instead. In exchange, the Soviets in June of 1941 have a real defense in depth, and while they'll still be undertrained and with shit-tier doctrine, won't be in a position to have mass encirclements within weeks of the war opening. How much better or worse is Germany off from this little trade?
>>513229
No
>>513272
The Soviets literally had their troops amassed along the border in offensive formations when Barbarossa was being developed.
>>513342
Because that was their defensive doctrine. They also had their troops massed along the border in offensive formations when the Japanese tried pushing into Siberia in the late 30s.
Peoples revolutionary spirit and glorious charges were supposed to be enough; Stalin's first order when he finally recovered enough of himself to give them in the wake of Barbarossa was to order an all out attack.
Tl;dr The soviets were hilariously militarily incompetent when they entered the war, and literally did not know how into defense.
>>513342
So did the Germans. What's the point? Soviet leadership, technology, logistics and training where all inferior at the time. This is before they where receiving any Western support (non aggression pact with Nazis). Did you have anything else besides troops on the boarder?
Yes if sealion and North afrika had ended before barbarossa
Militarily not by 1942. Diplomatically they could have won in 1943.
>>513182
No. With different strategy they might have lastet a few years longer, but they were doomed from the start. The world simply decided the wouldn't have it.
>>513425
And how exactly are you going to make sealion work with 2 divisions worth of sealift in the North Sea? How are you going to win in North Africa with literally no railroads and it costing you half of your fuel just to bring stuff to a frontline in Tobruk, let alone further?
>>513429
Who would give Germany peace in 1943? Especially when they were finally giving ground?
>the nazis where up against meme magicians that pull industry out of their tush to fight against evil whenever they see it
ITT: highschoolers that don't understand politics.
>>513425
That would have given the soviet union time to suit up.
>>513438
Implying they would have just two divisions.
Sealion begins before barbarossa. Nazis win the air war over the UK which allows then to control the air. Air advantage and the loss of a large amount of equipment in Dunkirk means Germans roll over the uk. North Africa front is shortened as the UK struggles to supply the north Africa front. Also with major prestige damage it's likely some colonies would go independent or at least leave the war. Also the Germans had lined up a group of Egyptian officers to coup Egypt. After this Germany would be fighting a one front war against the soviets. USA would be fighting japs but without the UK I doubt they would get involved in Europe. Ussr falls because they rely on general winter and cannot into defence.
Nazis lost because they where Nazis. They would rather build ineffective super weapons and devote manpower and resources to exterminate undesirable portions of the population instead of fighting a war.
>>513479
You do realize that suggesting that the Nazis doing anything other that what they did would require them not to be Nazis right?
>>513479
but how do they win the air war they have historically lost (and rather badly)
and how do they not have extremely limited naval transport capabilities
and how do they deal with the entirety of the home fleet
and so on
>>513479
>Implying they would have just two divisions.
No, they would have 2 divisions landing and 150+ lined up in France of Belgium wiht no way of getting to England.
> Nazis win the air war over the UK
Impossible. The UK outproduces the Germans in planes and pilots, are killing more of the Germans than they're losing in the BoB, and recover more of their pilots because they're fighting over friendly ground. At BEST, you can force FG 11 to retreat to bases in the Midlands.
> Air advantage and the loss of a large amount of equipment in Dunkirk means Germans roll over the uk.
Almost all equipment was lost at Dunkirk anyway. And even if the BEF is a total loss, the UK can still muster up 14-15 divisions by September of 1940.
>Germans roll over the uk
No, because attacking at 1:7 odds at BEST when you have contested seas and skyspace will never work.
>North Africa front is shortened as the UK struggles to supply the north Africa front.
It literally wouldn't be. UK's troubles in the Empire don't make the distance from Tripoli to Alexandria any less.
>Also with major prestige damage it's likely some colonies would go independent or at least leave the war.
So, relying on one impossibility to cause another.
> Also the Germans had lined up a group of Egyptian officers to coup Egypt.
And the British had them watched and contained significant forces back in Egypt against such eventualities, even during the height of battles like Gazala.
Tldr: You have literally no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>>513182
>Did the Nazis stand a chance to win WW2?
Yes, but not with out hindsight.
One of the first things that they would have to change is not putting new fighter development on a back burner in 38 (they believed that they were so far ahead in that area they could focus on other things). The Bf 110 showed its age during the battle of Britain and its planned replacement, the Me 210, had not being given the needed funding for the amount of test flights and prototyping to work out its flaws. The Bf-109 E3 & E4 models also showed their age during the battle of Britain. The E-7 and F-1 models did much better when intro during the battle of Britain in August and October but they were needed in July ,the start of it, to be honest.
Also how they fought battle of Britain was dumb. Less focus on London and more on forcing the UK to defend everywhere like they started to do with London was needed.
That would just be a start on what would be needed.
>>514042
What is the FW-190? The Me-109f?
And how would any manner of success in the BoB be enough? What do you do when FG 11 pulls back into the midlands, out of range of your fighters to cover any strikes to bomb them on the airfields?
Yes but they wasted it on fighting Russia.
>>514089
Please explain how, assuming the Soviets stay out of the war entirely, Germany avoids being nuked by 1945 or 1946.
>>513182
I believe the Nazi's could have won at least up until the A-bomb got deployed.
The German's could have won in North Africa if they'd taken Malta and the Italians hadn't been pussy whipped at sea by the British.
If this happened, the Germans could have gotten more supplies across and might have been able to take Egypt and later on oil.
Also, had they played their cards differently in the east they could have too. Preparing winter supplies, not actively promoting partisan movements. The Germans had literally EVERYTHING going against them yet they fought tooth and nail to the end. Of course they could have won, they just made a lot of strategic mistakes along the way. The other side could afford mistakes and failures - Germany could not.
That being said it was obviously highly improbable for the germans to win but not impossible.
>>514176
>The German's could have won in North Africa if they'd taken Malta
Unlikely; the amount of supplies destroyed or delayed by actions out of malta were orders of magnitude less than loss through simple attempting to push so far east without railroads.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
>and the Italians hadn't been pussy whipped at sea by the British.
And hey, if the Germans had M1 Abrams tanks, they'd have been invincible. You can't just handwave a whole host of training and technological problems away like that.
>If this happened, the Germans could have gotten more supplies across and might have been able to take Egypt and later on oil.
Oil drilling in the ME is tiny; Venezuela produced more oil than Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined in 1941. The main value of the middle-east would be hopefully getting troops near Baku before the war starts with the USSR.
>Also, had they played their cards differently in the east they could have too.
Aahahahahahahahahaha. Adorable.
> Preparing winter supplies,
And when your trains with the wrong rail gauge have trouble making delivery of things like ammo and fuel and food that your troops need RIGHT NOW to sustain that rapid advance in the first 6 weeks, how much are you going to cut back on those to make sure they have winter coats?
>The Germans had literally EVERYTHING going against them yet they fought tooth and nail to the end.
So did the Japanese. Relentless determination only gets you so far.
>Of course they could have won, they just made a lot of strategic mistakes along the way.
I struggle to see any degree of "Perfect fighting" by the Third Reich that doesn't get them either steamrollered by the Soviets or nuked into a cinder, if not both. What advantages they had were more in the realm of the Allies making incredibly stupid decisions and taking advantage of them, not factors that are controllable from the Reichstag.
>>514047
>What is the FW-190?
A generally superior fighter to the BF-109 at everything but high attitude dog fighting. However high attitude dog fighting the area that both the UK and the US got the upper hand early on and bled the Luftwaffe white for it.
>Me-109f
You are the first person I have seen that notes the Messerschmitt Bf 109 as "Me-109", it is normally noted as the Bf 109. Not to be mean or anything, but is English not your'e native language?
In any event I did address that subject.
> And how would any manner of success in the BoB be enough?
To start with the Luftwaffe the BoB rather badly. The material losses mattered far less then the airmen losses for them because they lost a lot of veteran pilots. If they just had more even casualty figures to the RAF that would of helped later on because they ended up using under trained green pilots against veteran RAF & well trained USAAF pilots. That caused a feed back loop of the quality Axis and Allies going further apart. Which in turn caused German production to hurt because of highly successful bombing campaigns thus leading to supplies issues on the eastern front and so on.
>>514379
>A generally superior fighter to the BF-109 at everything but high attitude dog fighting. However high attitude dog fighting the area that both the UK and the US got the upper hand early on and bled the Luftwaffe white for it.
It was also first deployed in combat in 1941, and was in development up until that time: The Germans didn't "Halt development because they were ahead".
>You are the first person I have seen that notes the Messerschmitt Bf 109 as "Me-109", it is normally noted as the Bf 109. Not to be mean or anything, but is English not your'e native language?
No, I just know that Me stands for Messerschmitt, and Bf stands for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. And it's pretty common to just call it the Me-109, or even simply the 109; lots of history books refer to it as such. I've seen one or the other, with Me being more common, I don't think I've ever seen both Me and Bf in the same designation.
And the f variant started development in 1939.
The entire notion that fighter development was on the "Back burner" is bizarre and unsupported.
So let's wave a magic wand and give back all 2,700 or so pilots and aircrew that were lost. Britain isn't going to be Sealion-vulnerable no matter how well you do in the BoB, assuming the British aren't complete retards. And against the Soviets, for your window of opportunity, which I'll extend to the summer of 1942, you have enormous quality advantages in any case. Do you think enough people to fill out a single extra Fliegerkorps, even an elite one, is going to make the difference between victory and defeat?
You didn't start to see a real quality differential until late 1943, and that was after the far, far bloodier actions over Germany than the Battle of Britain ever created.
>>513182
Define 'win', I honestly believe the could have taken the vast majority of continental Europe:
Had Britain surrendered after France had fallen,
Had Hitler not declared war on the United States for no apparent reason
Had Hitler asked his allies the Japanese to open another front on Russia from occupied China
Had Hitler not made retarded 'stand or die' commands to his generals
Had Hitler not hesitated his lightning approach to Moscow, instead turning to Kiev and losing momentum
Had Hitler listened to his wealth of commanders rather than letting his hubris get in the way
Had Hitler strayed from his ideologies he definitely would have had more of a chance
Peace with the west, or atleast non aggression and focus everything on the east then there might have been a chance. The Nazis needed to rally the Slavs to their cause to use them against the Soviets, instead they treated them like untermensch
Retake pre-1914 German empire borders and then sue for peace
>>514500
>Had Hitler not declared war on the United States for no apparent reason
You mean, aside from the Lend-Lease acts and the U.S. engaging in an undeclared war, having already sunk a couple of u-boats?
>Had Hitler asked his allies the Japanese to open another front on Russia from occupied China
What exactly is Japan going to be able to do? At BEST, they'll close off Vladivostok; do you really think that'll be enough to turn the tide in the war in the east?
>Had Hitler not made retarded 'stand or die' commands to his generals
So he loses slower and more bloodily, but by the time the "Stand or die" orders were issued, initiative had already passed away from Germany, and it wasn't coming back.
>Had Hitler not hesitated his lightning approach to Moscow, instead turning to Kiev and losing momentum
And when those troops in Kiev fuck up your day in any number of ways, from advancing to Ploesti (lose the war in a day!) to attacking your flank as you try to attack Moscow?
>>514527
Why would the west agree to a peace with a man who had already broken several treaties in recent years?
>>514558
>Why would the west agree to a peace with a man who had already broken several treaties in recent years
Because he's just conquered western Europe
>>514564
And he has no realistic means of advancing into the UK. What's the hurry to come to terms with him, especially when it'll cost you domestically?
What can Hitler offer that you can trust on him to deliver for said peace?
>>514548
>>Had Hitler asked his allies the Japanese to open another front on Russia from occupied China
>What exactly is Japan going to be able to do? At BEST, they'll close off Vladivostok; do you really think that'll be enough to turn the tide in the war in the east?
They keep advancing into Siberia until the Soviets have to commit large parts of their forces
>>514548
that doesn't really factor in the whole Nazi ideology to enslaving and working the 'untermesch' to death in the fertile regions of Europe in order to feed his Germanic/Aryan master race. That is what I've taken as the Nazis 'winning'
>>514558
>You mean, aside from the Lend-Lease acts and the U.S. engaging in an undeclared war, having already sunk a couple of u-boats?
It doesn't matter, by declaring war he gave them reason to invade land and provide a much more significant contribution to the war effort. Look at American production rates the years after the declaration of war
>What exactly is Japan going to be able to do? At BEST, they'll close off Vladivostok; do you really think that'll be enough to turn the tide in the war in the east?
It would take much needed resources and men away from the battle on the eastern front
>>514596
The Soviets had roughly 700,000 troops in Siberia in December of 1941 anyway.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wQCfpjr4TUkC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Soviet+troop+levels+siberia+december+1941&source=bl&ots=vPvwgtFNaq&sig=Y0TSYVntT1Ct0-dZGB1EY2oVbvE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip_e6l85PKAhVFAxoKHYYVD5EQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Soviet%20troop%20levels%20siberia%20december%201941&f=false
They won't be pushed over easily; especially as you try to advance out of Harbin: It's thousands of kilometers to Irkutsk, and even further to anything important, along a route that has snow on the ground 9 months a year and only one railroad that the Soviets can tear up behind them as they retreat.
The idea of them being able to force a commitment of large quantities of troops is laughable. The best result they can realistically hope to achieve is force a divertment of Lend-Lease to the Iranian and Mediterranean ports; which can be done with a couple of cruisers.
>>514632
>It doesn't matter, by declaring war he gave them reason to invade land and provide a much more significant contribution to the war effort. Look at American production rates the years after the declaration of war
Do you really think it would have ended there? By December of 1941, the question of war in Europe was one of when, not if. That production gear up would have happened anyway, in the wake of war with Japan.
>It would take much needed resources and men away from the battle on the eastern front
It takes shipping resources away from the U.S. as they send Lend-Lease up through the Persian corridor instead. And that's assuming you can somehow stop the 3 armies in the Far East already, which is quite probably beyond Japan's capabilities in any event, they got spanked pretty bad in Khalkin Gol.
They definitely did.
Maybe he should have filly mobilized the country before attacking all of Europe, Albert Speer did the best could but that shit should have been done in 36-37 not 43-44
No, the Germans never had a clear shot of total victory in WWII, mostly because of the sheer volume of land to occupy, and the resistance that would rise due to Nazism as an ideology.
To me personally, Nazism is a political ideology that burned hot and fizzled out just as quickly as it came, and never had a long term for all their possession outside of "intimidate or kill everyone who might resist"
Just as a statement of fact, there was no way to destroy all the slavic ethnicities of Eastern Europe with just bullets and death camps alone. The longer the Germans occupied lands like Yugoslavia, Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, the more tenacious a resistance against them would become.
Hitler once claimed that his campaign to rid the world of his undesirables was inspired by the American campaign against the Natives, but what he didn't realize was that the Native genocide was a process of over 100 years, a slow campaign of disease and starving. Trying to overwork everyone to death and shoot the rest in 5 years would just make the resistance against you impossible to overcome.
TL;DR, if the allies didn't destroy germany, resistance by the Nazi's "Untermensch" would.
>be a scrawny, skinny kid
>take a fight against three bullyish, MMA practicing dudebros from your class
>get your ass kicked to shit, your lunch money stolen and a rebar rammed up your anus so hard your butt will hurt for the rest of your life
>B-BUT I WAS SO BRAVE AND LANDED A FEW GOOD PUNCHES
No. They didn't have the manpower or the Industry to compete with the entire planet
>>513182
Yes. I believe if they managed to win the Africa campaign or defeated the Normandy invasions and if Japan won Midway or some other decisive battle that could've knocked America out of the war. If America wasn't on the allied side I think that Germany could have made it a stalemate on the eastern front and potentially make a comeback.
>>513182
Yes, focus on Middle East oil, 5 years of defense only regaining troops & supplies after Russian nonaggression. Take everywhere but US and Russia. Then use advance tech to force surrenders.
>>515321
Holy shit you're retarded.
Winning in North Africa was never going to happen with the Italians being too inept to suppress Malta, which was killing Axis supply lines for pretty much the entire campaign.
Even if the Normandy landings had catastrophically failed, the Russians were going all the way to the Vistula in the summer of 1944.
Japan could have won every single major naval battle of 1942 decisively and they still would have lost the war. Just look at American production numbers.
And America was always going to be on the Allied side. It was just a matter of when. Unlike WW1 where America was very much indifferent at first, there was no question of whose side we were going to be on in WW2. Roosevelt was pushing hard for war, and in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor were were already pretty actively attacking Axis U-boats, meaning we were effectively at war.
>>514176
>I believe the Nazi's could have won at least up until the A-bomb got deployed.
They were fucked long before '45.
t. bomber command/lemay/harris
>>515353
>Focus on Middle east oil
Which wasn't being drilled in large quantities in the timeframe of world war two. And of course, you're not going to beat the British in North Africa easily (or at all), so it's hard to get.
> 5 years of defense only regaining troops & supplies after Russian nonaggression.
While your enemies outbuild you with their much larger industries? That seems a suboptimal strategy.
>Then use advance tech to force surrenders.
What advanced tech? Your 8 month lead on jet propulsion you had over the U.S.? Your V-2 novelty rockets? They'll hit back with atom bombs, and it won't be pretty.
>>515470
>Winning in North Africa was never going to happen with the Italians being too inept to suppress Malta, which was killing Axis supply lines for pretty much the entire campaign.
It really wasn't. Rommel's logistical difficulties were far more attributable to the simple distance he was trying to move shit over the desert than the raids out of Malta.
Other than that though, you're pretty spot on.
>>515470
Both operation Bagration and Overlord were launched in June 1944. If either one of those were retarded it would've made the front bog down and therefore prolonging the war. Americans would eventually become fed up with fighting a war that wasn't going nowhere. If America faced a duel disaster, on the scale of Stalingrad, in the Pacific and western front at the same time it would leave an scar on the American populace.
the only thing germany could have done was hold out long enough to get berlin nuked
>>513504
you forgot to mention that even if the air battle was won the almost entirely unescorted barges would have had to cross the channel without getting blown to pieces by the royal navy. The hope was that without any fighter cover the luftwaffe could deal with the navy but this prospect made the german admiralty extremely nervous as it had never really been tried before and could have been potentially disastrous.
>>513182
Well, let's compare criteria.
First - Germany never invades Poland, consolidates industrial power.
If he delays the invasion of Poland and therefor the start of WW2 as we know it, he stands a fighting chance.
Second - Japan never allies with Hitler
In this scenario a war between the US and Japan becomes isolated to the pacific front, and assuming America chooses not to get further involved, hitler stands more of a chance to subdue (not conquer) and then be conquered by the USSR
3 - Hitler signs treaties with soviets as usual but delays his invasion of Poland until GB's initial reaponse to a soviet invasion is, assumingly he offers the Reich's support, flipping the sides of the war and seeing Germany have it's largest chance of winning.
I want you to realize all the above scenarios are implausible, and by no means do I assume them to be 100% correct.
Enjoy.
>>515907
I would also like to add that trading Italy out for literally anything else would have been favorable.
>>515716
Except there was never any chance in the Pacific of us suffering a defeat (or victory) anywhere near the scale of the Eastern Front, and nothing we had committed in Europe ever had a chance of fucking up that bad either. The American populace was out for revenge, and was in a bloodthirsty rage not seen again until 9/11. More casualties would only make us angrier, especially with how much our industry was pumping out. One or two decisive defeats would not have turned us away.
Let's say through some miracle Overlord never happens at all and all the units are on the Eastern Front in the summer of 1944. What happens? Well, you can commit them to Lvov or Iasi to stall the Soviet offensives there, or we can put them with Army Group Center in hopes that they could stall Bagration enough for Army Group Center to actually exist once the operation is over.
The problem was that the Soviets had enough men across the entire Eastern Front to make a breakthrough everywhere. You save Army Group Center, then the Soviets still get a bridgehead on the Vistula near Lvov and Romania still falls. You stop them at Lvov? Well you've still got a gaping hole in your flank to the north.
There was literally nothing, especially that late in the war, that could have won the Axis the war.
>>515470
Additionally, unlike WWI where there was widespread criticism/blame sharing with the Entente, no one but a small fringe engaged with any of that during WWII.
There was never any doubt in mainstream American opinion that the Axis were The Bad Guys. The only doubt was whether that was worth fighting a war over.
>If Germany did X would they have won
This has been discussed to death, and every single time it's brought up the answer is a unanimous "no."
Germany, and the Axis as a whole, lacked everything from the industrial capacity to manpower to leadership to ever stand a chance of winning the war. No matter what you change, you're still faced with the fact that Germany is outnumbered, outproduced, and outsmarted, and thanks to the brilliance of Hitler, Germany had neither the time nor resources to spare improving their situation.
The only way they could have "won" is if the Nazis lost the 1933 election and Hitler never rose to power.
Hitler shouldn't have fucked up and let Japan get into a war with the KMT. China was already supplying raw materials to Germany and being industrialized. By the end of the 30s they were a prime member for the axis, seeing as they were already purging the country of communists.
Without the war between China and Japan, there would be two moderately powerful anti-communist axis powers in the far East that could threaten the unprepared USSR pre-1941. The US would also have no reason to blockade the non-expansionist Japanese and wouldn't get involved.
>>516029
>Hitler shouldn't have fucked up and let Japan get into a war with the KMT
If the government in Tokyo couldn't stop it, how was the government in Berlin supposed to?
>>513182
Frankly, it's a miracle they got as far as they did.
Really, the Soviets and the French had to fuck up so fucking much for the Germans to even be able to scrape the meagre, short lived successes they gained, it's hard to imagine them doing any worse.
>>515973
>The only way they could have "won" is if the Nazis lost the 1933 election and Hitler never rose to power.
The issues there is, a saner, more competent government would not have gone to war in the first place.
>>516062
I think that's what he's counting as a "win."
>>514143
Nukes are for gooks, not Germans.
>>516062
That's my point. The only winning move is to never go to war in the first place.
>>516050
You're right, but at least Hitler shouldn't have recognized the Japanese puppet government in Manchukuo which might have been seen as legitimizing the actions of the IJA.
>>516104
It didn't matter. The local IJA units were going to do whatever the fuck they wanted and there was nothing the government (or IJA high command, for that matter) could do about it.
If someone qualified had a time machine and went to expand Germany instead of trying to kill hitler, probably. There are simply too many screwups all around, and fixing one or two wouldn't have saved them.
>>513182
Had they not turned on Russia, easily. Russia had numbers on their side.
>>514219
As I said, it was possible, just not probable.
You yourself admit that, so what's the point in your reply? We're discussing What If's here and I offered a few that would allow for an Axis victory.
Anyways, I stand by what I said, the Axis could have won in North Africa, if they had taken Malta and if the Italians had shaped up at sea. Also many mistakes were made during Barbarossa that could have increased chance of victory if rectified.
>>514596
>Japan
>fighting against the soviets in WW2
>ever
they had their hands tied in China and were going to drive south in the pacific to get the strategic resources they were being deprived of.
The Japanese knew their army was in no shape or form capable of fighting the Soviets after disasters like Khalkin Gol. Japan was a naval nation first and foremost.
Japan had 2 years worth of oil stored away when the US froze their assets and issued the embargo. 2 years. So by 1943 they'd've been completely dry.
Would it really have been worth it to Japan to open up a second land front in mainland Asia? Absolutely not. The tripartite pact was a mistake the Japanese unfortunately realized too late when the German offensive in Russia stalled in December of '41, after they had already fatefully attacked the United States.
>>513182
I've repeated this already a couple of times, but Halifax winning the cabinet crisis of 1940 instead of Churchill would probably have been a major turning point.
>No UK involved in the war
>UK keeps trading resources with Japan due to this
>No incentive for Japan to attack SEA, ergo no Pearl Harbour
>USA remains isolationist, because no Japanese jingoism nor a lend-lease act/strategy to gradually get involved into the european theater
>Germany can go all out on the SU while there was no need for desperate attacks on the southern oil fields, while Japan can give some support in the east as well.
I won't say this would definitely have resulted in an axis victory, as the SU still was a huge force and still definitely a plausible candit for a vitory against germany, but it would have made an 'allied' victory way less possible
>>515931
Don't forget that Dragoon is coming in August, and the German forces don't know about it and will have trouble reacting to it even if they do, what with the widespread railroad destruction.
>>516084
Oppenheimer stated that the biggest failure of the Manhattan project was that it didn't produce the bombs in time to drop them on Germany.
The whole reason it was funded in the first place was an American fear that the Germans were going for the bomb. If they had them when the war with Germany is still ongoing, it's Germany getting nuked, not the neutered Japan.
>>516321
>You yourself admit that, so what's the point in your reply? We're discussing What If's here and I offered a few that would allow for an Axis victory.
No, I don't admit that. Even with "Perfect" play by the Axis, they'll either get smashed by the Soviets or nuked by the Americans. It's really a no-win situation unless you change the entire political framework behind the war.
>Anyways, I stand by what I said, the Axis could have won in North Africa, if they had taken Malta
Keegan and Van Creveld would like to have a word with you.
>and if the Italians had shaped up at sea
Which requires literal magic, AND the British not reacting to a tougher Italian presence.
>Also many mistakes were made during Barbarossa that could have increased chance of victory if rectified.
Possibly, but the conduct in Barbarossa was already pretty damn good, it's going to be very hard to find an improvement, and if hte Soviets do anything differently, a lot of assumptions go out the window.
>>515321
>Japan won Midway or some other decisive battle that could've knocked America out of the war
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
This idea is simply a non-starter, at best the Japs could've won themselves a temporary repreive from the US Navy in the pacific, but the sheer difference in production and the ability to replace crews (japs couldn't afford to lose naval/air crews, the US could) mean even if the Japs won every naval battle from Midway, the Coral Sea to Leyte Gulf they'd still be fighting a losing battle unless FDR was willing to sign a peace with them.
I have read around 5000 pages of history books regarding 1900-1950 and i am amazed how much "myth" people still have regarding nazi germany, especially on /his/. i would have thought you guys know better.
considering every country (france, UK, US, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia) wanted war against germany... delaying the invasion of poland would have given germany probably 3-4 more month tops.
but regarding the outcome of WW2. since germany was outnumbered 10:1 when taking all military power into consideration and also the capabilities of producing war machinery, it becomes apparent that germany was "lucky" that france, poland and russia was ruled by military incompetence. Only the taking of poland and france allowed germany to get a real armament race going needed for a world war. hell, under hitler from 1933-1939 not a single new weapons factory had been built and germany used 4% GDP for rearmament in 1939. britain 3%, france 8% and russia 9%. In no way was germany prepared for such a big war and even historians confirm that germany was equipped for a war with a single country with ammo enough for 2 month based on the ammo requirements needed for poland and other resources lasting 5-6 month for an all out war.
what could hitler made different for a better outcome? all diplomacy failed. even if he would have said "ok we disarm completely" then poland would have invaded in germany would be no more. so he should have killed all troops at dunkirk, demoralizing britain, speeding up the war against france. also focus more on submarines because hitler was already able to destroy britains entire support/transport fleet with destroying 4 ships a day on average. putting more effort into that germany could have been able to bleed them dry, no more oil and ammo from the US etc... but this is rather speculative.
>>516966
>I have read around 5000 pages of history books regarding 1900-1950 and i am amazed how much "myth" people still have regarding nazi germany, especially on /his/. i would have thought you guys know better.
One doubts this, given the rest of your post.
>considering every country (france, UK, US, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia) wanted war against germany... delaying the invasion of poland would have given germany probably 3-4 more month tops.
[citation needed] if we're talking pre-1939.
>1933-1939 not a single new weapons factory had been built and germany used 4% GDP for rearmament in 1939.
So, in all your reading, you never came across the 4 year plan?
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/military-spending-patterns-in-history/
http://eh.net/encyclopedia-graphics/eloantra005.gif
>even if he would have said "ok we disarm completely" then poland would have invaded in germany would be no more
[citation needed]
>so he should have killed all troops at dunkirk, demoralizing britain,
Morale doesn't win or lose total wars.
>Speeding up the war against france.
Wait, don't you want to divert to wipe out the Dunkirk pocket? Which will it be, anon?
>also focus more on submarines because hitler was already able to destroy britains entire support/transport fleet with destroying 4 ships a day on average.
Yes, focus more forces that fight by remaining hidden into theaters where your opponent can fight from the sky but you can't. What could possibly go wrong?
>>516966
against russia: he was close to getting moscow and could have taken it with some tweaks but this would have never forced russia to surrender. a total victory would have been rather impossible under the circumstances. but this was not due to russian competence but rather because of US support to russia. people usually don´t understand how much russia actually received from the US. here are some numbers what russia got from the US via alaska:
>427.284 trucks
>50.501 Jeeps
>595 Ships
>13.303 "towing machines and armored personell carriers"
>35.041 motorcycles
>8.000 "train track building machines"
>1.981 Locomotives
>11.155 Train wagons
>113.300 tons of explosives
>3.820.000 tons of food
>2.317.000 tons of steel
>15.000.000 pairs of boots
>9.681 Fighter airplanes
>3.632 Bombers
just the "support vehicles" contributed to more than 50% of what russia actually had and were very important to keep the supplys going. there are documents and many many diaries of russian soldiers and officers confirming that without the US help the war in russia would have been lost rather quick.
So in the end: the nail in the coffin for germany was the US. without the US supporting britain and russia, germany would have "taken" europe. declaring war on the US was a very stupid move from germany and at that time there was absolutely no way germany could have dealt with the US on another continent. there could have been only one hope: prolonging the war somehow to get their intercontinental rockets (A9-A12 rockets) going (possible with nukes) and force the US into submission. since germany would have been the only one to have these rockets they could have forced the US into submission (especially with nukes after 3-4 more years of research). but this scenario is rather unlikely and unrealistic.
the "allied" countries were hell bend on putting germany down again and germany would have gotten the war either way, doesn´t matter who fired the first shot.
>>516987
>against russia: he was close to getting moscow and could have taken it with some tweaks
You had advance scouting elements within sight of the city with about a dozen Soviet divisions behind them that would need to be removed before you could even think to attack the city, which had close to a million troops defending it.
They weren't close, and the most likely "tweak" you could apply, ignoring Kiev, carries enormous risks.
>there are documents and many many diaries of russian soldiers and officers confirming that without the US help the war in russia would have been lost rather quick.
Cite some.
>without the US supporting britain and russia, germany would have "taken" europe.
You've come nowhere near to proving that point.
>the "allied" countries were hell bend on putting germany down again and germany would have gotten the war either way, doesn´t matter who fired the first shot.
Which is why they allowed the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, rather than put Germany down when it would have been cheap and easy to do so.
>>516986
>[citation needed] if we're talking pre-1939.
you seriously don´t know anything about poland from 1918-1939? highly imperialistic, going against minorities, going literally mad, talking about taking berlin and moscow, even dreaming of a "polish-japanese border at the Ural". a book i can recommend for the happenings leading up to WW2
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Germany-Guilt-Question-Second/dp/3922252117
>http://eh.net/encyclopedia-graphics/eloantra005.gif
a graph not saying what it is about and not even having a labled y-axis? dafuq is this?
>>517006
>http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Germany-Guilt-Question-Second/dp/3922252117
Oh look, a Holocaust denialist saying that Germany didn't start the war. What a surprise.
>a graph not saying what it is about and not even having a labled y-axis? dafuq is this?
Why don't you look at the rest of the article for the context? Then, you might realize that the Y Axis is explicitly stated to be percentage of GDP.
You can read, can't you? Tell me, oh scholarly anon, how come you've never heard about the 4 year plan before?
>>517014
of course i know about the 4 year plan. and i also don´t give a shit about infos from some random web pages. it take my knowledge from books.
i´m rather interested why you get all butthurt and hostile when someone writes something not confirming your worldview?
>>517025
>of course i know about the 4 year plan
Then why did you insist that Germany's rearmament came to 4% of their GDP in 1939, which is factually incorrect?
>And i also don´t give a shit about infos from some random web pages. it take my knowledge from books.
Oooh, see what happens when you don't read?
>The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison, edited by Mark Harrison, 122-176, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) and the Soviet data (see especially R. W. Davies, “Soviet Military Expenditure and the Armaments Industry, 1929-33: A Reconsideration,” Europe-Asia Studies 45, no. 4 (1993): 577-608, as well as R. W. Davies and Mark Harrison. “The Soviet Military-Economic Effort under the Second Five-Year Plan, 1933-1937,” Europe-Asia Studies 49, no. 3 (1997): 369-406).
Look! Books!
>i´m rather interested why you get all butthurt and hostile when someone writes something not confirming your worldview?
I get hostile when someone presents obvious illogicalities and claims that are simply false as truth, and then resorts to several fallacies to try to defend them.
>>517014
>Oh look, a Holocaust denialist saying that Germany didn't start the war. What a surprise.
this is not the message of the book. it just shows very detailed that germany was by far not the only country responsible for the war. and of course, given the statements of the british politicians at that time.. the war could have been prevented without firing a single shot if they would have wanted.
regarding the 4% of GDP in 1939: looks like i got the year wrong sorry. of course germany increased its rearmament with the plan staring 1936. yet, while putting more effort into rearmament there still wasn´t built a new weapons factory and germany did not have the resources to create an army to rival that of the allies. and of course the other countries started their rearmaments from 1932-1935 while france never really stopped after 1918.
still, it´s not about "muh germany dindu nuffin". It´s obvious that they wanted to take areas in the east, planned for a later point in time, not 1939. It should also be noted that hitlers "endgame" was the creation of the united states of europe, with sovereign states with germany as the center of power (hence he needed more "lebensraum" to secure that). that countries like britain, US and russia "cannot allow" the creation of another superpower in central europe is obvious. but taking the actions of every country into consideration it should become apparent that germany would have gotten the war one way or another, US, britain and poland made sure of that.
Yes. They came marvelously close to winning and they really should have won. Germany certainly would be a lot better off now if they had.
>>513182
I feel like Hitler's specific goals made victory impossible. If he had been less ambitious about acquiring new territory then perhaps he would still be alive today.
>>516966
hahahaha
haha
oh man
>>517170
>came marvelously close to winning
when?
Why didn't the Soviets annex Finland at the end of WW2?
>>517288
They got more land than they had originally wanted in their demands (even though annexation would have been the ultimate goal despite these demands), reparations, and Finnish politics were heavily Soviet-influenced. They did not really have to annex Finland because they got enough of what they wanted while having a large say in what Finland did - without the hassle that is annexation, occupation and international outrage.
>>514717
eh, it was more like this
>be a big MMA dude
>take on a slightly less big MMA dude, but then the dude runs away and you get tired of chasing him around the fucking room
>give up chasing the original guy, and go after a really fat MMA guy who's standing outside in -30 celsius
>while you're punching that guy in the gut, and freezing your balls off, another big MMA guy comes in and punches you in the back of the head
>you go down in the snow and the guy who punched you in the back of the head takes all the credit for the fight
>also the two guys who promised to help you just spent the whole fight running around outside punching birds and stuff
>>517288
it's fucked up but i actually don't know, and i'm actually finnish. our country is patriotic enough to distort our history in education, and it's really annoying to me. basically here's some stuff they said about WWII
>we only started the continuation war because we were so upset!! it wasnt our fault
>we joined the nazis, let them use our lands as a staging area and fought alongside them, but they weren't our allies!!
>we broke our promises to germany and stabbed them in the back, but we aren't traitors!!
>we didn't lose world war 2, we merely formed a defensive pact with USSR after stalin threatened to roll over our country with 3,000 t34/85s
>we had to give up a bunch of our industry and land over to russia, but that was actually a good thing because we were forced to buy new stuff and that helped us!!! thanks russia!!
>USSR couldn't annex us because of sisu!! and we had many guns hidden around the country!!
>we had democracy for the next 50 years even though a guy got elected for like 20 years in a row and he was the only candidate that the USSR was okay with!! but we were still independent boys!!
the same way of thinking dominates the armed service as well. on my first day in the armed service, our captain told us that "i can give you the power to defeat the russians (and their 17,000 tanks (in the form of a 60-year-old assault rifle))
>>517709
>we joined the nazis, let them use our lands as a staging area and fought alongside them, but they weren't our allies!!
Only an amateur here, but this one contains a bit of truth. Finland and Germany were more properly co-belligerants than real allies. You guys didn't operationally co-ordinate, most glaringly when it came to the siege of Leningrad: Finnish troops didn't sweep in from the north even though they easily could have, nor did Mannerheim allow Hitler to move troops into Finland to do something like that themselves.
>>517750
to me, it just seems disingenous to say "we aren't allies" in that situation. no, we didn't go to leningrad for hitler, but
>we got panzerfausts and other military equipment from them
>we gave them some of our untermenschen
>we wouldn't have started the war without them
>they couldn't have attacked the northern parts of USSR without going through our lappi
>they trained some troops for us iirc
it just seems semantics not to call that an alliance. if we were truly opposed to nazism and hitler, we could have just said "no" and stayed in our frozen wasteland without starting another war against a country we had no chance of defeating. or we could have started our own war without directly collaborating with hitler.
personally though, i have a strong dislike for dishonesty, war and exploitation though. making young men die for you and having them killed if they refuse is the epitome of what i think is wrong with humanity. hiding behind political power, dictating other people's lives, using shame tactics and propaganda to control people and force them to fight for you, while being at no danger yourself. i don't mind cowardice or the willingness to go to war, but i think the people who have both those qualities are the worst scum of the earth.
