Would Germany have won the war if Hitler did not invade Rus

[Great Nepal]

Isles doesn't need to invaded. Britain isn't some kind of supernation that will continue to fight a war that it has quite clearly lost and list of losses are increasing every day. Even if Churchill wanted it, the public and the parliament wouldn't allow it. Seizing their colonies would have essentially forced UK to make a deal, even if it is due to lack of oil. Not a complete German victory, but victory non the less.

Germany was even less able to seize the colonies that it was able to invade the Isles.

No, main problem with invading Isles is the navy. Most of the British colonies were in Africa/ India (most certainly taking those colonies would have forced a deal), invading both of which from Europe doesn't require a navy. 3.8 million men on African Theatre would have decisively swayed the balance in favour of the Axis and after that its just a domino effect.

[Mefpan]

If you want to begin another useless round of U.S. bashing debate the U.S.'s military prowess, make another thread for that.
Germany may indeed have invaded Britain. As in, "managed to land a few soldiers traumatized into ineffectiveness by constant fire from coastal guns, naval guns and aerial bombardment on the English coast" where they would probably have been ground up or at least captured soon enough.

Isles doesn't need to invaded. Britain isn't some kind of supernation that will continue to fight a war that it has quite clearly lost and list of losses are increasing every day. Even if Churchill wanted it, the public and the parliament wouldn't allow it. Seizing their colonies would have essentially forced UK to make a deal, even if it is due to lack of oil. Not a complete German victory, but victory non the less.

Take up a map of the British Empire. Say, this one, despite the fact that it's just a few years too old and shows Ireland as part of Britain. Britain was all over the map. Occupying all those specks of dirt is about as realistic as landing on the British shoreline.

That particular argument is pointless, really. Germany couldn't have reached the colonies that mattered to Britain - and all those that mattered and could be reached by Japan tended to be extremely hard to crack.

3.8 Million men in Africa - I'll get back to you once you've managed to organize the supply trains necessary to stop them all from starving due to insufficient supply lines. That's a logistical impossibility given the infrastructure situation in Africa at that time. Russia wasn't half as bad as Africa in terms of infrastructure and the Wehrmacht still had supply problems of a colossal magnitude.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Hitler was a dipshit to stop trying to invade Britain. The English were on their last few hundred planes, and the Battle of Britain could have resulted in a Nazi victory if they kept pushing. But they didn't, and instead tried to invade the largest country on Earth in the middle of winter.

/logic

[Lamoni]

Hitler was a dipshit to stop trying to invade Britain. The English were on their last few hundred planes, and the Battle of Britain could have resulted in a Nazi victory if they kept pushing. But they didn't, and instead tried to invade the largest country on Earth in the middle of winter.

/logic

The Royal Navy would like a word with you.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Germany was even less able to seize the colonies that it was able to invade the Isles.

No, main problem with invading Isles is the navy. Most of the British colonies were in Africa

They tried that. It didn't work.

India

...And how exactly is the Wehrmacht realistically going to get to Delhi?

(most certainly taking those colonies would have forced a deal), invading both of which from Europe doesn't require a navy.

...Wat.
That'll require a metric fuckload of walking, then. They sure as hell shipped troops to Libya, anyway.
Seriously, you're suggesting they march to India? From Germany, through the Balkans, through Turkey, through Iraq, through Iran, through Pakistan, and then they'll be primed and ready to fight once they hit the border? Shit, half of them will probably have deserted by then. That's like the definition of an impossible supply line. Even Alexander couldn't do that, and he started from Greece.

3.8 million men on African Theatre would have decisively swayed the balance in favour of the Axis and after that its just a domino effect.

Sorry to be blunt:
There is no fucking way in hell you could march 3.8 million men to India (or Africa) overland. It would have simply torn the heart out of Germany's entire supply chain, to say nothing of it being diplomatically impossible unless you think that they're just going to invade every country along the way. It would have ruined their whole army.
Shit, most German tanks and trucks couldn't drive more than 100 miles without breaking down somehow.

I still don't think a German invasion would have forced a deal either. To say nothing of the fact that with 3,800,000 troops mired hopelessly somewhere between Berlin and Bangladesh, the German homeland's going to be pretty easy pickings for the Brits and for any resistance movement with the balls to go for it.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Hitler was a dipshit to stop trying to invade Britain. The English were on their last few hundred planes,

So were the Germans.
the British were killing German planes at an even more unsustainable rate than the reverse.

and the Battle of Britain could have resulted in a Nazi victory if they kept pushing.

Nope. The Luftwaffe was compromised from the start. Their tactics sucked, the Battle of Britain was exactly the kind of war that their planes were built to NOT fight, and their commanders had no fucking idea what they were doing or if it was effective or not.

But they didn't, and instead tried to invade the largest country on Earth in the middle of winter.

/logic

They stopped for a reason.
It wasn't working. They couldn't sustain losses like they were getting.
Also they invaded in summer, not winter, as the poster below me said - if they had invaded in winter, maybe it would've turned out better...?

[Mefpan]

Hitler was a dipshit to stop trying to invade Britain. The English were on their last few hundred planes, and the Battle of Britain could have resulted in a Nazi victory if they kept pushing. But they didn't, and instead tried to invade the largest country on Earth in the middle of winter.

/logic

Except that Germany was also on its last legs in terms of air forces and there was no way to deal with the Royal Navy except for air forces. Plus, Britain could replace both pilots and planes much more easily (given that Britain was fighting over its own ground, they could rescue shot-down pilots if they survived - and planes could be manufactured more easily because, indeed, Germany had to put a large amount of industrial capacity into building a land force that didn't curl up and die the moment it stepped into the Soviet Union (which it didn't - it lasted a couple of years before curling up and dying).

And, for god's sake, please. The invasion of Russia did not begin in the middle of winter. It's referred to "late summer". Dear god, learn your bloody history. 22nd of June 1941. That is not winter. Damn it.

[Glasgia]

If Hitler didn't implement Barbarossa, the USSR would've invaded Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an uneasy truce, penned up to allow expansion from both without worrying about attack from the other. Russian expansion had halted and the pact was no longer of use to them - sooner or later, Stalin would've felt the need to secure Eastern Europe and to do so meant attacking the Third Reich.

As for a successful invasion of Britain, assuming the unlikely possibility that there is peace on the Soviet-German border, they had already tried and failed. Without aerial or naval superiority, the former lost in the Battle of Britain and the latter never existing, any attempt of airborne or seaborne invasion would've resulted in slaughter. The British military was more than capable of defending its own coastline and, with America's entry into the war unrelated to Barbarossa, US reinforcements would ensure no chance of victory for a German invasion.

[Scholencia]

no

see also: how invading britain was never a serious proposition, how they lost the battle of britain a year before barbossa, the nazi economy in general being unsustainable, etc.

You are wrong. Radars saved Britain from.invasion. It was an invention that nobody had at that time.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

no

see also: how invading britain was never a serious proposition, how they lost the battle of britain a year before barbossa, the nazi economy in general being unsustainable, etc.

You are wrong. Radars saved Britain from.invasion. It was an invention that nobody had at that time.

By the start of the war, the US, France, the USSR, and Germany (at least) all had also developed radar.
The British just made best use of it.
Also, "no"? Did...you read what he posted?

[Scholencia]

You are wrong. Radars saved Britain from.invasion. It was an invention that nobody had at that time.

By the start of the war, the US, France, the USSR, and Germany (at least) all had also developed radar.
The British just made best use of it.
Also, "no"? Did...you read what he posted?

I thought it was known facts. The Germans did not had radar or at least they were tring to develop it. The British had them and they saved them.

No, I did not.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

By the start of the war, the US, France, the USSR, and Germany (at least) all had also developed radar.
The British just made best use of it.
Also, "no"? Did...you read what he posted?

I thought it was known facts. The Germans did not had radar or at least they were tring to develop it. The British had them and they saved them.

...Not according to history. All those other countries had radar too; the British were just the ones who integrated it into their air-defense systems in the most effective way, and got the most use out of it. The Germans definitely had radar as well at that point, it just wasn't used as much because the bombing of Germany wasn't nearly as intense then.

No, I did not.

Well, then...

[New Socialist South Africa]

Hitler would definitely have had a better chance of winning the war if he hadn't invaded Russia. If he had just bided his time and sent more troops to win North Africa, build up the defences on his borders and hunt down the resistance movements within France, Poland and the rest, he would have been better prepared for the eventual war with the USA (caused by his ally Japan attacking Pearl Harbour). If Hitler had consolidated his power, fought off any assaults to his territory, secured North Africa and stormed Malta (I think it was Malta that held out against him) and then slowly have advanced and taken over the mineral rich and relatively undefended colonies of Africa he would eventually be able to build up an airforce and navy powerful enough to get his army onto British soil and take the Country. Hitler and Stalin had worked together on their invasion of Poland. Russia was just too big to conquer before winter arrived and wrecked Hitler"s massive advance. Like Napolean before him, Hitler thought his army was powerful enough to fight Britain and Russia at the same time. And like Napolean before him he paid for his arrogance. If Hitler had been patient and less arrogant (not invading Russia then or at all) and been able to thwart any US invasion attempts (which would be easier with the so much of his army not engaged in Russia), Europe would probably be under Nazi rule today.

[Alahana]

If he focussed on Great britain, and not on Great britain and Russia then I think yes, he could without the interference of the US

[Kronstad]

Probably not; best case scenario for Hitler would have been (assuming he still decided to start a war) to stalemate Europe, defend its border with Russia, not attack England and not declare war on the US, in which case it could have staled it until some sort of a non-aggression treaty would have been signed between Nazi Germany, England and Russia. Still, there's the Suvorov theory and given that Russia increased spending on defence since its second Five Year Plan, it might have decided to attack Germany anyway. All in all, there probably isn't any chance for Germany to have won in the usual sense of winning.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Hitler should have gone for Switzerland instead.

[Kronstad]

Hitler should have gone for Switzerland instead.

Switzerland was the world's bank; attacking it would have resulted in many countries declaring war on Hitler and he would have been crushed.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Wow, where to begin.

Hitler would definitely have had a better chance of winning the war if he hadn't invaded Russia.

Again - this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The entire Nazi worldview depended on wiping out Bolshevism. That was the whole point.

If he had just bided his time and sent more troops to win North Africa,

Which would have entailed sending troop convoys straight into the Mediterranean to be picked off by the Med Fleet and the RAF.

build up the defences on his borders

...Why would that be necessary, in this plan?

and hunt down the resistance movements within France, Poland and the rest,

Vietnam proves how well this would've worked.

he would have been better prepared for the eventual war with the USA (caused by his ally Japan attacking Pearl Harbour). If Hitler had consolidated his power, fought off any assaults to his territory, secured North Africa and stormed Malta (I think it was Malta that held out against him) and then slowly have advanced and taken over the mineral rich and relatively undefended colonies of Africa he would eventually be able to build up an airforce and navy powerful enough to get his army onto British soil and take the Country.

Hitler sitting on his hands "consolidating" was not an option. You build up a military that big and that centrally focused in society, you do not sit around to "consolidate" - you've got to use it constantly, otherwise you are wasting a shitload of resources and making a lot of people very, very antsy. To say nothing of the economic strain. PUtting reinforcements into Africa wasn't necessarily a bad idea onto itself, but keep in mind, those troops are vulnerable the whole way across the Med. Convoys were notoriously difficult for the Germans and Italians to secure during the course of the war due to Brit naval superiority.

And building up an airforce was a bit beside the point when the Luftwaffe was such a command nightmare. The leading Richsmarshall's a morphine junkie, the Inspector of the Luftwaffe hates his job and was put there just to absorb complaints (that's Udet), the current designs the Luftwaffe had in 1940 were aging fast and almost all of the new designs turned out to be massive flops...

And this isn't Hearts of iron - building a strong navy takes decades. Especially considering that this is the Med, meaning Germany would have to build the fleet at home, run it all the way past Britain, enter Gibraltar, and then start operating. Not a good idea.

Hitler and Stalin had worked together on their invasion of Poland.

Not really. They basically just said "Let's both agree to drive to the Bug River and not go beyond it or shoot each other when we get there. Cool? Cool."

Russia was just too big to conquer before winter arrived and wrecked Hitler"s massive advance. Like

Napolean before him, Hitler thought his army was powerful enough to fight Britain and Russia at the same time. And like Napolean before him he paid for his arrogance. If Hitler had been patient and less arrogant (not invading Russia then or at all) and been able to thwart any US invasion attempts (which would be easier with the so much of his army not engaged in Russia), Europe would probably be under Nazi rule today.

As to the last point: Nope. In all probability, Nazi Germany would have collapsed under the weight of its inevitable economic failure (seriously, read up on the German economy, it's the most fucked-up thing) or fallen apart into warring fiefdoms within ten years (or whenever Hitler died).

[New Socialist South Africa]

Hitler should have gone for Switzerland instead.

That's a fair point actually. He would have been able to conquer it with relative ease, and the nation was full of international and local banks even then.

[Kingdom of Israel]

No. The reason why they invaded Russia is that they lacked resourced to fight Britain.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Hitler should have gone for Switzerland instead.

That's a fair point actually. He would have been able to conquer it with relative ease, and the nation was full of international and local banks even then.

They actually planned that.
Switzerland, for its size, was at the time one of the most fortified countries in the world, with a powerful and professional military and an extremely well-armed populace, to say nothing of the fact that it has by far the most defensible terrain in Europe. They'd never have been able to hold the land outside the cities.
It's also worth noting that at the end of the war, when the Germans planned to start building a National Redoubt in the Alps, staffed by diehard SS soldiers and so well-fortified that the Allies could never conquer it, they were basically copying a Swiss series of fortresses (and an overall defensive strategy) that had already been built and were already in use.

[Scholencia]

I thought it was known facts. The Germans did not had radar or at least they were tring to develop it. The British had them and they saved them.

...Not according to history. All those other countries had radar too; the British were just the ones who integrated it into their air-defense systems in the most as well at that point, it just wasn't used as much because the bombing of Germany wasn't nearly as intense then.

No, I did not.

Well, then...

Please provide some evidence. Even, if that is true that does not change the fact that Britain was saved with the help of radars.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

...Not according to history. All those other countries had radar too; the British were just the ones who integrated it into their air-defense systems in the most as well at that point, it just wasn't used as much because the bombing of Germany wasn't nearly as intense then.

Well, then...

Please provide some evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#History
I guess you'll just have to trust that I didn't edit anything there.

Even, if that is true that does not change the fact that Britain was saved with the help of radars.

Of course, but it was hardly the sole factor.

[Ganos Lao]

Hitler should have gone for Switzerland instead.

That's a fair point actually. He would have been able to conquer it with relative ease, and the nation was full of international and local banks even then.

The Swiss were Germany's back door to to international trade and international banking, a neutral state where negotiations could take place with the Allies and international organisations and a safehaven where they could hide their loot from the conquered territories. Why would they want to ruin that?

It is interesting to note, also, that the Swiss population was told that, in the event of a German invasion, any announcement of a Swiss surrender was to be considered enemy propaganda and ignored. That gives you an idea of how determined they were to resist to the end.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Wow, where to begin.

Hitler would definitely have had a better chance of winning the war if he hadn't invaded Russia.

Again - this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The entire Nazi worldview depended on wiping out Bolshevism. That was the whole point.

If he had just bided his time and sent more troops to win North Africa,

Which would have entailed sending troop convoys straight into the Mediterranean to be picked off by the Med Fleet and the RAF.

build up the defences on his borders

...Why would that be necessary, in this plan?

and hunt down the resistance movements within France, Poland and the rest,

Vietnam proves how well this would've worked.

he would have been better prepared for the eventual war with the USA (caused by his ally Japan attacking Pearl Harbour). If Hitler had consolidated his power, fought off any assaults to his territory, secured North Africa and stormed Malta (I think it was Malta that held out against him) and then slowly have advanced and taken over the mineral rich and relatively undefended colonies of Africa he would eventually be able to build up an airforce and navy powerful enough to get his army onto British soil and take the Country.

Hitler sitting on his hands "consolidating" was not an option. You build up a military that big and that centrally focused in society, you do not sit around to "consolidate" - you've got to use it constantly, otherwise you are wasting a shitload of resources and making a lot of people very, very antsy. To say nothing of the economic strain. PUtting reinforcements into Africa wasn't necessarily a bad idea onto itself, but keep in mind, those troops are vulnerable the whole way across the Med. Convoys were notoriously difficult for the Germans and Italians to secure during the course of the war due to Brit naval superiority.

And building up an airforce was a bit beside the point when the Luftwaffe was such a command nightmare. The leading Richsmarshall's a morphine junkie, the Inspector of the Luftwaffe hates his job and was put there just to absorb complaints (that's Udet), the current designs the Luftwaffe had in 1940 were aging fast and almost all of the new designs turned out to be massive flops...

And this isn't Hearts of iron - building a strong navy takes decades. Especially considering that this is the Med, meaning Germany would have to build the fleet at home, run it all the way past Britain, enter Gibraltar, and then start operating. Not a good idea.

Hitler and Stalin had worked together on their invasion of Poland.

Not really. They basically just said "Let's both agree to drive to the Bug River and not go beyond it or shoot each other when we get there. Cool? Cool."

Russia was just too big to conquer before winter arrived and wrecked Hitler"s massive advance. Like

Napolean before him, Hitler thought his army was powerful enough to fight Britain and Russia at the same time. And like Napolean before him he paid for his arrogance. If Hitler had been patient and less arrogant (not invading Russia then or at all) and been able to thwart any US invasion attempts (which would be easier with the so much of his army not engaged in Russia), Europe would probably be under Nazi rule today.

As to the last point: Nope. In all probability, Nazi Germany would have collapsed under the weight of its inevitable economic failure (seriously, read up on the German economy, it's the most fucked-up thing) or fallen apart into warring fiefdoms within ten years (or whenever Hitler died).

Good argument, but I have some issues with it:

• 1) It was Nazi rhetoric to wipe out Bolshevism, a practical leader (which Hitler fortunately wasn't) would have waited longer to try deal with them.
• 2) If the Mediterranean fleet and RAF caused so many problems with getting troops into Africa, how did Rommel and his army get in? Also if Hitler had focused his military spending on Africa instead of Russia the Mediterranean fleet and RAF would have been less of a threat.
• 3) If Hitler had put more work into his "Atlantic Wall" (or even fully completed it) D Day would have gone a lot worse for the allies.
• 4) Vietnam has much more overgrown and. inaccessible areas than France, Poland, etc. Also I meant more the resistance in the towns than the forests and mountains.
• 5) Point on he couldn't consolidate is good. It would be better if he tried end the war in North Africa and then try seize Africa's natural resources.
• 6) True, Stalin and Hitler only worked together in Poland out of practicality. But then again Stalin never really came rushing to the aid of his "allies" France and Britain until after the USSR was invaded.
• 7) Stealing the natural resources of Africa might delay or even stabilise his economy a little. True the odds were stacked against Nazi Germany (thank goodness) but with a more intelligent and patient plan. they would have lasted longer. And maybe even still be in power today.