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

[Libertarian California]

The nuclear bomb would probably have gone off over Berlin.

[Paketo]

The nuclear bomb would probably have gone off over Berlin.

that was what the B-29 was made for

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I think that couping Hitler and replacing him with a direct SS cabal would not have appreciably changed the major course of the war. It might have lengthened it a while, but the conclusion would be the same.

Oh, I have no doubt that Germany's fate was sealed in the end. I was merely wanting to explore what would happen if say, Heydrich or Muller or even Eichmann (or Goering, of course) ended up taking over, either through a coup or one of the many assassination attempts actually succeeding.

Yeah, the SS guys would likely have tried negotiating with the Western Allies a bit more, and maybe would have even tried to make it public, which would have been a bit of a PR problem for Roosevelt amongst the people who just wanted the war over - but that still wouldnt't have worked. The Germans vastly overexaggerated the possibility of a West-Soviet wartime split. There was very little chance of that ever happening, especially not at the prompting of the ideological golden boys of the original aggressive regime.
I also can't imagine some of the stupider things, like the Luttich Counteroffensive or the Battle of the Bulge happening, which means the Germans would have saved a great deal more of their capacity for defensive capabilities. Hence, the war lasting longer.

Goering would have just have kept floating around on his little morphine cloud, I would think, until he was kicked out or assassinated.

they would sail it around the peninsula to the suez

With what ships? The Germans barely had a commerce fleet at this point in the war, much less one capable of operating in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean areas (which was pretty thick with Brit ships anyway).

would be the only plausible scenario

but that would take Rommel getting to suez canal first

See above objections.

[The Corparation]

Why, in the idea of a coup for Nazi Germany, does everyone seem to always put forth Rommel? Hardly the most dangerous Nazi to put in charge. What if, instead, a man like Himmler, of Heydrich, or Muller took power?

People usually put focus on Rommel, because most of the attempts to remove Hitler from power wanted Hitler replaced with a more moderate. Rommel was immensely popular, a political moderate and an excellent leader. Out of any choices they had Rommel was easily the mos prominent and the one they'd most realistically be able to get into power.. In terms of replacing Hitler with a Moderate. HAd succeeded in killing Hitler, but not installing Rommel, the war probably wouldn't have turned out much different. Rommel would have ended the war sooner, but the more extreme leadership would have fought to the end as Hitler did.

[Trotskylvania]

He doesn't have a choice to not invade the Soviet Union.

First and most obvious: both sides entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in bad faith. Neither had any intention of holding to the non-aggression pact forever. Hitler just broke it first. It was better than going to war with the Soviets over Poland itself, but the two years it bought the Soviets ultimately paid off more for them than for Hitler.

If Hitler didn't invade when he did, he'd rapidly lose the opportunity to. The Soviets were modernizing their forces, and intensifying industrial production. For the eventual goal of invading the Nazi sphere of influence. He'll have a free hand until 1943 at the latest. Then a modernized Soviet Army, having learned from fighting the Finns and the Baltic states, as well as watching the Nazis fight their enemies, will roll through central Europe, and there will be nothing the Nazis can do to stop them.

Second, Hitler cannot prevent American involvement or Lend-Lease. And that's crucial, because America is the unstoppable industrial juggernaught. America produced more war materiel than all of the other belligerents in WW2 combined. Roosevelt was going to get America involved by hook or crook, and even if the massive industrial production isn't enough, then there's the atomic bomb. It's a weapon that no one can counter, and it will likely be delivered by the B-36, a bomber that flew too high and fast for any Nazi fighter to intercept, and could perform bombing raids on Germany from the continental US.

So even if by some miracle the Nazis beat the British Home Fleet, one of the best in the world, and invade Britain, Hitler still dies in atomic fire.

[Indira]

No. Russia aside, he would still have to beat the RN and the RAF to REACH Britain.

[Katyuscha]

No, they were destined to get their Nazi asses handed to them, eventually.

[Churchilland]

He created a double front, one with Britain and one with the USSR, which was one of his reasons of failure, the advanced technology Britain possessed in the field of spycraft and detection combined with the vast expanse and armies of the Soviets... Britain would've been crushed easily if he put his mind to it, but Hitler wanted a British-German alliance, and he never expected war with the British, and some say that was the reason for Dunkirk, to try and get the British to change their minds, by putting on a facade of mercy, whereas he had always set out to conquer Russia

[The Tiger Kingdom]

He created a double front, one with Britain and one with the USSR, which was one of his reasons of failure, the advanced technology Britain possessed in the field of spycraft and detection combined with the vast expanse and armies of the Soviets... Britain would've been crushed easily if he put his mind to it,

How exactly do you figure?

but Hitler wanted a British-German alliance,

I don't think he could've cared less about an alliance - he just wanted Britain out of the way. An alliance would've been more trouble than it was worth.

and he never expected war with the British, and some say that was the reason for Dunkirk, to try and get the British to change their minds, by putting on a facade of mercy,

He sure was cutting it pretty goddamn close if you're suggesting Dunkirk was a deliberate German failure. Nobody told anybody to go easy on the BEF, aside from the "stop order" that's either mainly down to Goering or the belief that the British were beaten anyway and that the pursuing German forces should've saved their effort for the fight in Central France.
Dunkirk was a fatally shortsighted German mis-assessment of the situation - not German "mercy". They fucked up, because they thought the BEEF was a permanently beaten and hopeless rabble, and thus the French in the South were a more worthy target and a better place for the panzers to be used. They were wrong.
I'd recommend you Walter Lord's book (The Miracle of Dunkirk) for more on that subject. It's pretty excellent, and there's a section at the end that deals specifically with the perception of Hitler deliberately letting the BEF off as some sort of harebrained negotiating tool.

[Calenhardon]

No. Once Britain decided to stay in the war, Hitler was fucked. He could not have invaded Britain, and there is no plausible scenario in which he might have gained it. Assuming no Barbarossa, the Japanese would still have attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the US into the war. Remember, Hitler declared war on the US first. Even if Hitler had had the sense not to declare against the US, Roosevelt still might have sold war with Germany. Even if he hadn't, the US still would have cooperated with the Brits in SE Asia/Pacific. In 1943 at the latest, Stalin would have invaded Europe. A Wehrmacht possibly victorious in North Africa, without large US forces building up in the UK, and yet unblooded by the Russians would probably still have driven the Russians back initially. In the long term though, Hitler was always winding up as ash.

[Ayreonia]

Hitler's mistake was not invading the Soviet Union. As many others have pointed out before, it would only have been a matter of time that the USSR attacked the Reich. Hitler's mistake was messing with the West by attacking France. All he had done so far had been somewhat justified (if only barely), and the Allies would probably not have given a shit about fascism and stalinism beating the crap out of each other.

[The Nihilistic view]

No, The US would have made more A-bombs and Nuked Berlin.

[Ardavia]

He created a double front, one with Britain and one with the USSR, which was one of his reasons of failure, the advanced technology Britain possessed in the field of spycraft and detection combined with the vast expanse and armies of the Soviets... Britain would've been crushed easily if he put his mind to it,

How exactly do you figure?

but Hitler wanted a British-German alliance,

I don't think he could've cared less about an alliance - he just wanted Britain out of the way. An alliance would've been more trouble than it was worth.

and he never expected war with the British, and some say that was the reason for Dunkirk, to try and get the British to change their minds, by putting on a facade of mercy,

He sure was cutting it pretty goddamn close if you're suggesting Dunkirk was a deliberate German failure. Nobody told anybody to go easy on the BEF, aside from the "stop order" that's either mainly down to Goering or the belief that the British were beaten anyway and that the pursuing German forces should've saved their effort for the fight in Central France.
Dunkirk was a fatally shortsighted German mis-assessment of the situation - not German "mercy". They fucked up, because they thought the BEEF was a permanently beaten and hopeless rabble, and thus the French in the South were a more worthy target and a better place for the panzers to be used. They were wrong.
I'd recommend you Walter Lord's book (The Miracle of Dunkirk) for more on that subject. It's pretty excellent, and there's a section at the end that deals specifically with the perception of Hitler deliberately letting the BEF off as some sort of harebrained negotiating tool.

If anything, the "stop" order came from Hitler because Goering had convinced him that the Luftwaffe could do it. They couldn't.

[Destiny Island]

Probably not.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

How exactly do you figure?

I don't think he could've cared less about an alliance - he just wanted Britain out of the way. An alliance would've been more trouble than it was worth.

He sure was cutting it pretty goddamn close if you're suggesting Dunkirk was a deliberate German failure. Nobody told anybody to go easy on the BEF, aside from the "stop order" that's either mainly down to Goering or the belief that the British were beaten anyway and that the pursuing German forces should've saved their effort for the fight in Central France.
Dunkirk was a fatally shortsighted German mis-assessment of the situation - not German "mercy". They fucked up, because they thought the BEEF was a permanently beaten and hopeless rabble, and thus the French in the South were a more worthy target and a better place for the panzers to be used. They were wrong.
I'd recommend you Walter Lord's book (The Miracle of Dunkirk) for more on that subject. It's pretty excellent, and there's a section at the end that deals specifically with the perception of Hitler deliberately letting the BEF off as some sort of harebrained negotiating tool.

If anything, the "stop" order came from Hitler because Goering had convinced him that the Luftwaffe could do it. They couldn't.

That's what I meant - Goering's attempts to get some more cred for the Luftwaffe did play a role, in all likelihood.
However, you've also got to take into account the fact that Hitler and the vast majority of the German command figured that Dunkirk was a battle they'd already won. The British had been beaten and were turning around and throwing themselves into the sea. Britain would surrender any day. The real fight was in France, against what was left of the French forces - and they wanted to save their forces for that, especially because German panzers were alternately getting blown up left and right, or breaking down en masse.
Goering's promise that the Luftwaffe could take care of business was likely just a corollary to a plan already put in place.
Should have been more specific, I'll admit.

[Starkiller101]

Russia was going to invade germany if they didn't do it first

[Verdum]

Well he screwed up a couple times before that.
Honestly my opinion is biased and with Hitler, but here goes.

1. If he had recognized the tactical importance of his Jet planes he produced and use them on the Allied forces at Normandy

2. Gave Rommel more men and had him establish a more secure supply line for his forces.

3. And more bloody Oil. Don't know how, but the reason he invaded Russia was to get to their Oil. Also, he wanted more "Living space" for Germany.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Well he screwed up a couple times before that.
Honestly my opinion is biased and with Hitler,

I don't know what this means. You're admitting that you're biased on the side of Hitler?

but here goes.

1. If he had recognized the tactical importance of his Jet planes he produced and use them on the Allied forces at Normandy

Jets and all that other V-weapon crap Germany worked on were one of the great reasons why the Allies won the war.
Germany pissed a shitload of money,time, and engineering capacity down the bottomless Wunderwaffe hole, and got nothing in return. Seriously, if Germany had spent more money on that crap, the war likely would have been over sooner.
Every single ME262 they made vacuumed up the resources of at least two or so late-model 109s, which were on the exact same level of technical capacity that the Allies actually won the war with.
Using the 262s on the Normandy beach-heads would just have resulted in the Allies being delayed a week or so, and a shitload of downed 262s (seeing as how Mustangs, Tempests, and late-model Spits could shoot them down, especially in turning dogfights that the 262s didn't win on the first pass).
Also, fuel. Jet planes need a shitload of fuel, and very specialized kinds of it at that - which the Germans never, under any conceivable circumstance, could've had in abundance.

2. Gave Rommel more men and had him establish a more secure supply line for his forces.

They tried making sure of establishing a more secure supply line (at Crete, indirectly), and it nearly destroyed the German airborne force.
Working at such a distance from Germany (and over a hotly contested sea lane) really put a damper on that whole campaign. britain always had way more flexibility there.

3. And more bloody Oil. Don't know how, but the reason he invaded Russia was to get to their Oil. Also, he wanted more "Living space" for Germany.

It's not well-known, mainly because of how insignificant it turned out to be, but Germany actually did seize some prime oil real estate in the Caucausus around Maikop. they never got anything out of it, though, after all the wells were dynamited by the Red Army while they retreated, and after the entire first cadre of around 25 oil engineers they sent to Maikop had their throats slit in the night by partisans.
Not exactly a safe prospect.

[Priory Academy USSR]

He created a double front, one with Britain and one with the USSR, which was one of his reasons of failure, the advanced technology Britain possessed in the field of spycraft and detection combined with the vast expanse and armies of the Soviets... Britain would've been crushed easily if he put his mind to it,

How exactly do you figure?

but Hitler wanted a British-German alliance,

I don't think he could've cared less about an alliance - he just wanted Britain out of the way. An alliance would've been more trouble than it was worth.

and he never expected war with the British, and some say that was the reason for Dunkirk, to try and get the British to change their minds, by putting on a facade of mercy,

He sure was cutting it pretty goddamn close if you're suggesting Dunkirk was a deliberate German failure. Nobody told anybody to go easy on the BEF, aside from the "stop order" that's either mainly down to Goering or the belief that the British were beaten anyway and that the pursuing German forces should've saved their effort for the fight in Central France.
Dunkirk was a fatally shortsighted German mis-assessment of the situation - not German "mercy". They fucked up, because they thought the BEEF was a permanently beaten and hopeless rabble, and thus the French in the South were a more worthy target and a better place for the panzers to be used. They were wrong.
I'd recommend you Walter Lord's book (The Miracle of Dunkirk) for more on that subject. It's pretty excellent, and there's a section at the end that deals specifically with the perception of Hitler deliberately letting the BEF off as some sort of harebrained negotiating tool.

To be fair, the BEF was largely defeated. Given that they had to abandon nearly all of their heavy equipment, a necessity in a WW2 era army, it wasn't too much of an assumption to presume that the British had been forced off the Continent for good. After all, it was only with American equipment and troops that allowed them to return to France in 1944 anyway, and lend lease only started roughly a year after Dunkirk.

[Greater Mackonia]

Even if the Germans manage to pull a fleet out of their pockets, Britain would not have been a pushover, and even after months of bloody urban fighting in the heartland of the world's largest
empire the British government could easily flee to Canada,Australia or India to carry on the fight.

[Yorkopolis]

Germany was not in any conceivable position to win the war in the first place, and by invading the Soviet Union (which is not only Russia) the Germans only accelerated their demise.

[Rio Cana]

Russia was going to invade germany if they didn't do it first

I do not think so. Why then sign a treaty with Germany to split Poland between themselves. In reality, the Russians just wanted there old territories back and a buffer zone between themselves and the rest of Europe.

[Wilfred Test]

Maybe, not using resources to systematically kill about 10 million people would have helped, too.

[Breadknife]

Doesn't sound too unfeasible. The British cracked the Enigma code and managed to intercept a radio message detailing about the strike on Coventry coming in a few days. What does Churchill do? He allows the Germans to level Coventry to not reveal that they cracked the code, then later on the Allied bombers level Dresden as vengeance for Coventry.

(Might have been ninjaed on this, being a couple of days behind getting back to this thread, again, but...)

a) There are (maybe equally nebulous) arguments that Conventry was a direct reprisal for what the RAF did to Hamburg, a few days earlier,
b) The SigInt never actually identified the target of the planned raid as being Coventry.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Russia was going to invade germany if they didn't do it first

I do not think so. Why then sign a treaty with Germany to split Poland between themselves. In reality, the Russians just wanted there old territories back and a buffer zone between themselves and the rest of Europe.

no, stalin was getting ready for an attack. That's part of the reason his troops demolished in the opening stages of Barbarossa. his troops were caught out in offensive formations.