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

[Shofercia]

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.

1. Please tell me you're not serious.
2. Winning like Charlie Sheen? Because they lost at Moscow and Stalingrad.
3. ??
4. Moscow was defended during the summer/fall of 1941.
5. You do understand that when Partisans blow up bridges and railroads, they contribute to the problem of moving supplies, right?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

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.

Building an entire port from basically nothing, on top of rebuilding an entire industrial base and managing the supply of a major city, takes a while. It might have gotten built, but probably not in time to make much of a difference when it was needed.

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.

I guess that might make sense from Glantz's stats, but I don't agree with them necessarily or the conclusions he draws.

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.

By any chance, have you read Why the Allies Won, if you've read Overy?

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.

Well, I wasn't referring to that part, as you no doubt read in my post.

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.

...No?
My point was that Western help was literally invaluable to the Soviets in one form or another, be it the Western Front, the bombing offensive, or Lend-Lease supplies. They weren't all invaluable all of the time.
That's a bit of a reach you're pulling, there.
(Also, I was actually wrong there: the Luftwaffe was already wounded almost mortally by the Battle of Britain, so there you go - the Allied bombing offensive didn't help shatter the Luftwaffe, you're right, it was actually the German bombing offensive against the Allies and the Allies' subsequent defense that got rid of the Luftwaffe above Moscow for ya)

The Luftwaffe was quite active at the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. We still won those.

Not nearly in the capacities they could have been, especially at Kursk.

And again, at Kursk only one of the three defense lines was breached.

Feel free to thank us for all our tanks and planes you used at Kursk - as well as the fact that it got called off because of the invasion of Italy. Had Husky not happened, Citadel would have kept going, and the salient might well have been penetrated further.

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?

I don't need to poll hundreds, obviously, to find out that what you're saying does not match much of the testimony or results I've read in all the years I've studied WW2, coming from a variety of different sources on both the Allied and German sides.
There's a little thing called personal, firsthand experience with the sources that I'm drawing on here.
Do you decide YOUR opinions via a polled opinion of hundreds? Not very efficient, right?

[Shofercia]

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.

Building an entire port from basically nothing, on top of rebuilding an entire industrial base and managing the supply of a major city, takes a while. It might have gotten built, but probably not in time to make much of a difference when it was needed.

Different areas of the USSR were tasked with different things. The Far East Region could've easily built another port if necessary.

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

I guess that might make sense from Glantz's stats, but I don't agree with them necessarily or the conclusions he draws.

The stats are his. The conclusions are mine. Just wanted to clarify that.

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

By any chance, have you read Why the Allies Won, if you've read Overy?

Nope, but it's now on my reading list, so thank you

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

Well, I wasn't referring to that part, as you no doubt read in my post.

I was talking about the entire period of WWII when I made my post. When you responded to that, I presumed that you were using the same time period.

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

...No?
My point was that Western help was literally invaluable to the Soviets in one form or another, be it the Western Front, the bombing offensive, or Lend-Lease supplies. They weren't all invaluable all of the time. That's a bit of a reach you're pulling, there.

Nope, re-read my points. I agree that they were valuable. I agreed that they helped us quite a bit. I'm just pointing out that they weren't vital to victory.

The Luftwaffe was quite active at the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. We still won those.

Not nearly in the capacities they could have been, especially at Kursk.

True, and I'm not disputing that.

And again, at Kursk only one of the three defense lines was breached.

Feel free to thank us for all our tanks and planes you used at Kursk - as well as the fact that it got called off because of the invasion of Italy. Had Husky not happened, Citadel would have kept going, and the salient might well have been penetrated further.

Your tanks were fucking atrocious. The Churchills were relegated to infantry support. But we do thank you for the beef, that was awesome

Additionally, I doubt Nazis would've made it past the second line of defense.

I don't need to poll hundreds, obviously, to find out that what you're saying does not match much of the testimony or results I've read in all the years I've studied WW2, coming from a variety of different sources on both the Allied and German sides.
There's a little thing called personal, firsthand experience with the sources that I'm drawing on here.
Do you decide YOUR opinions via a polled opinion of hundreds? Not very efficient, right?

Nope. But again, I'm not saying that Allied Help was pointless. On the contrary, it helped us quite a bit! I'm just saying that it wasn't vital, that's all.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Building an entire port from basically nothing, on top of rebuilding an entire industrial base and managing the supply of a major city, takes a while. It might have gotten built, but probably not in time to make much of a difference when it was needed.

Different areas of the USSR were tasked with different things. The Far East Region could've easily built another port if necessary.

While I commend your faith in the Soviet industrial system, I must counter that it's not exactly something that either you can prove or I can disprove. It's a bit of a dead point, really.

I guess that might make sense from Glantz's stats, but I don't agree with them necessarily or the conclusions he draws.

The stats are his. The conclusions are mine. Just wanted to clarify that.

Fine.

By any chance, have you read Why the Allies Won, if you've read Overy?

Nope, but it's now on my reading list, so thank you

Good - it is an excellent book. I've read my copy to the point that the binding's almost ruined.

Well, I wasn't referring to that part, as you no doubt read in my post.

I was talking about the entire period of WWII when I made my post. When you responded to that, I presumed that you were using the same time period.

Ok. Still, though, that majority of SS troops was primarily not the super-elites like the SS-Panzer divisions - it was mostly the ethnic volunteers or conscripts, who weren't elite. There were some exceptions, like 3rd or 5th SS Panzer, that did stay on the Eastern Front the whole war, but they were definitely the exceptions.

I don't think I'd be insulting anybody by saying that's definitely the Russian narrative stance, there.
Overy actually covers quite a list of the stuff that got sent and in rough quantities - let's just say it sure looks like a war-winning, or dare I even say, vital amount that generally doesn't get appreciated very much.

Again, be glad that thanks to the Allies, you'll never be able to be proved wrong.
EDIT: i know the formatting's fucked, just roll with it.

[Arumdaum]

Maybe if he was suddenly given instructions on how to make n00ks.

[The Nihilistic view]

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!

Hello Mr Strawman, How are you doing?

[Mewtinigrad]

Well probably, but that's because he essentially has the equivalent of being an Alicorn deity in a roleplay, he'd be unstoppable. Way unfair.

[The New Lowlands]

Maybe.

But that would pretty much be the worst thing ever.

[Shofercia]

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!

Hello Mr Strawman, How are you doing?

Not sure how Mr. Strawman's doing, but I'm doing rather well. Thank you for your interest.

[Verdum]

Dafuuuuq?
Divine foresight? What would he foresee that would divert him from his course?

[The Nihilistic view]

Hello Mr Strawman, How are you doing?

Not sure how Mr. Strawman's doing, but I'm doing rather well. Thank you for your interest.

I thought you were meeting up for a strawman convention in Moscow?

[Shofercia]

Different areas of the USSR were tasked with different things. The Far East Region could've easily built another port if necessary.

While I commend your faith in the Soviet industrial system, I must counter that it's not exactly something that either you can prove or I can disprove. It's a bit of a dead point, really.

Technically speaking, one could probably design a simulator to test that.

I was talking about the entire period of WWII when I made my post. When you responded to that, I presumed that you were using the same time period.

Ok. Still, though, that majority of SS troops was primarily not the super-elites like the SS-Panzer divisions - it was mostly the ethnic volunteers or conscripts, who weren't elite. There were some exceptions, like 3rd or 5th SS Panzer, that did stay on the Eastern Front the whole war, but they were definitely the exceptions.

Three of the super-elite SS Divisions were mauled at Kursk.

Again, be glad that thanks to the Allies, you'll never be able to be proved wrong.

I am extremely thankful to the Allies, whose actions prevented an additional million or more Soviet military and civilian deaths. FDR and Ike are my heroes.

[Shofercia]

Not sure how Mr. Strawman's doing, but I'm doing rather well. Thank you for your interest.

I thought you were meeting up for a strawman convention in Moscow?

You thought wrong, dude.

[Shofercia]

Maybe if he was suddenly given instructions on how to make n00ks.

Or became a part of the Temporal Cold War, amirite?

[The Nihilistic view]

I thought you were meeting up for a strawman convention in Moscow?

You thought wrong, dude.

I am glad you retracted your post then.

[Shofercia]

You thought wrong, dude.

I am glad you retracted your post then.

My post rebuts yours rather nicely, and as thus, needs no retraction.

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!

Your post assumes that the Franco-British troops, the same ones that got mauled by Nazis in a month, would succeed in taking Moscow. I laughed at that assumption. Your next assumption was that Russia'd be toast, if Moscow was taken. I pointed out that Russia wasn't toast when Moscow was taken by Napoleon, thus rebutting that assumption.

[The Nihilistic view]

I am glad you retracted your post then.

My post rebuts yours rather nicely, and as thus, needs no retraction.

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!

Your post assumes that the Franco-British troops, the same ones that got mauled by Nazis in a month, would succeed in taking Moscow. I laughed at that assumption. Your next assumption was that Russia'd be toast, if Moscow was taken. I pointed out that Russia wasn't toast when Moscow was taken by Napoleon, thus rebutting that assumption.

Have fun at the strawman convention.

[Shofercia]

My post rebuts yours rather nicely, and as thus, needs no retraction.

Your post assumes that the Franco-British troops, the same ones that got mauled by Nazis in a month, would succeed in taking Moscow. I laughed at that assumption. Your next assumption was that Russia'd be toast, if Moscow was taken. I pointed out that Russia wasn't toast when Moscow was taken by Napoleon, thus rebutting that assumption.

Have fun at the strawman convention.

I'm sorry, did you not claim that Russia would be toast if Barbarossa succeeded? Was that claim made by another poster using your nation?

[The Nihilistic view]

Have fun at the strawman convention.

I'm sorry, did you not claim that Russia would be toast if Barbarossa succeeded? Was that claim made by another poster using your nation?

I'm sorry did I mention victory meant taking Moscow?

[Shofercia]

I'm sorry, did you not claim that Russia would be toast if Barbarossa succeeded? Was that claim made by another poster using your nation?

I'm sorry did I mention victory meant taking Moscow?

You do know that was the endpoint of Barbarossa, right?

[Wewtlandem]

Since the American Pageant is a horribly biased piece of shit (based on first hand experience from the book) he most likely would have viewed the Americans as Gods and worshiped them. He still would have thought the Russians were stupid.

[The Nihilistic view]

I'm sorry did I mention victory meant taking Moscow?

You do know that was the endpoint of Barbarossa, right?

No, it was not. Hitler himself said that it was of no great importance. The two main aims were crush the red army and take control of Russia's economic resources. Moscow was not the end point for the invasion or the furthest point east.

[Shofercia]

You do know that was the endpoint of Barbarossa, right?

No, it was not. Hitler himself said that it was of no great importance. The two main aims were crush the red army and take control of Russia's economic resources. Moscow was not the end point for the invasion or the furthest point east.

Barbarossa was crushed at the Gates of Moscow, thus making it the endpoint. On top of that, the chief of staff of OKH, Halder, believed that decisive victory could only be delivered at Moscow. That's also from Glantz's book. Speaking of Glantz, what actual military historians have you read, to be making such wild claims? No, Moe, Larry and Curly don't count.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Building an entire port from basically nothing, on top of rebuilding an entire industrial base and managing the supply of a major city, takes a while. It might have gotten built, but probably not in time to make much of a difference when it was needed.

Different areas of the USSR were tasked with different things. The Far East Region could've easily built another port if necessary.

Thank you. You have not only entertained me, but also my wife, who picked up a minor in Russian History. She was too. Do you have any idea about the geography, climate, or population of the Russian east coast? Any? Have you ever thought to wonder why Russia has one port, inconveniently located WRT Pacific trade, and easily blockaded? (Technically, there's Madagan, but once you figure out where that is, you'll see why I discount it.)

One does not simply build a new port in eastern Russia. Its sea lanes are guarded by more than just ice. There is mountainous terrain there that does not sleep, and the mud and cold are ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ice and swamps. The very ground you walk on is a fickle morass. Not with one million men could you do this. It is folly.

[The USOT]

So if magic exists and Hitler is directed by magical means to do something, will he achieve what the magical entity wanted him to achieve?

Most probably.