Could they have ever won?
>>457799
Maybe if Italy never invaded Greece and then had to call Germany to intervene
>>457799
>double quads
If the French/Poles were not an obstacle, but an ally, and the British at least economically helped them out.
Yes.
Unfortunately, faggots are the victors of recent history.
From the little I understand, the German military didn't put enough importance on supply lines and logistics.
Even if they had...that's a lot of land.
>>457799
Probably not
>>457822
>dubs again
t. Western Allies
>>457812
>Unfortunately, faggots are the victors of recent history.
faggots lose.
>>457799
About the only way I can think of that they could win is if they had some kind of agreement with Turkey, and started the war with troops and supplies lined up at that border, which could give them a shot at the Caucasus oil when the Soviets were in total disarray during those first few weeks.
But
A) I can't really think of any way to get Turkey to let Germany move hundreds of thousands of soldiers in with no real means of making them leave later
B) this elevates you to could-win, not would-win. You'd probably need to have the Japanese interdict Vladivostok too, come to think of it.
>>457809
>Prussiaboos still believe this
>>457799
The General Staff's original plan was to have two thrusts directly to St. Petersburg and Moscow ignoring Ukraine. If they had concentrated their forces better like that they would have had a very good chance of getting a quick victory. If Leningrad and Moscow were taken or neutralized, the government train network is gone, the government is gone, USSR would have collapsed
>>457799
love these type of threads
>if only germans had giant robots
>if only all russians had AIDS
>if only russians didnt have any tanks
>if only germans had a population of china
who cares
>>457799
The basic mustake is wanting and going for Moskou.
>land war
>asia
>1941
>ishygddt
>>457812
>If the French/Poles were not an obstacle, but an ally
no
not at all
the invasion of Poland and France was entirely necessary, without French industry the invasion of Russia would have been impossible, and in Barbarossa even if the Germans had captured Moscow the fight would have been unending as Russian industry was sufficiently spread out around the country, past the Urals.
any chance of German victory was crushed in North Africa as their drive to the Middle Easter oil fields was stopped in its tracks, without that the was was just a slow drain on their supplies.
>>457982
Because ignoring the fuckhuge Ukraine, giving the enemy a massive refuge and room for defensive indepth manouvering and instead solely concentrating on the opponents capital worked pretty well for Napoleon, right?
>>458081
> I am an idiot: the post
Back in 1940, Venezuela produced more oil than Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia combined. Seizing the Middle East would not have solved Hitler's petrol problem.
>>458118
>>Seizing the Middle East would not have solved Hitler's petrol problem.
>Seizing petrol supplies would not have solved Germany's petrol issues
woah
>>458114
two totally different eras. the ussr's government depended on moscow and leningrad. without the government there is no resistance, cossacks dont work anymore if you have armor and machine guns
>>458081
>France
>Industry
>>458133
>le memes
>le grinch man
>>458129
There wasn't enough oil drilled in the Middle East back then to be worth the cost to ship it, mostly by road, to the front in Russia, never mind the costs involved in seizing it from the British.
Just because there's a lot of oil production there now doesn't mean there was diring WW2, and somehow I doubt the Allies will give you a decade or so to survey and drill enough to make a difference.
>>458139
>There wasn't enough oil drilled in the Middle East back then to be worth the cost to ship it
are you serious? there was more than enough oil for it to be worthwhile, and combined with the fact that it would have opened up a southern front by which to invade Russia the whole war could have been very different.
beyond that controlling the Suez canal would have completely fucked over Britain and opened up the entire East for Germany.
>>458146
I am quite serious: persia produced 7.4 million barrels in 1937, which was less than Germany itself. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/oil_iran_between_world_wars.php
Iraq has less than they did, and the Saydis less than Iraq. There just wasn't a lot of production in the ww2 timeframe.
>beyond that controlling the Suez canal would have completely fucked over Britain and opened up the entire East for Germany.
Well, I was only focusing on how the economic output wasn't the bounty you were suggesting. I was going to ignore the patent logistical impossibility of such a feat, but if you really want to go into the subject, I recommend this as preliminary reading
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
>>457812
>implying that Nazis aren't even worse than commies
At least when comrade Stalin has me shot by the NKVD, it's because I'm a political threat. Hitler would just have me shot to satisfy some flawed 3edgy5me racial philosophy.
>>458172
I wonder why Nazi Germany didnt ask Spain for petrol resources. They have petrol camps in Burgos and Tarragona. Are of low quality but maybe it would be enough for the fourties
Barbarossa was the second time Guderian was told to act against his own ideas. Both instances fucked the Nazis hard.
I hate Hitler sometimes.
The soviets had about twice as much oil and would have easily won no matter what. Even if Hitler refused to invade, the ussr would have rolled through the defenseless eastern european countries anyway.
>>457799
They could and did.
Good old Soviet Union.
>>458220
>implying commies arnt worse than Nazis
Faggot
>>458860
Hitler was more of a christ figure than any other character from history that I can think of.
Who else would grab a whip and clean the jews out.
yes but they didnt and thats why they lost
>>458066
>land war in asia yam yam
"Top lel." - Genghis Khan.
>>459186
Himmler. And Heydrich. And Eicke. And maybe Hoess.
>>459290
Himmler was a faggot.
>>457799
they would have if Stalin wasn't such a hard ass.
I read a piece that if Chamberlain never appeased the Germans and the U.K. was dragged into war, something more likely if Churchill was in power at the time, then the Germans would have easily crushed the UK and taken their oil fields from their empire, making Russian invasion much easier and less necessary.
>>458220
Actually Stalin would have also had you shot for being Jewish
Maybe if they were more prepared for the winter and had a few more thousand off road trucks.
They were at times close enough to Moscow to see the onion domes on the Kremlin.
>>459782
Only if you were one of the 'Western-Zionist collaborators' he began getting paranoid about from 1949 until his death.
Other than that, Stalin appeased them and was the second leader to recognize the state of Israel.
>>459782
You are wrong. For example famous Yuri Levitan was a jew and was at high place in a social construct of USSR.
>>457799
Yes. End the war in the West, or, less likely, convince some of the Western Powers to aid in the attack on the USSR
>>458130
>the ussr's government depended on moscow and leningrad
is that why neither of those housed the government, which was evacuated eastwards before the germans came?
>>457799
maybe if they didnt fucking invade in winter
learn from napoleon
>>460751
they didnt
>>460418
The majority of the Russian population lived in and around Moscow and Leningrad.
Moscow as the rail hub of Russia, cutting this would cause immense logistical and transport issues, enough to bring Stalin to the negotiating table.
>>460842
>The majority of the Russian population lived in and around Moscow and Leningrad.
99 million people did not live "in and around Moscow and Leningrad" in 1941
>Moscow as the rail hub of Russia, cutting this would cause immense logistical and transport issues, enough to bring Stalin to the negotiating table.
if losing vast numbers of men and huge tracts of land - industrially and economically important land - didn't bring them to the negotiating table, why would the loss of two cities?
cities which presumably would be rather hard to lose, as evidenced by urban combat throughout ww2, combat such as in stalingrad
>>457799
This thread again. Barbarossa was doomed to fail because Hitler was a real shitty strategist.
Unlike Stalin, good old Adolf liked to tell his generals every detail of his grand Vision.
When Stalingrad was lost, Hitler hid himself for several days in his alpine residence.
While away, his generals managed to halt Any more soviet offensives and prepared to bait the red army in encirclements.
So yeah, Barbarossa was never going to work.
Hitler never prepared hus economy for a longer war and wasted precious resources on stupid shit like the gustav gun.
>>457799
t. Alberto Barbarossa
>its a hitler would have won if x thread
>>460861
Well, the plan was to surround moscow, bombard it and turn it into a lake.
Loosing those population centers to investment would mean a great reduction of conscipts, meaning the Red army would not be the same size for 1942/3.
