Could Hitler win WWII IF... he had divine foresight...

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I was a high-schooler in America once, yes.

Well, that's kind of to be expected from a history textbook to focus on the country its profiling.

I just remember when it talked about the annexation of Texas - it decided to use a marriage metaphor that went on for fucking pages and got really, really twisted.

Textbooks in Ireland particularly on History are fairly unbiased.

Are you irish?

[New Carloso]

Textbooks in Ireland particularly on History are fairly unbiased.

Are you irish?

Yes I am!
silence

[The Nihilistic view]

Knowing the mindset of Hitler and his character the chances are he would just dismiss it and claim a disloyal general placed it on his desk. The general accused would then commit suicide a la Rommel style to "save their honor". War continues as it did.

Then early 1943 after Stalingrad/Kursk Hitler realises it was not a joke, accuses another general of disloyalty for telling him before that the first general planted the book to trick him. That general then shoots himself but it's to late to do anything about it, America are already in the war and Russia are on the offensive.

Late 1944 is when it will get interesting, what will the allies do? Hitler knows they will assault Normandy, it's really heavily defended and they lose. Many say Hitler wanted to sue for peace in the west anyway in late 44 so now does he have the bargaining power to get it? More to the point with Churchill saying we should continue the war and fight the Russians and with Hitler able to show then what will happen and the Commies plan will the west join forces to fight Stalin? Or will they sit back and let them annex the whole of continental Europe?

Oh for crying outloud, it made no strategic sense for the Allies to fight one another. Also, if Normandy was heavily defended, and Calais was left open, don't you think that Ike would've hit Calais instead?

Hitler would have known of the Allies deception operation (forget its name) so he would have deceived them.

It would have made perfect strategic sense as it would have liberated Poland which after all was the whole reason Britain and France declared war in the first place.

Also I don't who of the allies would start fighting each other because in this new scenario it would be the Allies (The British Empire, America and Western Europe) against the soviets. Knowing what they knew it would make perfect sense to carry the war on to Russia.

[Hathradic States]

They wouldn't have been able to defeat the Russians or the US.

Reason being: the USSR is just big. They would never have been able to occupy it, and Stalin was willing to fight all the way to the Urals, which would have stretched the Nazis too thin. Maybe if the Japanese jumped on Siberia would they have had the chance to win, but...

Japan never could have beaten the US. In order to defeat us, they would have had to shut our industrial capacity down, which was impossible for them to do. They wouldn't be able to occupy the West Coast for more than a week at best, if at all. They would have had a heavy partisan resistance, as well as a giant ass country to try to occupy.

Unless they got help from the Nazis, would would have been wrapped up fighting His Majesty's Royal Navy as the Soviets, which means they would never have been able to get support to the Japanese.

So, yeah, it was hopeless.

This would have to require a WW2 in progress rather than Hitler gaining the knowledge before German forces marched into Poland.

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

[The Nihilistic view]

This would have to require a WW2 in progress rather than Hitler gaining the knowledge before German forces marched into Poland.

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

So it's Britain, France Germany and Poland V Russia?

[New Carloso]

This would have to require a WW2 in progress rather than Hitler gaining the knowledge before German forces marched into Poland.

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Now that'd something. If Britain and France had a mutual defence pact with the Poles then why didn't they declare war on Russia when they invaded Poland.

captain obvious

[Shofercia]

I did. Now, let's say the U-Boats triumph. Welp, the USSR still gets supplies from Vladivostok. So no biggie there.

Not nearly in the same volume, and with a corresponding massive increase in transport time. Effectively, you've cut two of Russia's three major accessible ports (Murmansk and Archangelsk) entirely out of the picture and put the sole strain on one port about 2,000 miles away from the front. That's "no biggie"? You've just cut supply capacity by 66% and increased traveling time and distance by a massive amount.

If those two were cut off, don't you think that FDR would increase supplies via Vladivostok? So it wouldn't be 66%. And yes, it would take longer. I realize that. But by "no biggie" I was referring to the grand scheme of things.

Salerno played a minor role in the grand scheme of things. And by the time of Normandy, Nazis were already retreating.

Because of the massive (and elite - a great number of Panzer and SS Panzer divisions were in France) number of forces that they had to pull back to cover France, not to mention because of the fact that the Luftwaffe had been stretched thin and annihilated by the 8th Air Force and Bomber Command. If Germany was fighting a one-front war with the Luftwaffe un-destroyed and no reason to hold back their forces in the West, it would not have turned out well for Russia.

Salerno was in Italy. I don't see why they'd be pulled back to cover France. Also, during the Battle of Kursk, there were three lines of defense. Only the first was breached. We attacked too early, got too excited

Normandy was a brilliant battle, one for which Ike has my eternal respect.

I mean the Western Front as a whole here, not separately - Africa and Italy and France bundled together.

Those were all separate Fronts. And even if you combine them all, they still accounted for less than 30% of the fighting. See Glantz's books on WWII.

But the Great Patriotic War had numerous brilliant battles and operations. Normandy vs Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and Berlin, well, that's like, at least, 5 on 1.

Let's all agree to not count the Bulge, Alamein, all of Italy, and the deceptions that kept dozens (literally) of German divisions out of battle on either front waiting for attacks that never came.
We may have been facings smaller forces numerically, but ont he whole Western forces were facing more elite troops led by better commanders.

Most of the Waffen SS fought on the Eastern Front. Not the Western Front.

As for the air war, it certainly helped, but it wasn't the deal maker or deal breaker.

Not convinced, and the statistics don't really back you up. Neither does the testimony of many of the surviving German officials, including Albert Speer, Minsiter of Armaments, who would know.

What did the US-UK Airwar contribute to the Battle of Moscow? Yes, the bombings certainly helped, but they weren't vital to victory. They did save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. So yes, they were a good thing. But not vital to victory.

[The Nihilistic view]

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Now that'd something. If Britain and France had a mutual defence pact with the Poles then why didn't they declare war on Russia when they invaded Poland.

captain obvious

They would lose their supplies of free Vodka to keep the student classes happy.

[Hathradic States]

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Now that'd something. If Britain and France had a mutual defence pact with the Poles then why didn't they declare war on Russia when they invaded Poland.

captain obvious

Because Germany was more of a threat than the Russians were, and both France and Britain knew that declaring war on both Russia and Germany would not go well at all, so they picked the easier target.

[Hathradic States]

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

So it's Britain, France Germany and Poland V Russia?

Very likely. Enemy of the enemy kinda thing.

[Shofercia]

Oh for crying outloud, it made no strategic sense for the Allies to fight one another. Also, if Normandy was heavily defended, and Calais was left open, don't you think that Ike would've hit Calais instead?

Hitler would have known of the Allies deception operation (forget its name) so he would have deceived them.

It would have made perfect strategic sense as it would have liberated Poland which after all was the whole reason Britain and France declared war in the first place.

Also I don't who of the allies would start fighting each other because in this new scenario it would be the Allies (The British Empire, America and Western Europe) against the soviets. Knowing what they knew it would make perfect sense to carry the war on to Russia.

There's a difference between confronting the USSR in a Cold War, and invading the USSR. Neither the US/UK, nor the USSR, wanted a Hot War. Also, the soldiers viewed each other positively, and were sick and tired of war. Ya actually need a lot of troops to fight an all out war, and a lot of them must be willing to fight. That simply wasn't the case.

Additionally, if Hitler knew about Normandy, he'd move his troops to Normandy, which Ike could've found out about, and hit Calais instead.

[Shofercia]

This would have to require a WW2 in progress rather than Hitler gaining the knowledge before German forces marched into Poland.

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Except that would never happen, since the USSR invaded Poland after Nazis did. Without Nazis invading Poland, the USSR wouldn't have budged, so your scenario is utterly unrealistic.

[Hathradic States]

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Except that would never happen, since the USSR invaded Poland after Nazis did. Without Nazis invading Poland, the USSR wouldn't have budged, so your scenario is utterly unrealistic.

No one can guarantee what Stalin would have done. Maybe he wouldn't have budged, maybe he would have jumped.

[Shofercia]

Except that would never happen, since the USSR invaded Poland after Nazis did. Without Nazis invading Poland, the USSR wouldn't have budged, so your scenario is utterly unrealistic.

No one can guarantee what Stalin would have done. Maybe he wouldn't have budged, maybe he would have jumped.

Stalin was paranoid. He wasn't going to take an unnecessary risk of that magnitude.

[Hathradic States]

No one can guarantee what Stalin would have done. Maybe he wouldn't have budged, maybe he would have jumped.

Stalin was paranoid. He wasn't going to take an unnecessary risk of that magnitude.

He took the unnecessary risk of invading Finland, didn't he?

[Pandeeria]

God Kefka, drugs aren't cool!

He could probably drag out the war for sometime, but would still lose in the end.

[The Nihilistic view]

So it's Britain, France Germany and Poland V Russia?

Very likely. Enemy of the enemy kinda thing.

Russia would have been toast, in that case, Barbarossa ran out of steam because of a lack of manpower in the end but this time after the initial smashing by Germany the British and French troops would have come in and finished the job. With Italy probably as well.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Are you irish?

Yes I am!
silence

Then you would say your textbooks are unbiased, wouldn't you?

Not nearly in the same volume, and with a corresponding massive increase in transport time. Effectively, you've cut two of Russia's three major accessible ports (Murmansk and Archangelsk) entirely out of the picture and put the sole strain on one port about 2,000 miles away from the front. That's "no biggie"? You've just cut supply capacity by 66% and increased traveling time and distance by a massive amount.

If those two were cut off, don't you think that FDR would increase supplies via Vladivostok? So it wouldn't be 66%. And yes, it would take longer. I realize that. But by "no biggie" I was referring to the grand scheme of things.

There's only so much capacity one port can take. It might not be 66% - it might "only" be 40-50%. That's still a lot.

Because of the massive (and elite - a great number of Panzer and SS Panzer divisions were in France) number of forces that they had to pull back to cover France, not to mention because of the fact that the Luftwaffe had been stretched thin and annihilated by the 8th Air Force and Bomber Command. If Germany was fighting a one-front war with the Luftwaffe un-destroyed and no reason to hold back their forces in the West, it would not have turned out well for Russia.

Salerno was in Italy. I don't see why they'd be pulled back to cover France.

The West as a whole, then.

Also, during the Battle of Kursk, there were three lines of defense. Only the first was breached. We attacked too early, got too excited

That's lovely, but had the circumstances I mentioned been fulfilled, the Battle of Kursk would likely have never happened. The situation would already have been drastically different by July of 1943.

I mean the Western Front as a whole here, not separately - Africa and Italy and France bundled together.

Those were all separate Fronts.

Not so much.

And even if you combine them all, they still accounted for less than 30% of the fighting. See Glantz's books on WWII.

So now you're saying "less than 30%"? That doesn't make sense with your earlier statistics. And I invite you to read Overy's books on the division of fighting between the fronts as well in Why the Allies Won.
And no, Africa and Italy were pretty much the same theater - that being the Mediterranean. Italy was a direct continuation of the African campaign, with many of the same units and commanders.

Let's all agree to not count the Bulge, Alamein, all of Italy, and the deceptions that kept dozens (literally) of German divisions out of battle on either front waiting for attacks that never came.
We may have been facings smaller forces numerically, but ont he whole Western forces were facing more elite troops led by better commanders.

Most of the Waffen SS fought on the Eastern Front. Not the Western Front.

Depends on the time and place.
Through June-August 1944, the 1st SS Panzer, 2nd SS Panzer, 9th SS Panzer, 10th SS Panzer, 12th SS Panzer, 16th SS-Panzergrenadier, and 17th SS-Panzergrenadier were all in France or Italy. These were the absolute prime of the German military. Granted, most SS Formations might have been in the East, but those were mainly volunteers from the various racial minorities - picked more for their willingness to fight and be brutal than their actual skill.

Not convinced, and the statistics don't really back you up. Neither does the testimony of many of the surviving German officials, including Albert Speer, Minsiter of Armaments, who would know.

What did the US-UK Airwar contribute to the Battle of Moscow?

It didn't help much there - but Lend Lease through Archangelsk and Murmansk sure did!

Yes, the bombings certainly helped, but they weren't vital to victory. They did save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives.

They singularly stopped German industry and destroyed the Luftwaffe - not something the Red Army could've done a very good job of at the front.
Good luck fighting an actually well-equipped Wehrmacht (increased in size by 30%), an intact Luftwaffe, and all the best German commanders by yourselves.

So yes, they were a good thing. But not vital to victory.

[/quote]
That's certainly an opinion that most scholars don't take.

[The Nihilistic view]

True.

Now, after some thought and IRL discussion on this, I have a better answer:

Hitler convinces the Russians to invade Poland, with the Russians thinking that he is going to invade Poland as well. When they do, the Polish scream at the Brits and French, who get pissy at Russia, and then Germany comes to Poland's aid.

Except that would never happen, since the USSR invaded Poland after Nazis did. Without Nazis invading Poland, the USSR wouldn't have budged, so your scenario is utterly unrealistic.

No poop Mr Holmes, did you know that any other scenario other than the one that happened is unrealistic if we go by that?

Think Finland.

[Evil Lord Bane]

The whole outcome of the second world war in Europe could have been changed if:

1.Germany waited two years before starting the war. Had they waited to invade Czechoslovakia until 1940, they would have been out of bankruptcy, and the whole war would have gone much better for them.
2. Hitler didn't second guess his generals. As a corporal in the first world war, Hitler had no idea how to run a military campaign. He should have left the running of the war to those who had an idea of how to do so.
3. Close the first front before opening the second. If Germany waited until they defeated England before attacking the USSR, things would have turned out much better for them.
4. Attacked Moscow before turning south to Keiv. Hitler ordered his army to turn south and take the city of Keiv when it was only 300 miles away from an undefened Moscow. If he had taken that first, then turned south to take the city of Keiv, the Russian capital would have been in German hands before the onset of winter. As it was, by taking Keiv first, the German army returned to face a much better defended Moscow, right at the onset of winter, for which the Germans where not prepared for.
5.Germany's biggest probelm in the second world war was logistics and fuel. They have no domestic sorce of petro fuel and spent the war trying to secure a sorce of it. The logistal problems grew worse as the supply lines grew longer, and the army was not equipped for winter fighting when they faced their first Russain winter. Had they solved these probelms early on, things would have gone much better for them

1. Germany waits two years. Red Army recovers from Stalin's Idiotic Purges. Germany gets ass handed to them by 1942, 1943 at the last. Red Army dines in Paris.
2. Hitler usually started going after his generals, after they failed to initially deliver.
3. See point 1.
4. That would leave a huge Army in Kiev; also, Moscow wasn't undefended. And even if they took Moscow, so what? Napoleon took Moscow, how'd that work out?
5. How do you solve the problem of logistics early on, when you have Patriotic Partisans blowing your ammunition dumps over fast stretches of land?

1. The Russian's had exactly one good general by the time the war ENDED, and if Zhukov had been nipped by the purge, they would have lost the war, no matter what happened.
2. That was at the very end war, when they where loosing, not at the beginning, when they where winning.
3 ?
4. That "huge" army in Kiev fell easily enough when it was attacked (it was cut off from it's supplies). If the Germans waited until after they took Moscow (yes, it was undefended in the summer/fall of '41 and wasn't ready for an attack until late fall, when the Germans returned) then waited until the following spring to turn south,the outcome in Keiv would not have changed. Had they taken Moscow, it would have forced Stalin to move out of the city, which would have had a demoralizing effect on his troops. By staying in Moscow, Stalin instead had a rallying effect on his troops and his nation.
5. Once again, partisan action was not a problem they faced early on in the war. The logistal problems had more to do with moving supplies to the front, rather than the storage of them.

[Shofercia]

Stalin was paranoid. He wasn't going to take an unnecessary risk of that magnitude.

He took the unnecessary risk of invading Finland, didn't he?

Stalin didn't view that as an unnecessary risk, since Finland, (in Stalin's eyes,) posed a threat to Leningrad. Poland posed no such thread to a major Soviet city.

[Shofercia]

If those two were cut off, don't you think that FDR would increase supplies via Vladivostok? So it wouldn't be 66%. And yes, it would take longer. I realize that. But by "no biggie" I was referring to the grand scheme of things.

There's only so much capacity one port can take. It might not be 66% - it might "only" be 40-50%. That's still a lot.

Then another port can be built. The Soviets rebuilt the industrial base in the Urals, during the war. The Soviets managed the Road of Life. Building a Port seems rather easy compared to those accomplishments.

And even if you combine them all, they still accounted for less than 30% of the fighting. See Glantz's books on WWII.

So now you're saying "less than 30%"? That doesn't make sense with your earlier statistics.

Over 70% and less than 30% can add up to 100%. Example: 71 + 29 = 100.

And I invite you to read Overy's books on the division of fighting between the fronts as well in Why the Allies Won.

I invite you to red Russia's War by Richard Overy.

Most of the Waffen SS fought on the Eastern Front. Not the Western Front.

Depends on the time and place.

Overall, during the time span of WWII. And no, the Phony War doesn't count, since it was phony. Again, read Glantz.

What did the US-UK Airwar contribute to the Battle of Moscow?

It didn't help much there - but Lend Lease through Archangelsk and Murmansk sure did!

Indeed. So then you'd agree that it wasn't vital to the Battle of Moscow. Welp, there goes your point.

Yes, the bombings certainly helped, but they weren't vital to victory. They did save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives.

They singularly stopped German industry and destroyed the Luftwaffe - not something the Red Army could've done a very good job of at the front.
Good luck fighting an actually well-equipped Wehrmacht (increased in size by 30%), an intact Luftwaffe, and all the best German commanders by yourselves.

The Luftwaffe was quite active at the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. We still won those. And again, at Kursk only one of the three defense lines was breached.

So yes, they were a good thing. But not vital to victory.

That's certainly an opinion that most scholars don't take.

Have you polled hundreds of scholars studying WWII? If not, why are you saying that?

[Shofercia]

Except that would never happen, since the USSR invaded Poland after Nazis did. Without Nazis invading Poland, the USSR wouldn't have budged, so your scenario is utterly unrealistic.

No poop Mr Holmes, did you know that any other scenario other than the one that happened is unrealistic if we go by that?

Think Finland.

No, Watson, you are incorrect. Stalin attacked Finland because he believed that Finland posed a threat to Leningrad. What Soviet City did Poland pose a threat to? Pshegrad?

[Hathradic States]

He took the unnecessary risk of invading Finland, didn't he?

Stalin didn't view that as an unnecessary risk, since Finland, (in Stalin's eyes,) posed a threat to Leningrad. Poland posed no such thread to a major Soviet city.

No, it's existence posed a threat to Soviet pride, though.

[Shofercia]

Very likely. Enemy of the enemy kinda thing.

Russia would have been toast, in that case, Barbarossa ran out of steam because of a lack of manpower in the end but this time after the initial smashing by Germany the British and French troops would have come in and finished the job. With Italy probably as well.

Yes, the French and British Armies of 1941 would've, the ones that were routed by Wehrmacht within a month, would've somehow taken Moscow, and then, the capture of Moscow would've somehow made Russia toast, because we all know that Napoleon won by capturing Moscow, and became Emperor for Life ever since, amirite? Oh wait, that's bullshit!