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

[Shofercia]

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.

I'd advise your wife to find better teachers. And you as well.

Port #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok#Port
Port #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Port

[Libertarian California]

If he didn't invade Russia, the soviets would've allied with Germany.

Presuming that happened, Britain, The US, and their allies would have one hell of a fight on their hands.

Before Barbarossa, many in the West were worried that the Soviets would align with the Axis.

[Senkaku]

Hitler would probably dismiss it as a prank and kill a few of his top generals for lack of a better thing to do.


Who knows, maybe the reason the man made such bad decisions was because someone time-traveled back to plant a fake textbook like the one you talked about that told him to do all the wrong things.

[The Grey Wolf]

What the fuck?

[The New Sea Territory]

I thought this might be a good thread, but this is worthless.

[Orthodox Brotherhood]

Hmm, maybe if instead of invading Poland he continued with the alliance idea, Hitler and Pilsudski did sign a ten year non aggression pact and trade agreement in 1934, I'm pretty sure each leader also saw the Communists as bigger threats then they did each other, Pilsudski actually said he would like to keep Hitler in power as long as possible.

In 1938 Poland was given the option of a renewal of the pact in exchange for the ethnically German, Nazi party ruled free city of Danzig and a motorway across the Polish corridor, maybe instead of giving Hitler the foresight we can give it to whoever the leader in 1938 was, have him accept the deal and the war is postponed, for a while at least...

Eventually though, either Germany or the Soviets will invade, though if it's the Soviets and Hitler has the alliance with Poland, shit might go down and the world war could include Poland and Germany fighting side by side... , if it is Germany we'll just have the same war a few years later, maybe without Soviet alliance though, so the Eastern war will be quicker and they probably lose faster.

Thank you OP for setting me off, I am going to sleep well tonight, thinking always does that to me.

[Gauthier]

With 'dolph and Uncle Heiny dabbling in occult shit, God would still warn him?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

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.

If you want to, go ahead.

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.

That is true - 1st/2nd/3rd SS Panzer were at Kursk (and also were the ones who came the closest to breaking the salient), but that was the exception and not the rule. Contrast with Normandy, where the Allies faced about 7 of those divisions coupled with Rommel's elite 21st Panzer AND the Panzer Lehr demonstration division at a considerable numerical disadvantage for at least a while...

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

I'd advise your wife to find better teachers. And you as well.

Port #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok#Port
Port #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Port

Comrade, we are well aware of that port. The city and the port predate WW2; it's hardly something to be built. The intermodal cargo terminal is new -- and apparently very nice -- but they didn't have those back then. If you want a concession, fine: Russia has two Far East ports, close together, feeding the same rail lines, on the wrong end of a huge supply line. The problems remain unchanged: there's a lack of port and rail capacity, and the ports are ice-bound part of the year... and no place to build more.

If those ports are supposed to be the method of keeping Russia in the war, we're back to folly. The supply line is too long, the area it crosses too underpopulated, and somebody would have found a way to cut it... repeatedly. The scenario assumes a not merely rational but precient -- at least WRT real history -- Germany. "Hm... we know that 'the first time' they moved their industry east beyond our reach... what else might they try to move if we hold all their ports and they want to stay in the war? Right... they'll try getting supplies via the Far East." OK, the Germans don't have decent long range bombers. Guess they'll try for those... or what we'd now call special operations forces dropped or infiltrated to cut the bridges. Or something to cut off Russia in a new and different way.

Edit: ... picking nits over alternate history doesn't really excite me. Like I said, if you want me to concede the existance of a second port, fine. "Well, it had a major expansion in thus-and-so, and is thus effectively new.": whatever.

[Shofercia]

That is true - 1st/2nd/3rd SS Panzer were at Kursk (and also were the ones who came the closest to breaking the salient), but that was the exception and not the rule. Contrast with Normandy, where the Allies faced about 7 of those divisions coupled with Rommel's elite 21st Panzer AND the Panzer Lehr demonstration division at a considerable numerical disadvantage for at least a while...

Although they were more effective than other units, they were nowhere close to breaking the salient. They managed to breach the first line of defense. That was it. The second and third defensive lines held. As I said earlier, we got too excited, and attacked to earlier, otherwise Kursk would've been an even bigger victory. On top of that, the Red Army was cutting their teeth on the "wunderwaffen", whereas by the time of Normandy for the Allies, and Operation Bagration for the Soviets, the tactics to fighting the "wunderwaffen" were already well developed.

[Bojikami]

Nope. At most. He could likely drag the war on for a few more years.

[God Kefka]

I thought this might be a good thread, but this is worthless.

Au contraire my friend.

[God Kefka]

Hitler would probably dismiss it as a prank and kill a few of his top generals for lack of a better thing to do.


Who knows, maybe the reason the man made such bad decisions was because someone time-traveled back to plant a fake textbook like the one you talked about that told him to do all the wrong things.

You know I hadn't thought of that... I hadn't thought of that...

I will look into it...

[Bodobol]

Dafuq.

In all seriousness, I think he would have dismissed the book. He was arrogant and didn't take much advice, and the only time he did take 'divine' advice was when he seeked out fortune tellers and stuff at the very end of WWII out of desperation.

[Shnercropolis]

He still loses on a massive scale, but the war lasts longer.

[Bojikami]

He still loses on a massive scale, but the war lasts longer.

Implying Hitler actually believes the book.

[Shofercia]

I'd advise your wife to find better teachers. And you as well.

Port #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok#Port
Port #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Port

Comrade, we are well aware of that port. The city and the port predate WW2; it's hardly something to be built. The intermodal cargo terminal is new -- and apparently very nice -- but they didn't have those back then. If you want a concession, fine: Russia has two Far East ports, close together, feeding the same rail lines, on the wrong end of a huge supply line. The problems remain unchanged: there's a lack of port and rail capacity, and the ports are ice-bound part of the year... and no place to build more.

If those ports are supposed to be the method of keeping Russia in the war, we're back to folly. The supply line is too long, the area it crosses too underpopulated, and somebody would have found a way to cut it... repeatedly. The scenario assumes a not merely rational but precient -- at least WRT real history -- Germany. "Hm... we know that 'the first time' they moved their industry east beyond our reach... what else might they try to move if we hold all their ports and they want to stay in the war? Right... they'll try getting supplies via the Far East." OK, the Germans don't have decent long range bombers. Guess they'll try for those... or what we'd now call special operations forces dropped or infiltrated to cut the bridges. Or something to cut off Russia in a new and different way.

First, you stated that Russia only has one port. I cited two. Second, they're both warm water ports. Third, during the time period in question, the Vostochnuy Port could have been built. Fourth, Stalin had no issues moving population, so underpopulation wouldn't have been a problem. Fifth, Nazis tried to sabotage Soviet railroads, repeatedly. And sometimes they succeeded. But Soviets quickly repaired the railroads, and trains kept on running. Sixth, the ports are fairly close together, so having one could've easily led to building another. Seventh, the Soviets and Japanese had a non-aggression pact.

[Mistelemr]

The only way Hitler could have one WW2 is if he hadn't applied to art school...

[Shnercropolis]

He still loses on a massive scale, but the war lasts longer.

Implying Hitler actually believes the book.

Well at the very least it would force him to think about the possibility of the events happening.

[Bojikami]

Implying Hitler actually believes the book.

Well at the very least it would force him to think about the possibility of the events happening.

True. It would make him more paranoid than he currently was.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

That is true - 1st/2nd/3rd SS Panzer were at Kursk (and also were the ones who came the closest to breaking the salient), but that was the exception and not the rule. Contrast with Normandy, where the Allies faced about 7 of those divisions coupled with Rommel's elite 21st Panzer AND the Panzer Lehr demonstration division at a considerable numerical disadvantage for at least a while...

Although they were more effective than other units, they were nowhere close to breaking the salient. They managed to breach the first line of defense. That was it. The second and third defensive lines held. As I said earlier, we got too excited, and attacked to earlier, otherwise Kursk would've been an even bigger victory.

According to a book I just remembered I had (as well as where it was located) entitled Kursk - History's Greatest Tank Battle by Nik Cornish, this is factually untrue.
What you seem to be getting confused with is that the Germans only managed to breach the first line on the first day - which is true, and indeed, the northern prong of the advance under Mödel never got any further.
The southern prong (the one with the SS Panzer Army) actually penetrated considerably further, according to this source, which matches my general knowledge of the battle gleaned from other sources, it declares that the southern part of the offensive managed to smash part the first line, and then grind their way through the second line (from what I can tell, dictated by the line of the River Psel) by means of the Oboyan-Belgorod road, through the Guards tank divisions, with the ultimate outcome being that by the dawn of 7th July, the road had been seized. In his words, "despite their bravery, the Guards tanks were thrust aside and withdrew...Now Hausser found himself in an interesting position. Having broken the second Soviet defensive belt, the route to Prokhorovka (the anchor, as I understand, of the third line) was open..." (pg. 114-115, parentheses mine).
As we both know, the Germans were barely turned back by the arrival of the Russian reserves at Prokhorovka. it's fair to say the first line was breached, the SS Panzer Army under Hausser breached the second line in the south, and the battle turned upon the arrival of Rotmistrov's people at Prokhorovka, without which the third line may very well have broken.

But to say the Germans "only breached the first line" at all, according to all of my sources, is simply not correct.

On top of that, the Red Army was cutting their teeth on the "wunderwaffen", whereas by the time of Normandy for the Allies, and Operation Bagration for the Soviets, the tactics to fighting the "wunderwaffen" were already well developed.

...What? The wunderwaffen translates generally to jet aircraft, the electric subs, and the V-weapons, neither of which the Russians ever had to contend with in any numbers at all.
Unless you mean stuff like King Tigers and StG44s, which I think both sides got hit with equally and which barely count anyways.

[Belburg]

Only reason why Germany lost in WW2 was because Hitler didn't trust his generals enough. He had best generals in the world but still Hitler made some tactical decisions which proved to be fatal.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Only reason why Germany lost in WW2 was because Hitler didn't trust his generals enough.

Even they made a lot of mistakes, and couldn't have made up for many of their deficiencies.

He had best generals in the world but still Hitler made some tactical decisions which proved to be fatal.

I think you mean "strategic" decisions - there is a difference.
Although Hitler did monkey around with actual tactics more that he should've as well.

[Bojikami]

Only reason why Germany lost in WW2 was because Hitler didn't trust his generals enough. He had best generals in the world but still Hitler made some tactical decisions which proved to be fatal.

That, and the fact that his enemies outnumbered him approximately 10 to 1.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Comrade, we are well aware of that port. The city and the port predate WW2; it's hardly something to be built. The intermodal cargo terminal is new -- and apparently very nice -- but they didn't have those back then. If you want a concession, fine: Russia has two Far East ports, close together, feeding the same rail lines, on the wrong end of a huge supply line. The problems remain unchanged: there's a lack of port and rail capacity, and the ports are ice-bound part of the year... and no place to build more.

If those ports are supposed to be the method of keeping Russia in the war, we're back to folly. The supply line is too long, the area it crosses too underpopulated, and somebody would have found a way to cut it... repeatedly. The scenario assumes a not merely rational but precient -- at least WRT real history -- Germany. "Hm... we know that 'the first time' they moved their industry east beyond our reach... what else might they try to move if we hold all their ports and they want to stay in the war? Right... they'll try getting supplies via the Far East." OK, the Germans don't have decent long range bombers. Guess they'll try for those... or what we'd now call special operations forces dropped or infiltrated to cut the bridges. Or something to cut off Russia in a new and different way.

First, you stated that Russia only has one port. I cited two.

Uh yes, I already conceded that point.

Second, they're both warm water ports.

Are they? This says:

Nakhodka (nəkhôtˈkə) [key], city (1989 pop. 160,000), Russian Far East, c.20 mi (32 km) E of Vladivostok, on the Sea of Japan. A port city with fewer winter ice problems than Vladivostok [...]

Which cites a recent encyclopedia. Now I'm confused; I thought Vladivostok was closed part of the year... Hm... other sources say it is a warm-water port. The things one learns from AH threads on NSG...

Third, during the time period in question, the Vostochnuy Port could have been built.

Like I said: whatever... new port, expanded part of an existing port... that's hairsplitting. It's one of the many reasons AH doesn't usually interest me.

Fourth, Stalin had no issues moving population, so underpopulation wouldn't have been a problem.

My lack of specificity: I meant along the length of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. If that's what you're proposing, I'm having trouble believing it's practical.

Fifth, Nazis tried to sabotage Soviet railroads, repeatedly. And sometimes they succeeded. But Soviets quickly repaired the railroads, and trains kept on running.

Now we're back to precience. I don't know the book the OP refers to -- never heard of it before -- so I don't know if it mentions that. (I didn't know that; I thought their raids were restricted to further west.) If the Germans knew that in another timeline that they had hit the Trans Siberian Railroad, but the Russians put it back together, they'd hit it harder. Or differently. Or found a different way to interrupt trade.

Sixth, the ports are fairly close together, so having one could've easily led to building another.

Far as I know, Nakhoda has been a port city since the 19th century. If it wasn't, fine: I'll concede the whole point. I'll have blown it. (But I'm leaving the Boromir send-up regardless. )

At least according to Wikipedia, the Soviets also built the railroad line to Sovetskya Gavan during the war, which is a better example, since I can't find any evidence that the port existed before then. So, I'll throw in the towel: there was at least one other place they could have built a port. Color me very surprised.

Seventh, the Soviets and Japanese had a non-aggression pact.

I didn't say otherwise. If you're refering to "blockaded", I meant it as a general point about the location on the Sea of Japan: there's a couple of chokepoints north and south of Japan that trade from the whole area has to pass through. (Also narrow straits between the Japanese islands, but I think that's worse for moving ships, even if the Japanese are friendly.)

It's part of the overall idea that Russia would really like other ports in the Far East, but the other locations suck. For example, the fastest way to the sea from the Trans-Siberian Railroad would be be a port in Chumikan (on the sort of cut-in corner of the Sea of Okhotsk). But it's ice-bound part of the year, and AFAICT the valley is swampy, and the mountains are pretty rugged. So they didn't build a major port there. The Russians tried Nikolayevsk as a major port, and then gave it up because the Amur delta is such a pain to navigate.