If they could win what would they have to do. And what would happen if they won. Would they expand to take over the whole world?
>If they could win what would they have to do
hitler pretty much assumed that Churchill preferred him over stalin
>And what would happen if they won
probably alot less globalism, more potent culture in the world and higher standards of living in the top countries
>Would they expand to take over the whole world?
lol
>>318455
>what would they have to do
Not occupy France
Not antagonize the Soviets
Not try to invade Britain
Not try to turn the whole world against potential enemies
Not force the Allies into a position where they had to keep fighting
Not ally Italy
There were a lot of fuck-ups, but I'd say Barbarossa and declaring war on the US were two of the biggest.
>>318455
The reason they couldn't win is because they wanted total German domination. I think Germany could have won if they pulled down their expectations instead of asking for everything and declaring war on everyone. Germany's aim was to create an unbeatable superpower. Unfortunately that window had already passed. Even if they somehow beat the Soviets they would still have to beat America and their nuclear weapons program. Hitler's insane ambition truly did doom them from the start.
Their enemies had them massively beat stragetically, financially, and production wise. That is a terrible combination.
>>318503
This. Only answer you need.
>>318556
Yep
I would be so tempted to pull the trigger on the flamethrower.
>>319068
He did, thats one of the reasons for what they did lose the war, Schmidt´s jokes.
>>318455
Two things about ww2 always bothered me. Why fid Hitler declare war in the US and why didnt the japs attacked the soviets. I mean would these things changed the outcome of the war?Is there anything i can read in that topic?
>>319183
Japan was allied with germany, the japs attacked pearl harbour to weaken the US NAVY so they could take over the Pacific. Murica declared war on the japs. Germany declared war on the us
Hitler was just shit, strategically.
he was good at becoming popular, but holy fuck did he have no idea what he was talking about, as well as most of his cronies.
basically just start a few years later like the army wanted
>muh russian winter
shut up
>>319183
the usa was already essentially at war with the germans in the atlantic. it's not like the course of the war would have been drastically changed if germany had never officially declared war
>>320101
The pact between Germany and Japan was a defensive pact, so Hitler had no obligation to help the Japanese.
Dunkirk, Dunkirk, Dunkirk.
They let 70% of the entire British Army flee because Hitler thought he was being recklessly aggressive and because Goerring was telling him bullshit about how the Luftwaffe could crush the RAF and Britian.
If he allows the advance to continue and kills most of the forces at Dunkirk then the battle of Britian doesn't happen because Churchill is forced to negotiate some sort of terms to keep the Nazis out of Britian.
>>320558
Very good point
>>319183
Germany had a mutual aggression pact with Japan. Once the nips attacked Pearl Harbour he was fucked.
The real mistake was rolling to a stop at Dunkirk, though. People like to claim the Wehrmacht was just sorting out it's supply lines at this point, but the allies on the beaches were so disorganized and shocked by their rout, if the Germans had rolled on they'd have just surrendered in droves anyway.
No Dunkirk miracle = successful operation Sea lion = no American Carrier later on = No D-Day. With Britain defeated, Hitler could have turned all his attention to Russia.
>>320558
Operation Sealion still could never have happened.
The BEF would be a lot weaker, and the North Africa campaign would have different, but the reality would still be the same.
>>320669
Hitler would have come through Ireland. It was poorly defended, and once he had a large army on it's eastern coast, it's a short hop to Wales. A two pronged attack from there and the Channel would have finished us off.
The only way was to not invade Poland at all. Stick with building cultural pride back up instead of blitzkrieg every thing that moves.
>>320693
How is he supposed to do that with no troop transports, and with the RAF and RN still untouched.
>>320693
look at a map please, ireland is far away from the coast. it would have been hard to supply with british ships harassing the german one
>>318455
They were fucked after they lost the Battle of Britain. Hitler couldn't be stopped from fucking things up after this
If Germany wanted to win the war they should have
>Not invade the Soviet Union while already fighting another front
>Not ally with weak allies such as Italy and their faggot leader Mussolini
>Not ally themselves with Japan
>Not declare war on America
>Use wonder weapons that they had in their possession but never used for some reason
Or
>assassinate Hitler to save Germany from destruction
Fucked from the start.
They didn't have the logistics for a sustained war effort.
>>320786
>Use wonder weapons that they had in their possession but never used for some reason
If you're referring to nerve agents, that reason is horses.
>>320669
I don't think you quite understood my post. There would be no Sea Lion because Britian would have been out then and there. The threat of an impending invasion by an Army would have forced some sort of negotiation to keep the Nazis away and Britian out. Halifax throwing his support behind Churchill doesn't happen if the Nazis slaughter the French and British at Dunkirk.
>>318556
>>320726
They wanted their corridor to Koenigsberg and a backbone of allies against communism, nothing more.
Poland were even invited Anti-Comintern pact but declined and refused the above two demands. Germany had hoped the British would come to their senses and ally against the communists (they were already supporting the fins)
this idea that Germany wanted to take over the entirety of Europe and ethnically cleanse all non Germans is revisionism at its best
>>315000
Besides that this is baut,>>320660
I never thought that dunkirk had that much of influence in the war but i guess you're right... But even if the germans would have attacked the allies in dunkirk, would the Wehrmacht be able to well, Land in GB? I mean the brits had air superiority and radar and shit. Iam just asking...
>>318455
German mistakes that would have considerably changed the course of the war if avoided:
>Letting the brits get away at Dunkirk
>Delaying Operation Overlord because Yugoslavia was being a bitch
>Not preparing troops for winter warfare
>siege of leningrad tying up forces
>splitting up army group south into A and B
>wasting resources on the fucking holocaust
>not streamlining production until 1942
>giving more supplies to Rommel in North Africa
(Many say that last point is impossible, but it's not. If Air superiority could have been acheived the north african campaign could have been supplied via air from italy and push into Egypt which would have opened up more ports. It's a long shot but we're talking completely hypothetical scenarios here so what the fuck. We're not interested in arguing if something is PROBABLY, only if something is POSSIBLE)
>>323232
I forgot one:
>treating the conquered slavs as fucking dirt actively sowing the seeds for pain-in-the-ass partisan movements
Even Rosenberg warned against this and he was a fucking loon.
>>320558
Forcing a fight at Dunkirk would've been expensive, though. Letting the soldiers get away instead meant no losses and a lot of nice equipment.
>>323232
>>Delaying Operation Overlord because Yugoslavia was being a bitch
assuming you mean the intervention in the balkans and barbarossa - that is not true, german intervention did not affect barbarossa, its start was tied to weather conditions and the logistical situation
>>323270
>and the logistical situation
That in particular was a factor that's frequently underestimated. Germany was still using horses as their main method of lugging shit around.
>>323270
>>assuming you mean the intervention in the balkans and barbarossa - that is not true, german intervention did not affect barbarossa, its start was tied to weather conditions and the logistical situation
Richard J Evans and pretty much every other historian I've ever read on the matter does not agree with your [citation needed] statement.
>>323232
>>323270
>>323270
>>323513
It should be noted, I'm specifically referring to the campaign in Yugoslavia, not the rest of the Balkans (where you are correct).
The Yugoslavian campaign was initiated at the expense of Barbarossa because of the coup d'état in Yugoslavia that outed the fascist friendly regime. Hitler was so enraged he put everything else on hold and invaded.
The Yugoslav campaign followed the Balkan campaigns.
>>323528
>The Yugoslavian campaign was initiated at the expense of Barbarossa
But it wasn't? Barbarossa was not postponed because of the intervention in Balkans. Barbarossa was launched at pretty much the earliest possible date that put together what 1) the brass wanted and 2) the weather would permit and 3) the supply train allowed.
>>323530
keegan in second world war (2995) and heinz in greece in ww2 (1998)
bottom line being that in theory the balkans campaign could indeed have had the impact you describe - but in practice it did not, as barbarossa could not be launched anyway due to other influences like logistics and weather
>>323535
>But it wasn't? Barbarossa was not postponed because of the intervention in Balkans.
We're talking about two different things. You're talking about the Balkan campaign and I am talking about the Yugoslav campaign.
>>323541
I am talking about the entire Balkan campaign, of which the Yugoslav one was a part. The one which actually also involved the invasion of Greece even after Yugoslavia, further removing any potential impact it might have had on Barbarossa.
>>323556
I'm not at home, so i don't have the books infront of me, so I'll just copy paste from the wiki. I'm not saying you're wrong but you're not right either. There appears to be two opposing viewpoints. As I said, I've read two books supporting the one statement I said, one of which was R J Evans which I hold to be a credible source.
The postponement of Barbarossa from the initially planned date of 15 May to the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the Balkans Campaign required a diversion of troops and resources that hampered preparations, and an unusually wet winter kept rivers at full flood until late spring. The full floods could have discouraged an earlier attack, even if it was unlikely to have happened before the end of the Balkans Campaign.[61]
>>323244
It also meant that nearly 200,000 BEF soldiers got the fuck out of dodge and lived to fight another day. You don't get chances like that in war - to wipe out a complete army and most of your enemies forces. Hitler dropped the ball, plain and simple.
>>318455
Different allocation of ressources. A variation on Plan Z, rather than building battle ships, put more into carriers to bomb the fleet in Scapa Flow, otherwise develop long range naval bombers that could accomplish the same from bases in Norway or something.
Not wasting endless ressources on the Blitz on something entirely useless and steeling the English resolve rather than breaking them.
As far as I understand they could have built rocket interceptors earlier.
Rather than humiliating France (which after that victory was already an accomplished feat, they should have stirred up the old rivalry with Britain and somehow get them to join against them.
As for Russia, it would have worked if they had come as "liberators", installing puppet states as they went along and recruit the local populace to fight for, or at least to keep their supply lines guarded, that kind of shit, rather than put them in a situation where they'd pick the lesser of two evils.
>>324140
One more thing.
Hitler taking control of the army.
Sure, it worked when he decided on the Schlieffen plan, but in the end, all his interference with the generals, like the odd break right before Dunkirque, or the diversion of the army towards the south during Barbarossa...
No.
Pic related.
btw how true is this pic?
>>324160
Well the unemployment rate being 0% is complete bullshit.
Ernst Hanfstaengl IIRC claimed that about only 1 million were left unemployed in Germany in 1937.
Also lmao at the Polish UK France attack on Germany preparations
>Germany good boy he dindu nuffin
Either I missed it but he also didn't mention the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland by the Germans, so they broke the Versailles treaty, very nice of him and totally not a sign of threat or anything.
>>318497
So basically not fight WW2 at all then?
>>318497
So basically not fight WW2 at all then.
>>318455
I think they *could* have done, if some factors that were within their control and some factors that were out of their control had gone the right way.
If Western European nations, particularly France and Britain had been prepared to accept their aggressive expansion in to Eastern Europe without declaring war.
If they had properly equipped their troops for Russian winter and Hitler had let his generals run the show.
>>324160
>btw how true is this pic?
well to begin with its very third paragraph starts with an outright lie (ww1), and continues to spout falsehoods throughout (hitler and reparations for example, unemployment, public works like the autobahn - a pre-nazi development which hitler and co. actually OPPOSED before they came into power)... you know what just like five lines in i can't be bothered with reading the rest of the drivel
>>318455
>could Germany win?
Short answer: no
Long answer: nooooooooooooooooooooo
>>320829
More like STG 44 and their rocket program, Also Jet planes.
>>318455
Best case scenario for Germany in ww2
In the West
>have u-56 blow up the HMS nelson, killing Churchill
>Norway's royal family captured, Norway surrenders April 10 (basically no prolonged war in Norway)
>BEF captured at Dunkirk
>No Free French forces
>with Churchill dead, Halifax is now PM and negotiates white peace with Germany, recognizing German domination of continent.
>Italy does not join the war or invade Greece. (they possibly gain Malta from Britain, it was undefended in 1940, Mussolini was just a retard a military strategy.)
Now Germany shifts its focus east.
Eastern Front
>America gives no Lend-Lease to the USSR (Britain will give them aid no matter what, but it will be miniscule), this means that the Soviets either wont be able to produce as much tanks as they did or there will be massive famine
>No battle of Britain leaves Luftwaffe in better condition
>Paris protocols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Protocols happen in 1940, so Germany can station bombers in Syria to target Caucasus oil fields (80% of Soviet oil production was here)
>Bombing oil fields will cripple Soviet army, preventing large scale offensives and also cripple farm machinery causing famine
>No lend lease means no trucks, radios etc. for Soviets
>with no retard Italy, there is no invasion of Yugoslavia or Greece, so additional German units are available for the start of Barbarossa (12th army)
>Hungarian Army is included in planning for Barbarossa and assigned to Army Group South
>Eastern Europe is hit with a dry spell, so Barbarossa starts May 12 as originally planned (it was postponed because it was too muddy and the Bug River flooded)
>Army Group North thrusts rapidly towards Leningrad, captures it in early-mid July
>Operation Silver Fox succeeds and captures Murmansk, cuts Murmansk Railway
>Army Group South goes with its original plan to encircle troops in west ukraine with 12th army and 1st panzer group
>Nazis support Ukrainian nationalist
>>324160
its complete bullshit from the start
plus
>Germany not being the aggressor in WWI
my sides
Even if they won, the country would probably fall apart when Hitler dies, the result would probably be a civil war between the SS/hardcore nazis and the more moderate members of the military and government
>>324160
its mostly bullshit and the poster in the pic is sadbrain retard. the fact that he even believes the "STAB IN THE BACK" myth amuses me.
on main topic. germany was superfucked the second the invaded the soviet union. honestly hitler would have been better off just invading and occuping most of europe then forcing the UK into a truce. then wait like 5 years until hitting the soviets.
>>326202
CONTD.
>Army Group south does not lag behind and captures Kiev without help from Army Group Center
>Faster german advance in north and south means cities such as Leningrad,Kiev,Nikolaev Kirovograd. Dnepropetrovsk. Zaporozhye Odessa, Kharkov if the Germans are lucky, do not have their industry evacuated
>Stalin hides away in his Dacha and commits suicide (he almost did this)
>power struggle ensues
>after pausing in mid-august to let their supply lines catch up to them, the Germans begin their final advance towards Moscow and Rostov, gateway to the Caucasus
>By early October Moscow and Rostov fall to the Germans due to Soviet disunity and political struggle
>Fucking Raputitsas cause planned German advance into the Caucasus to get delayed
>They still advance with limited reistance due to Soviet collapse
>Reach Maykop, Tiblisi, the Volga, and Grozny by end of October and finish it off with Baku at in early November and an advance to upper Volga and Volgoda in the Center and North
>Soviets request armistance so they can try to get their shit together
>Soviets agree to evacuate east of the A-A line
>Germany wins
>Death, slavery, mass killings, ethnic cleansing ensues
>Partisan warfare most likely a problem for a long time
>Russia depopulated, Leningrad leveled, Moscow turned into a lake
>Poland is no more, all Polish cities and monuments demolished, most Poles are dead or have been deported to the Reich's easternmost territories
>>Russia is a wasteland with a few specks of villages and maybe a few small cities here and there
>Hitler dies in 1950s, power struggle ensues
>if SS gains power, Germany collapses and descends into Warlordism
>Best case scenario Albert Speer, some military folk, and compentent people end up in power and keep Germany around a bit longer
>Greater Germany still collapses by 1970s; Best case ala Soviet Union; Worst Case warlords everywhere
>>325331
Where is this graph being sourced from? If you're going to make fun of stormtards for having unsourced jpg graphs, you can't engage in the same practice. Be better.
>>325798
>>326235
Isn't there some truth to the idea that France/UK were engaging in tradewarfare before WW1? Obviously Fritz was a warmongering idiot, but he wasn't entirely unprovoked, no?
