Its June 22, 1941, your Adolf Hitler. How do you change operation Barbarossa to make it a German victory.
>>365292
Sending all Germans to gas camps.
>>365292
I abandon the Japs entirely, concentrate on driving towards Moscow and Leningrad before winter, and sue for peace with England.
>>365313
how would you be able to sue peace with church hill?
>>365292
I WOULD HOLD POSITIONS JUST BEFORE REACHING MOSCOW, AND WAIT UNTIL SPRING.
>>365313
Yeah sure.
They will take your peace offers cause you are so nice.
Fuck off and deal with your fuckton front war.
>>365350
>So, like they did historically?
THAT IS NOT WHAT OCCURRED; THE ADVANCE CONTINUED WITHOUT STOP, THUS THE FAILURE.
>>365324
Ideally I would have stopped the Blitz from ever happening. If I can't do that then I'll just wait and hope Churchill has a stroke. So long as America doesn't enter the war I can afford to wait it out.
>>365350
If Hitler started a civil war in the Soviet Union. Instead of trying to kill Ukrainians and people from the Baltics. then he prob would have won.
>>365362
>Instead of trying to kill Ukrainians and people from the Baltics
Proofs?
>>365292
Impossible by that point. I might be able to conceive of changes that would at least make Bagration much more costly for the Soviets.
>>365367
Fairly standard knowledge that when the Nazi's turned up in Russia a large proportion of the people celebrated being out from under the yoke of the oppressor.
Whoops.
>>365362
Exactly. Most Ukranians/ minorities in the U.S.S.R. hated Stalin and the Communists. They would've welcomed the chance to attack Moscow and see Stalin's head on a pike.
>>365292
Offensives against Russia always end up in failure.
The best tactic is to make a small offensive, something that streches from, for instance, Poland to Lithuania. That will trigger a Soviet reaction. Then immediatly fall back and carve defensive positions. The Soviets will charge in a counter attack and when they do that, they'll die. In practice, this would be something like this:
>Mechanized infantry (German) charges across a wheat field in Lithuania, seizing a town from Soviet administration
>Recon spots Soviet mobilization, motorized infantry battaslions supported by light attack aircraft are preparing a counter offensive
>Soviets start retaking the town
>German mechanized force falls back to German controlled territorry
>Soviets think it would be a good idea to chase our men and make a counter offensive to get some land (ie some slice of NE Prussia)
>German tanks pop out of the town the mechanized force was falling back to, killing the Reds in the open
>Decimiate the Soviet counter offensive
>Finally advance into Ivan territorry
>Repeat the same process all across the border until the Red Army is reduced to ashes
This is the tactic the Germans should have applied when fighting the Soviet Union, because the border with the Reds is covered by stepps and grasslands, with some small towns here and there. These factors make it a good idea to make this push foward, push back, push foward while pushing back tactic very good.
Instead of coming with the intention of genociding slavs to create lebensraum, I adopt the causus belli of liberating the Soviet satellite states from Russian rule, and refrain from enacting the whole "war of annihilation" thing.
>>365362
Except they weren't Germanic. If the Nazis had utilized slavic soldiers then the justification for the war would go out the window.
That's why the Nazis were doomed to fail. The source of their strength was their unifying national mythology, but it was also their greatest weakness.
>>365357
Oooh, the tripfag is wrong, again. The advance on Moscow halted once in August (http://worldmediarights.com/?hidAction=episode&eid=553&page=Hitler_Strikes_East)
The advance, in operation Typhoon, didn't begin again until October, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow
Which is when they got "just before Moscow", and they halted in November, didn't move much beyond that.
>>365362
You really think the Ukranians would have been that effective? More so than say, the Hungarians and Romanians, who didn't exactly cover themselves with glory during their operations on the Eastern Front?
cancel the whole barbarossa thing and finish invading england. also, send more troops for rommel, fix enigma and develop jet engines and radar jammers
>>365292
I dont fucking Call My panzerarmee Back from moscow to take Kiev. then I win
>>365537
>cancel the whole barbarossa thing and finish invading england.
With what sealift? Or escorts?
>also, send more troops for rommel,
Rommel didn't have enough supplies for the troops he had, and Tripoli was usually at maximu, unloading capacity. You don't have any railroads in that part of the world. What is Rommel going to do with more troops? Run out of fuel and ammo faster?
>fix enigma
You have to realize there's a problem, information that wasn't available to German high command.
>develop jet engines
It should be telling that both the Americans and British had jets by 1943 and declined to use them in combat, being only marginally more effective than the more advanced props, expensive to build and maintain and synthesize fuel for, and so fast that they had accuracy problems. Using the Me-262 and other jets was a desperation move.
> radar jammers
Is that even feasible with the technology available?
>>365537
>finish invading england
but how
you dont have the navy
and your airforce was beaten already once
>>365561
> then I lose.
Do you prefer "attacked from the south while trying to drive on Moscow with an unsecured flank" or "bombing raids staged out of Kiev destroy Ploesti and most of your oil"?
>>365565
>your airforce was beaten already once
Is this what the English tell themselves? Germany simply chose to fight the Russians instead of the English.
>>365584
??? are you unaware of the battle of britain, its timeframe and its outcome ???
>>365439
>offensives against Russia always end in failure
Slav detected
>>365292
I will fought a war agaisnt myself.
Positioning my troops agaisnt my own troops.
Boombing my bases.
Cutting my suply-lines.
Encircling and massacring my armies.
Assaulting my cities.
Just for the lulz.
How would the army react I wonder? And when?
the key to it was moscow, but i can't really see any way they could have taken it, the way the russians defended it and how the rivers forced them to attack it makes it almost impossible
>>365601
they did tho
>>365588
Germany was targetting the RAF, mistakenly turned their attention to bombing civilians during the Blitz, and then gave up when it turned out that Britain wouldn't just peace out. Germany instead turned their attention to operation Barbarossa.
>>365647
you are also missing the part where luftwaffe was getting BTFO off the sky, losing more pilots and airplanes than the RAF, and losing the war of attrition, while the RAF was actually growing stronger with every week of the conflict
>>365439
This sounds like a good strategy. Problem is, I think combined Soviet and Western Allied pressure would still have led to an eventual Nazi defeat. But this seems like a good way to mess up the Soviets more at least. Early in the war, the German forces were famous for their mobility. Why not continue to use that skill?
>>365647
Please go read The Most Dangerous Enemy and stop repeating bullshit.
>>365439
Now you are doing what hitler did, telling generals how to fight instead of letting them do their shit.
>>365292
what is it with all you stormkeks pretending you are hitler and trying to make his pathetic plans work?
>>365439
Unless of course, the Soviets aren't complete, blithering idiots, and sit back and wait and use their industrial advantage to build up an overwhelming force instead of attacking piecemeal where they'd get crushed.
>>365647
And say you had continued pummeling RAF bases. Say it even works, and FG 11 pulls back to the Midlands along with 12 and 9.
Now what do you do? They haven't been knocked out, they'll be back as soon as they rebuild their material, and you haven't won the war.
Invading is enormously dicey, since they'll swarm back as soon as you're spotted in the channel, and all you've really bought is a slightly better reaction time when you start bombing targets in the south.
How exactly does this "win" the battle of Britain?
>>365439
So you have lost the unprecedented, breathtaking success of the first months of real life Barbarossa which saw hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops destroyed or put out of action... and traded it for a tit-for-tat with an absolutely massive country in terms of size, a country with massive industrial and resource and manpower reserves. Haha.
>>365712
close to 4 million, actually.
>>365439
>Repeat the same process all across the border until the Red Army is reduced to ashes
im pretty sure they wherent dumb enough to fall for the same trick a thousand times over
oh would you look at that after you hade tried this little trick for the 17th time they just initiated the chase and then aborted before they where in fireing range and then they reduced your mech-inf and tank division to a smoldering crater with a creeping artillery barrage
>>365292
>operation Barbarossa
even if you could take moscow you would still have a entire continent of pissed of russkies and other commies to figth to figth gl hf!
>>365737
Continents an empty shithole for the most part.
If the take Moscow within first 6 months and destabilise leadership, they get a good peace treaty.
Otherwise slow draining death of a thousand cuts
>>365737
east russia has always been very sparsely populated. right now there are only 6 million people living in the entire east
central russia isn't that populated either
>>365747
Yeah, it's not like the leadership evacuated to Kuybuyshev or anything, or planned a pretty successful series of counterattacks from there.
Taking Moscow isn't going to "destabalize the Soviet leadership".
>>365753
It would certainly fuck up any prospect of Stalin staying in power.
Even the actual Barbarossa made his position shaky, its only the fact everyone was fucking dead and this was Josef "fucking" Stalin that didn't see knives drawn.
Also I said destabilise Moscow and Destabilise leadership, they need to do both, by fair means or foul, not just by taking Moscow
>>365292
take tanks away from the luftwaffe and put rommel in charge of the war no questions asked then let my troops take moscow instead of waiting to take stalingrad then sue fro peace and dump all the jews in palestine instead of gassing them for no reason then allow the people to elect my replacement and retire to my austrian chateau to spend the rest of my life quietly painting watercolor landscapes
>>365878
>put rommel in charge of the war
you mean the man who was a brilliant regimental and division commander but his limitations were exposed again and again the higher up the foodchain he went? the man who kept micromanaging at the lowest level despite being in charge of entire corps? the man who kept outrunning his own logistic trains, who kept running out of ammo and fuel? i do not think you would have made a successful appointment there
>>365292
>How do you change operation Barbarossa to make it a German victory.
Funnel arms and funding to Finns, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Baltics, etc. anyone who doesn't like Uncle Joe.
Tell Japan to stop being fucking stupid and not attack the US. I'll promise parts of Russia in exchange for their help in an invasion.
As revolt ensues in Russia, send forces to back rebels. Send troops to take Crimea. From there, send troops to take oil fields in Baku. Here, conquer whole of Caucasus and support Chechen, Azeri, and Armenian resistance to Soviets. hopefully Japs take oil deposits in Sakhalin.
With Soviets distracted by invasion from the East, move troops from Finland, Ukraine, and Caucasus all towards Moscow. If the capture is successful, order troops to stay and hold out till winter is over. Resupply troops with native anti-Soviet volunteers if possible.
If all goes well and Japs hit Eastern Siberia, then either invade and liberate Central Asia or push East and hopefully meet Japs in West Siberia Lowlands.
I think I have autism now...
>>366004
The Japanese have tried attacking the Soviet Union a few years before Barbarossa - and they failed miserably.
And yes, the Soviets had withdrawn some divisions westwards in the build up to the war in (their) west and early months - yet still in just the first year of the war, despite this, their strength in the eastern theatre doubled. As in despite there being no fighting in their east and them facing a serious invasion in their west, they had twice as many men in the east a year after the outbreak of the war than they had at the outbreak of the war.
>>366004
>tell a fascist government to not make bad decisions
Why don't you try telling the Sun not to rise. Fascist governments are incapable of knowing when to stop.
>>365292
Use all money to invent A-bomb and improve V2 and nuke moscow
>>365292
> your Adolfo Hitler
How did you know I had one??
>>366036
Oh well in that case I'd send troops to take Central Asia and then just wait till summer to push from Moscow and Kazakhstan towards Siberia.
Forces from Kazakstan would closely bypass West Siberia Lowland area, making it seem like they're going to reinforce the Japs. Hopefully this lures the Siberians to try to chase the troops. Then Moscow troops would push towards and Siberia while the Kazakhstan troops turn around and do the same.
The Japs wouldn't reach their so it'd have to rely on sheer numbers.
>>366039
Ehh oil in Eastern Russia might change their minds.
>>366071
You do realize that if the Japanese try to strike west from Manchuria, they pretty much have to follow the Trans-Siberian railroad, which means the Soviets know exactly where they'll be coming from, can set up a real death gig right there, and will furthermore limit the amount of troops and material you can bring to bear.
>>366075
>Germany conquers Russia
>Germany begins shipping oil across the Trans-Siberian Railway to aid Japan
>Russian guerrillas keep sabotaging the railway.
>>366004
>Tell Japan to stop being fucking stupid and not attack the US. I'll promise parts of Russia in exchange for their help in an invasion.
>implying Japan is going to listen.
They didn't even export tungsten, which was mainly provided by China before the 2nd Sino-Japanese war. This crippled the German War Machine because tungsten is a virtual material for industrial and weapon manufacturing.
>"Ironically, China had up until this time been a leading source of Tungsten (Wolfram) for Germany. When the German Military Mission left China, Japan promised to continue delivering the needed metal - deliveries were never made. In 1943, Speer commented that either Germany find an alternate source to the vital metal or give up right now."
>>366071
You need to get a historical map or an atlas out or something - real life is not a video game, you don't just move an army easily - albeit perhaps slower - at will through everywhere. You need supply and communication and railroad and roads. Acres and acres of space you talk about are absolutely unsuitable for any major advance. See >>366085
>>366085
Well I was hoping they would attack from Korea and Hokkaido while just defending Manchuria.
Once my troops hit Central Asia, Japs in Manchuria would advance and head East to cutoff central Russia from the East.
>>366100
Bruh I'm not a logistics master :(
I thought not sending whole forces to take Russia's oil fields was one of the decisions that allowed the Russians to win. So I only focused on oil...
>>366102
http://frontiers.loc.gov/intldl/mtfhtml/mfdev/trans_sib.jpg
So now you have to go up through Vladivostok, advance about 750 km to Khabarovsk, then another 2,000 or so to Chita, and then another 1,100 or so to Irkutsk, from which you can BEGIN to threaten something actually important.
And in that 4,000 or so kilometers, you have to hope that the Soviets can't stop you, or even just rip up the railroads behind them to stall your advance while you try to push through some of the most hellish terrain on the planet.
This. Will. Never. Work.
About the only thing Japan can meaningfully do to affect the war in the East is to blockade or seize Vladivostok, and try to choke off the Persian corridor, affect how much Lend Lease gets in. Relying on their capabilities on land will get you exactly nowhere.
Party like it's June 22, 1941
>>366004
>Tell Japan to stop being fucking stupid and not attack the US. I'll promise parts of Russia in exchange for their help in an invasion.
Japan does NOT want to fuck with the USSR at any point
they got their asses blown out a few years before Barbarossa by them and they decided that they wouldn't attack them unless absolutely necessary. And if they do go through with it they'd be italy tier in that fight.
>>366143
fuck Russia I won't touch them.
I'll just let my generals take over British colonial territories since the Japs were already doing this.
Fagermany was a loser thex only deleyad Stalins occupation of europe
>>366156
With what German fleet to transport to these colonies and protect your supply lines?
>>366174
I was mainly referring to their Near Eastern colonies. while Japs take their Far Eastern ones.
Send troops to take Cairo and Sinai via Italian Libya. Hopefully Vichy France and Italy can send some troops and/or too. Convince Mussolini to attempt to use the remnants of whatever navy he had to draw the Mediterranean Fleet away.
Try to get troop transport ships to land at Port Said, then march to Cairo. As troops enter, Arabs welcome them and help them oust the British (Arab nationalism). Afterwards, encourage and attempt to fund Arab revolts throughout the colonies to cause the British not to reinforce the Sinai. If this works, send troops to Sinai via ships (march if the Mediterranean Fleet comes back).
Using Napoleon's logic, cutting of the Sinai will prevent Britain from getting colonial exports.
>>365292
>make fake new policy towards Ukrainians and Baltics for independence
>really only using them as vassals to conscript 2nd rate divisions
>change goal of Barabarossa from destruction of USSR
>New goal ia destroying Soviet forces in the west and setting up staging areas west of Moscow and the Volga
>in other words, no desperate shoe string offensive to capture Moscow by the end of Dec 1941
>don't declare war on America after Japan attacks
>use the following winter to build up logistics for future offensives in Russia
>launch massive offensive in spring 42 to capture Moscow and the Caucuses
>>366260
>Send troops to take Cairo and Sinai via Italian Libya.
How. You have no railroads in Libya. Your trucks, if you're trying to support an advance nearly 1,900 km to Alexandria, are going to mostly have to be transporting fuel and parts for the trucks themselves, nevermind sustaining the rest of your advance.
> Hopefully Vichy France and Italy can send some troops and/or too.
And run out of fuel and food that much faster?
> Convince Mussolini to attempt to use the remnants of whatever navy he had to draw the Mediterranean Fleet away.
By the time Rommel got into theater, they were down to 3 pre-world war 1 battlecruisers for big gun ships, the Caio Dulio, Gulio Cesarae, and the Andrea Doria. The British can easily match that.
>Try to get troop transport ships to land at Port Said, then march to Cairo.
Do you know how hard it was to pull Overlord together? Invading across about 20 km of sea, with total air and sea superiority? You want to try to do that in Egypt, where you have neither? Without dedicated landing craft? Where you'd have to go almost 1,700 km to hit it?
>As troops enter, Arabs welcome them and help them oust the British (Arab nationalism).
No, as the troops enter, the literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers the British have hanging around Egypt because they don't have supplies to go into Libya and the cauldron (Wavell had 340,000 soldiers under his command, he could barely muster up 2 divisions to fight at Sunflower), march over and beat the crap out of your invasion force.
>Using Napoleon's logic, cutting of the Sinai will prevent Britain from getting colonial exports.
It'll stop stuff from Canada, Venezuela, Port of Spain, and the Guyanas going across the Atlantic? It'll stop stuff in West Africa from going north thorough the Atlantic there?
At most, it'll force Indian stuff to go around Africa instead of through the Med, but they shipped a lot of that stuff that way anyway.
The whole plan stinks.
>>365482
The Nazis had a great and viable justification that was better than their retarded muh lebensraum
Destroy communism
There were still thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of oppressed USSR citizens who loathed their government and wanted to be freed
All the Germans would have had to do is to invade as liberators and they could have brought the USSR down
Set up satellite states and make it so they rely heavily on Germany for industry etc
Germany could've won but not under nazi leadership
>>366431
>There were still thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of oppressed USSR citizens who loathed their government and wanted to be freed
Come on. If you believe that the Nazis invaded to help the poor oppressed Ukrainians you're a fool.
And the Nazis did try to act as the liberators. It just didn't work; despite all the horrors under Stalin, the Soviet people were joined tightly together in a war of survival.
>>366466
>implying the Ukrainians were not fools
You realize how many of them believed Hitler was going to free them? Nazis wouldn't make them vassals which was their own shortcoming.
>>366466
I'm not saying that the Nazis invaded to save the poor Ukrainians but if they actually had invaded for that reason they could maybe win
Hitler joined the Soviet people into a war of survival, the revolution was only 20 years ago and the scars of the civil war could be reopened and independence movements could be funded as well as counter revolutionaries.
And they didn't try one bit to act as liberators to the population of the USSR, they were exceedingly and stupdly cruel for one reason,
the extermination or deportation of the slavic peoples
They destroyed villages, massacred partisans and war prisoners not because they thought they'd win this way, but because they wanted them gone so the areas could be resettled by specifically bred nordics
>>365292
Have some trains set to Russian gauge for one
>>365292
for starter forget about that stupid operation, then focus all my resources on bringing the scottish to my side - once that happens all resistance will be futile since uk will crumble and london will be burning before noon
Hitler had allies all over south america. that's until the u.s navy sailed to ports and threatened to put embargos and war if latin america didn't support it. Which kinda sucks for them they had such a good location with year round growing season. Maybe the german-venezuelan connect out of the colonia could've brokered them unlimited supply of petrol.
From what im reading so far is that hitler was not well equipped. And the soviets started the european invasion and not germans. I would've invaded the soviets through the south (caucuses) during the winter and pushed my way through from the south and east. Damaging their crops with salt.
>>366560
but then again thats a moral issue.
>>365292
Don't do it.
>>366560
Even if you did persuade them to hand over oils, (IIRC they were mostly selling to the U.S. and to the UK) how the hell are you going to get it over the Atlantic? The British had enough trouble getting merchant ships through U-boats. They've got battleships and cruisers, which hit way, way harder and don't need to sneak and scurry.
> And the soviets started the european invasion and not germans.
I don't think Suvarov should be your only source of information.
> would've invaded the soviets through the south (caucuses) during the winter and pushed my way through from the south and east. Damaging their crops with salt.
Are you going to declare war on Turkey, or are you going to march through the rail-roadless Libya and spend years trying fuitelly to drive the British out of Egypt and the Middle-East?
If you do the former, what are you going to do when the Soviets drop a hundred divisions in the mountainous reaches around Ankara?
>>365292
Don't attack Yugoslavia and don't help Italy with Greece, is the only right answer.
>>366588
I think you perhaps need to look at a calendar or somesuch timekeeping device.
>>366588
>Don't attack Yugoslavia and don't help Italy with Greece, is the only right answer.
So when the British start moving bombers into Thessalonika and bombing Ploesti, do you help Italy then?
>>365482
>If the Nazis had utilized slavic soldiers then the justification for the war would go out the window.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Waffen-SS_divisions
>galizien
>handschar
>skanderbeg
>1st & 2nd latvian
>1st estonian
>kama
>hunyadi & hungaria
>weißruthenische
>>366583
You can get turkey to allow german troops in the country. They werent fans of stalin
>>365362
this
or maybe really spread out your forces as some kind of raiding deal and hope russians have as much trouble controlling their own territory as someone else.
>>366610
>>skanderbeg
>>1st & 2nd latvian
>>1st estonian
>>hunyadi & hungaria
None of those were slavic.
>>366613
They also weren't fans of Germany. Their closest friend among the great powers Pre-war was France. There's no way in hell they're allowing a massive force of German soldiers to set up shop that they can't evict later, anymore than Franco is.
>>366610
half of those arent slavs
Change the goals.
Rip a huge chunk of territory away from Stalin and make satellite states on the border.
You could still occupy large swaths of eastern Europe and get all the "living space" you'd need for a generation of population growth.
Germans did the same thing they did in 1917, they had a position of great strength from which to negotiate and instead went for broke and lost.
If they had been willing to take a modest victory they could have won.
>>365292
>How do you change operation Barbarossa to make it a German victory.
Don't do it.
>>365439
You are now aware that Germany beat Russia in World War I
>>367729
They also never went into Russia proper, sticking to what's now Poland.
>>367734
>Poland
>Not Russia
Ayy lmao
>>365362
Something like 10-20% of the whole male population of Baltics and Caucasian Muslims and a significant number (c. million) Ukrainians co-operated with Germans.
Manpower was never the issue Wehrboos think it is. It's just that German's didn't fully mobilize until 1944.
in hitler's conversation with "mannerheim" that was just released. Hitler talks about the Russians as if they are beasts, putting lots of work in building weapons most of their tax money going to weapons. And it seems to me as if hitler is accusing the soviets of invading people. which is pretty contrary to what modern people believe. Also it shows how hitler didn't technically invade but used countries between soviet russia and german as a stepping stool in order to secure funds and resources. He spoke as if many politicans in the areas wanted to serve Nazis against the Russian war plan. Finland was practically invaded by Russia and Russians didnt trust them...
>>368087
it shows Nazi Germany as a country with similar ideals to the U.S. helping people be free from the oppression of the Soviets. However in later history they [germans] were shunned as being jewish killers and extremists.
I remember having conversations with people who are close to politicians in south america. but many south american countries were making landing strips for nazi planes and shit. Behind the u.s back because the u.s was threatening everyone with embargos if they supported hitler. They just dont talk about it in history. because of the emotional scar. But it is said some of hitler's closest allies, business partners and friends were in south america.
>>365439
only problem with that is that the german summer offensives where making ground during the summer until the kursk debacle. that was good until the soviets would come back during the winter and put them back where they started.
funny thing is thats exactly the type of campaign germany couldnt win, one where things turned into a meatgrinder
>>365292
Hold off until cessation of hostilities with Britain.
>>368840
while stalin builds the soivet army even more with an expanding industrial base?
I would have attacked just after conquering France. Moscow will be the objective
I would into Jewish physics and start dropping nukes.
It's simple really. You put Alberto in charge.
>>365292
There's literally nothing to do at this point
Anyone who has studied WW2 in detail knows that Operation Barbossa was a pre-emptive strike.Stalin was planning to invade Germany controlled Europe or maybe Germany itself too
If Stalin had been allowed to launch an offensive without it would have been Fall of Berlin but worse
>>369106
The Soviets couldn't even invade Finland. If they had attacked first the Germans would have wrecked their shit. Now how things would go after round one is impossible to say and would have depended on how Hitler and Stalin decided to play their next moves.
>>369106
The recurring rule in warfare is that it is substantially easier to defend land than it is to take it. If The Soviets tried to take Germoney at the time, they would be unsuccessful as well, because they don't have muh General Winter
>>369152
That's true but you don't have extreme weather and can't keep shifting your capital deeper inside your country like Russia can
You can't defend against a country with greater manpower and industrial capabilities and can project almost all it's force upon you especially when you also have to deal with the other allied forces at your throat.
Sometimes it's easier to defend, other times it's better to go on the offense, it all depends on the scenario
>>369144
There's more to it than that when it comes to Russia/Finland conflict
>>369144
>implying it wasnt for practice
>implying theyd be using the same equipment
>implying soviets didnt win anyway
naziboos are the worst desu
>>365482
Slovakia was a Hitler's ally from day 1 you fucking retard.
>>365292
I wouldn't have invaded Poland to have a buffer state on the east. Same time handle France and Britain and wait for Stalin deciding to be the aggressor against Poland. I wonder how it would play out then.
>>368087
>that was just released
you mean the one that has been around, publicly available for like half a century
stop getting your "news" from le ddit
Oh look it's this thread again
>>369106
Whoch is why Suvarov is a joke in academic circles, amirite? For fuck's sake, Germany was the USSR's biggest trading partner.
>>365292
simply, you don't.
No matter what twist and turn you make on operation Barbarossa, the Soviets always had the edge in terms of manpower available, amount of land they could trade for time, resources at their disposal, you name it.
Germany would have been better off carving a defensive barrier on their Polish/Romanian frontier to beat back any offensive by the Soviet Union, rather than charge for thousands of kilometers as the Red Army picks you off all along the way.
Hitler would've been better off to abandon attempts to conquer soviet land entirely, and beat back Soviet advances as they came, or better, somehow make the neutrality pact into a permanent arrangement.
>>371095
Suvarov is a joke, but he's not wrong. Germany was the USSR's biggest trading partner WITH DEBTS.
What happens when the Soviets demand they 'pay debt'?
>>365350
Nope it's easy(if you could pick any moment during WW2) just make sure to destroy the Brits completely at Dunkirk and it's fucking over, spoke with an actual history professor about this(le appeal to authority)
>>371296
>just make sure to destroy the Brits completely at Dunkirk and it's fucking over
How? And why?
>spoke with an actual history professor about this(le appeal to authority)
>Mfw Normies think this is something special.
I can't get over there are people on this board who haven't talked to professors about this shit.
>>365482
>If the Nazis had utilized slavic soldiers then the justification for the war would go out the window.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about.
>>371331
Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia were all pretty much fighting in the hopes that Germany wouldn't take too much from them, and would reward them with shit taken from other slavs.
>>371323
Brits wouldn't have been able to properly wage war after such a devastating loss and hit to morale(at least not as long and not as intensely as irl), and also leave it to actual military tacticians to say how to destroy it the best way, but I believe the nazis wanted to use as few troops as possible and destroy the army via air rather than land(which would result in more casualties on the german side) so using more ground forces is a good first step I'd recon
>>371357
Germany didn't take anything from them. Croatia ceded some shit to Italy and Slovakia to Hungary though.
In fact after the clusterfuck that was the Little War between Hungary and Slovakia, Hitler personally guaranteed the integrity of Slovak borders (July 28, 1941 in Berghof).
Romania, which isn't Slavic though, was kind of fucked over in the manner you describe since they gained Moldova from the USSR but at the same time had to give up Siebenburgen to Hungary.
>>365339
Why are trips always so gay
>>371296
So you wipe out about 10 divisions. That might let the French reorganize in the time it takes to fight through the marshy terrain, but yay, you've destroyed 10 British divisions. So what?
>>371358
>Brits wouldn't have been able to properly wage war after such a devastating loss
Sure they would have. They had over 25 divisions in England itself afterward. Take 10 away and they've still got enough to defend the home islands, and will raise more like they did historically.
http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/webeasycms/hold/uploads/bmh_document_pdf/40.09_Order_of_Battle_UK.pdf
>and hit to morale(
Morale doesn't win total wars. And Churchill is pretty insulated from political consequences, since it was Chamberlain who sent the BEF to france.
> so using more ground forces is a good first step I'd recon
The problem is, that according to Rundstedt, those same ground forces were better employed in pursuing the breaking French. How much are you willing to risk in terms of letting the French pull back and reconstitute a line? They still have way, way more forces in the field than the British do, and if you let them reorganize, suddenly, you might not have the quick, easy win in Fall Rot you did historically.
>>371358
>Brits wouldn't have been able to properly wage war after such a devastating loss and hit to morale(at least not as long and not as intensely as irl)
You know what I love about WWII?
It's full of stuff that people were certain would be a devestating loss of morale that would cause the other side to stop fighting. Especially, that this would add up long term.
Britain was having a hard time going after Singapore. They might have surrendered if the war dragged on into 1946.
>>371395
>Germany didn't take anything from them. Croatia ceded some shit to Italy and Slovakia to Hungary though.
>In fact after the clusterfuck that was the Little War between Hungary and Slovakia, Hitler personally guaranteed the integrity of Slovak borders (July 28, 1941 in Berghof).
You're still describing the exact same mechanic I'm claiming.
They squabbled among themselves. Germany had the power and willingness to dictate any arrangement they fucking felt like, so the way to secure your own gains was to make the Germans happy.
As you pointed out, the Romanians got nothing but pulled apart by the Germans. They fought harder then anyone else on the Eastern Front because they had the most to gain and lose. If they could show Germany they were the most loyal, most useful ally, and not holding anything back, then surely they'd get territory back from Hungary and Bulgaria, or at least compensated out of the Ukraine.
And while Germany may have guaranteed Slovakia's territorial integrity, it also guaranteed the integrity of the Czechs, before helping the Slovaks out. And if Hungary proved more useful and valuable...
>>371437
Actually Hungary and Slovakia were more loyal than Romania where the king led a popular coup against Antonescu when war was pretty much decided and switched sides.
>>371437
>Germany had the power and willingness to dictate any arrangement they fucking felt like, so the way to secure your own gains was to make the Germans happy.
This is true. Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia and Romania were tripping over themselves trying to brown nose Hitler, but that is a different thing than "Germans taking shit from them." Hitler had no intentions to annex those countries and always had his eyes on the Polish and Soviet territories instead. Since Germany was the main power in the area, the smaller Axis nations viewed them as an arbiter of local territorial disputes and thus tried to be on possible terms with them.
>>365292
As far as I know there was nothing wrong with Barbarossa and it was in fact a success up until Stalingrad and the accompanying Russian counter offensives.
Only thing I would change is I would get troops out of North Africa, tell Mussolini to forget about it and use the Italian army to fortify Italy while standardizing all Axis weaponry, rifles, tanks, rounds, etc. I would concentrate production on the Panzer IV Ausf G and Stug having the designs tweaked based on any negative battlefield reports (widening tracks, sloping the armor, etc). Standardize fighter production across the Axis initially on the Me109 and hold a competition for something better, probably an Italian design. Fully mobilize all conquered territories and stop using slave labor because the latter fucks up supply lines, at the very least stop using slave labor for war production. Also, the sooner I get the stg. 44 into full production the better and remove myself from military command entrusting generals to do it because I know fuck all about war, only intervene when my knowledge of history tells me someone is going to fuck something up.
Maybe I'd ask Japan for some blueprints on the Zero fighter, give them tanks in return and of course don't stop funding nuclear weapon research.
>>371686
>Only thing I would change is I would get troops out of North Africa,
Just warning you, if you cede north Africa, the Brits are going to put airbases everywhere, contest the entirety of the Mediterranean with land based airplanes. That would probably make it feasible to use the Med as a shipping route far earlier than historically. Not saying it's a bad call, mind you, but you should be aware of the costs.
> Standardize fighter production across the Axis initially on the Me109
This is a bad idea; while it would increase fighter production, you generally had a shortage of pilots, not things for them to pilot. Without a corresponding increase in pilot training rates (and how you're going to do that without cutting quality is tough to figure out), you're just going to end up with a bunch of planes and nobody to fly them.
>fully mobilize all conquered territories and stop using slave labor because the latter fucks up supply lines,
I'm curious as to how you plan on doing both of these at once.
>Maybe I'd ask Japan for some blueprints on the Zero fighter,
The Zero isn't great for your strategic needs. It's maneuverable as all hell, and it has a super long range, but you don't have small scale air battles, or long hops between islands that you'd like the plane to be able to make on its own. The 109 has a higher flight ceiling and better guns, and is almost certainly superior for the kind of war you're fighting.
>don't stop funding nuclear weapon research.
Even if you lick the theoretical problems, how are you going to manufacture a bomb? Your access to uranium is sharply limited.
>>371740
>I'm curious as to how you plan on doing both of these at once.
I have no idea but it's what would happen because reasons, I'm a guy posting on 4chan not a statesman, the fuck man?
Beg tito to kill Stalin sooner.
>>371740
>t would increase fighter production, you generally had a shortage of pilots, not things for them to pilot. Without a corresponding increase in pilot training rates (and how you're going to do that without cutting quality is tough to figure out), you're just going to end up with a bunch of planes and nobody to fly them.
....You don't actually HAVE to make fighters, you know the assembly lines DO have an "off" button, right? Once you get the number you need/were ordered you just make components. The purpose of standardization within alliances isn't just to increase production but it's also to ease logistics because everyone uses the same interchangeable parts, fires the same ammo and trains on the same airframe pilots become interchangeable, ammo becomes interchangeable and parts become interchangeable, I think you're focusing on the wrong part here.
>>371740
You know what? I'm going to get the Piaggio P.108 on production too because we don't have heavy bombers and we should have heavy bombers.
also this:
>>371801
also
>I'm curious as to how you plan on doing both of these at once.
Women and the young, I see you left out the second part of that, if I used them at all I'd use them for anything other than war production.
>The Zero isn't great for your strategic needs
It would still be evaluated and maybe tweaked, like I said:
>remove myself from military command entrusting generals to do it because I know fuck all about war, only intervene when my knowledge of history tells me someone is going to fuck something up.
If someone with more experience thinks it's great it gets made, end of story.
> how are you going to manufacture a bomb?
See above, not my problem, command structure needs to figure it out I just tell them what I want. Even if the best I can make is a dirty bomb I'm golden.
>>371801
Except according to people like Gunther Rall, that's exactly what did happen after Speer decided to "Rationalize" things and standardize 109 production. You ended up with warehouses full of fighters that just did nothing.
And even if you match your production rate to airframe usage, your'e going to give up a lot of R&D qualitative advantages, in a war where they probably meant more than any other. It's astounding how quickly airplanes developed in the timeframe of WW2, and top of the line 1939 planes were pretty useless by 1942.
I am far from convinced that giving that up in order to get a logistical advantage is a good idea.
>>371833
>You know what? I'm going to get the Piaggio P.108 on production too because we don't have heavy bombers and we should have heavy bombers.
The problem is that if you switch away from CAS and towards heavy, high altitude bombing, you're trading away your biggest strength (amazing inter-arm coordination) and banking on something you're weaker to vis a vis your enemies, namely industrial output.
(At least, assuming you're diverting resources away from things like Ju087s and 88s to build the Piaggio.)
>Women and the young, I see you left out the second part of that, if I used them at all I'd use them for anything other than war production.
That's still slave labor. And if you're not going to use them for wartime production, what exactly are you going to use them for? This isn't exactly a time when your people need new dishwashers and pocketwatches.
>See above, not my problem, command structure needs to figure it out I just tell them what I want.
It kind of is your problem if you divert significant resources on research and then get told 2 years down the line that they've figured out how to make the bomb, but they don't have enough material to actually destroy your enemies with it.
>Even if the best I can make is a dirty bomb I'm golden.
Why? A weapon of mass annoyance isn't going to solve your problems. Dirty bombs don't kill all that many people, and when they do, they don't do so immediately.
>>371839
>that's exactly what did happen
...So what? Just don't order all the fighters ever just order like 500 or something. Stop looking at history, step back and look at this like a rational human being, does that HAVE to happen as a direct consequence of standardizing production or is it a consequence of someone ordering too many? If it's the latter (it is), instead of doing it just don't do it.
>And even if you match your production rate
Why does this seem like a foreign concept to you? why do you think this is some kind of black magic? Srsly, this is weird.
>your'e going to give up a lot of R&D qualitative advantages
No you're not, this also doesn't follow it's not a necessarily a byproduct of standardization you just keep developing and retooling and re-standardizing we did it during the cold war, it's cool man the world doesn't end.
>I am far from convinced that giving that up in order to get a logistical advantage is a good idea.
I thought you were trying to convince all of us, because right now you're honestly just....WOW.
>>365292
Forge an alliance with the UK by marrying virgin Elizabeth.
Have my spymaster assassinate Stalin.
Have my councillor fabricate a claim to France so my invasion is legal.
>>371856
>The problem is
doesn't matter it's not mine, did you not get that yet? I'm the head of state not the micromanager of a game.
>That's still slave labor.
Theyd get paid nigger.
>It kind of is your problem
No it isn't
>I'm the head of state not the micromanager of a game.
>A weapon of mass annoyance
it spreads radiation over a large area, that sounds fucking neato it would end all of my problems.
>>365750
And we all know how the Germans dealt with 6 million people :^)
>>371868
>Why does this seem like a foreign concept to you? why do you think this is some kind of black magic? Srsly, this is weird.
Because that's how this shit works, especially from a top-down government perspective. You don't sit at a desk and fill out some forms and direct to your various industries that "Well, based on our estimations that we'll train 10,000 pilots this year and our latest ejection rate data, we want 12,000 fighters, build them up according to this breakdown and we'll deliver the materials."
You have a chaotic situation in which information doesn't get circulated around very efficiently, where you often don't know to a T your own production statistics in a vacuum, let alone before the complications arise because of material shortages, or enemy bombing, or because your own bureaucracy fucked up again.
You set policies. Your people carry them out, more or less.They're not going to start up and then stop factories because you've hit your production quota. Those guys, especially in a sort of regime like the Nazis had with multiple competing departments, are all going to try to crank out as many planes as they can, if only for no other reason than to look better than the other factory and hope to get more official patronage.
>No you're not, this also doesn't follow it's not a necessarily a byproduct of standardization you just keep developing and retooling and re-standardizing we did it during the cold war, it's cool man the world doesn't end.
Explain how you're going to "standardize production" while at the same time not going to implement and develop improved models, especially in a short frame of time. You don't have 50 years, you've got 2-4 if you want to do this in time to make a difference.
>I thought you were trying to convince all of us, because right now you're honestly just....WOW.
I was being polite. To put it more bluntly, I am convinced this is a bloody stupid plan, and will lower the Luftwaffe's overall effectiveness.
>>366039
Chile
>>371876
>doesn't matter it's not mine, did you not get that yet? I'm the head of state not the micromanager of a game.
It is your problem. You set a policy. That policy will consequences. Those consequences are liekly to reduce your overall strength, not increase it. Just because you're not "micromanaging" doesn't mean your decisions won't have impacts.
>Theyd get paid nigger.
And if, just run with me here, the people that you conquered and occupied and subject to mass surveillance don't want to take your money?
>I'm the head of state not the micromanager of a game.
So your policy goes. Heisenberg did it, he sent you a design framework for a bomb. It's 1944. You have no uranium, certainly not in the quantities he needs. How exactly are your underlings, no matter how motivated, going to make this decision of yours into a positive?
>it spreads radiation over a large area, that sounds fucking neato it would end all of my problems.
are you trying to argue why you as Hitler would do something, or a way to win the war?
>>371907
>Because that's how this shit works
Lol, no it isn't. Governments order X number of airframes and companies deliver X number of airframes. There literally ARE forms to fill out.
>You have a chaotic situation in which information doesn't get circulated around very efficiently
So you admit it isn't a necessary byproduct of standardization but a human error caused by lack of information. Ok we're done here.
>Explain how you're going to "standardize production" while at the same time not going to implement and develop improved models
But you DO implement new models during standardization, you continue R&D on the side but when you go from prototype to production model you do it on a bigger scale. We've done this before it really isn't a problem. Navy has a standard fighter, Airforce has a few airframes you change it as necessary. Standardization doesn't mean you get one fighter for everything for everyone forever it means we all agree to use this ariframe for this role, this ariframe in this role and this other one for this other role and we'll improve them if we can and replace them if we need to. Standardization is solid concept. Not that I should be explaining any of this since this wasn't my idea.
>To put it more bluntly, I am convinced this is a bloody stupid plan
That's fine.This thread is getting deleted anyway and we have no identity so it's not like it matters.
>>369022
T.
>>371931
>It is your problem.
lolnoitisn't
>herpaderp wage slaves are still slaves
they get paid = not slaves, if they don't want the job they can not get paid and then they can have fun eating all their imaginary food
>How exactly
Not my problem
>are you trying to argue
nope!
>>371977
>standardization
Ok, let me give you a very simple, very concrete example.
Upthread, you had people saying that Germany should given Rommel more forces, swept through North Africa.
Someone like me comes along and says "Well, even if you give Rommel more forces, you can't supply them. There are no railroads, your sea connection isn't secure, your truck fleet is limited and subject to bombardment, and the distances are vast".
No amount of shouting "NOT MY PROBLEM I"M NOT MICROMANAGING HOI" is going to change that underlying strategic limitation. If you advocate for a policy that is impossible to carry out, it will fail. Such as the "build a nuke" one.
>>371957
>Lol, no it isn't. Governments order X number of airframes and companies deliver X number of airframes. There literally ARE forms to fill out.
Good governments do. The Nazi government was not a good government. You have a military with two separate, rival supreme commands in OKH and OKW, to say nothing of the paramilitary Waffen SS which often fought on the front lines. The provision as to how to dole out new Tiger tanks was "Whomever showed up at the factory and claimed them, got them"
>So you admit it isn't a necessary byproduct of standardization but a human error caused by lack of information. Ok we're done here.
I'm saying that in a chaotic environment, you will have certain predictable and not always favorable consequences to standardization, which you can neither ignore nor easily mitigate.
>>371957
>Standardization doesn't mean you get one fighter for everything for everyone forever it means we all agree to use this ariframe for this role, this ariframe in this role and this other one for this other role and we'll improve them if we can and replace them if we need to.
So, you're going to continue R&D, you're going to change over every factory at once when some new improvement to your 109 or your 190 lines comes out that's worth interrupting the normal flow.
If these advances are happening quickly, and they did historically, what difference do you have at this point? Either you do them rapidly, and have standardization in theory but not practice, or you do them slowly, and let slip a qualitative advantage that you could have had otherwise.
>>365753
Perhaps, although it might make them dump Stalin and sue for peace.
More importantly, all roads lead to Rome--or rather, most railroads lead to Moscow. Take the hub, and the hastily-relocated factories in the Urals have a really tough time moving goods and resources among them, much less projecting them to the front in any sort of organized fashion.
>>371957
>Lol, no it isn't. Governments order X number of airframes and companies deliver X number of airframes. There literally ARE forms to fill out.
That might be true now or in fairly normal countries like the US or present day Germany, but if you read about the economy and industry of Nazi Germany, you will be absolutely shocked and in disbelief at the inefficiency of it. Not of the production itself, as they had some reserves they could mobilize throughout the war, but the overall process of "planning" and "execution", and those quotes are there for a reason. You would think some central planning committee would work together with all the armed forces, project the current and future needs, and plan for the short term and long term accordingly, right? That makes sense, no? Well, scratch that. The Germans back then would do stuff like have a factory build planes. And keep building them. They would have entire warehouses of planes - that no one would use. Or armored fighting vehicles which were not earmarked for anything. They just kept getting built. Now that is not necessarily a problem for some of the more standard models like the IV or V which would be put to good use - but it starts to become a problem when instead of supplying your forces with the above models, you have a significant portion producing vehicles that just are not in such a high demand as your standard medium tanks. Really, do read about this stuff, it is fascinating and at the same time sort of incomprehensible in its zany incompetence... or rather absolute counter-intuitiveness when you realize this is supposed to be a mobilized economy with waging war as its single most important objective.
>>371432
Not sure if this was his point, but you take 10 divisions' worth of prisoners, and promise to return them and grant the Low Countries a similar deal to Denmark if England agrees to end the war.
Does Churchill still get his war to the death in the face of that loss, combined with the carrot?
>>371686
>the Zero fighter
>turn fighter
>made of paper
>no armoured crew cabin
>no self-sealing fuel tanks
Yeah, this will work out great. The Spanish Civil War definitely didn't teach us that speed and climb rate are better than turn performance, and that skilled aviators are the hardest resource to replace, right?
I'd much rather start in 1940, if not much earlier, in order to have a shot at sweeping the beaches at Dunkirk, taking mass POWs, and then having an extra year to try to lure/force Churchill to the table...
But, hey, it's 1941.
Let the attacks proceed normally. No sense in having to fight 4 million more Russians *after* they've spent '42-'43 recovering from the purges and preparing for their own potential invasion.
In my big speech announcing the "counterattack" against the Soviet menace, I level with the German people and tell them that this threat is unlike any we have ever faced, and will decide the survival of the German people as a race. Full economic mobilization, if I can manage it I replace the armaments minister with Speer rather than waiting for him to die in a plane crash first.
I re-authorize the R&D for key projects like jet interceptors, proximity fuses (just how close did they get IRL?) and other goodies--if I have full foreknowledge, I can add in things like the high-low pressure system and the revolver cannon, along with developments towards ATGMs, better glide bombs, guided torpedoes, and assault rifles, all of which will become important if I don't take Moscow by winter.
The deep operational goal is Moscow. No diversion to attack Stalin "economically" through the Ukraine and Caucuses; the southern front would be focused on advancing just to prevent a buildup and counterattack. Propaganda would be aimed at getting maximum cooperation from the "liberated" slavs; win the war first, then disarm them, *then* genocide them--if even Stalin could get that right, surely I could too.
Under absolutely no circumstances, declare war on the US. FDR sending destroyers to drop depth charges on my U-boats? I complain to the American press, and see if I can manage to tie him down domestically. Japan ignores my offer of Siberia east of the Urals and hits Pearl Harbor? They're on their own.
It's still a huge gamble, despite everything.
1) either wait until next spring or tell Mussolini he's on his own against Greece
2) give my troops winter gear
3) treat the locals well, accept volunteers from conquered Soviet satellite states
4) ignore Britain, and deploy most of my air units in the East
5) don't divide my army in two. focus on taking Moscow and driving the Russians behind the Urals. Leverage any and all diplomatic leverage I have to get the Japanese to invade from the East.
>>372018
kiddos don't understand logistics
literally the most important aspect of warfare, but no one cares
>>365292
>force turkey to be your ally, award them with some islands of greece and in future, cyprus
>use turkey as a military base to divide soviet numbers
>try to hold industry in soviet sattelites and just defend those areas instead of an offensive which would fuck german horses real bad
>focus on england
>you have been trying to get england on your side since the beginning of the war. now if you win in england, your puppet government would have a relatively easy job to do
>try to get ireland on your side if possible, give them northern ireland
>hope soviets fuck themselves up while defending and going full tech
>try to find allies in soviets and england to divide them. promise them whole fucking island if you need to
>gott mit uns
>>372745
>if you win in england
if
>>372757
england is shit. only reason england defended itself was because of american support. england paid it's last debts of ww2 war in 2002 or 2004. kek. can you believe it? it took england a century to pay the debts.
>>372772
>American support
>In the summer and autumn of 1940.
Go back to bed Hans, you're drunk.
>>372772
>less than 60 years is a century
all in on Moscow, or the Ural oil fields, no splitting your forces bullshit
at this point, Germany was actually very vulnerable and the counteroffensive was imminent, so I probably would have Hail Mary'd and sent every fucker I had to Moscow instead of holing up in Stalingrad and sacrificing the entire 6th Army
we take Moscow we might be able to trick Stalin into accepting a treaty, consolidate some land and try to integrate the locals in Poland/Ukraine more into my regime instead of alienating them
>>365292
Cancel it and wait for the Red Army to attack.
>>372805
Germany's strength was not defensive
>>372772
>american support
>battle of britain
>reason england defended itself
>2004
>century
Hitler always kind of knew that Russia has too much manpower and industrial capacity to be fucked with, he only counted on the fact that Russia was ruled by a shitty makeshift Jewish government that forces people to fight against their will and the whole shit will socially crumble after they see the German military might. "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." is his direct quote.
The thing is, the USSR didn't back down and losing the war was inevitable from Moscow onwards.
>>366540
How
>>366540
t. Seamus McAdoo
>>372881
don't care how isn't this supposed to be a "what if..." thread?
>>372887
close, but portuguese... but i wouldn't be unhappy to have been born among such noble, honorable and courageous people as the scottish (fuck their mountains and weather though)
