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

[The Nuclear Fist]

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.

And had an industrial base that dwarfed his. And that his generals weren't the best in the world. And that the Allied generals were themselves quite good.

There is no conceivable scenario, bar some sort of alien invasion in support of the Nazis, where Germany wins the second world war.

[Northwest Slobovia]

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

And had an industrial base that dwarfed his. And that his generals weren't the best in the world. And that the Allied generals were themselves quite good.

There is no conceivable scenario, bar some sort of alien invasion in support of the Nazis, where Germany wins the second world war.

Picking fights with fewer nations would have gone a long way...

[Risottia]

Everything happens as in the original timeline... however, within days AFTER the launching of Operation Barbarossa Hitler, in a dream, gets a vision from God telling him that when he wakes up he will find a book warning him about his impending doom if he does not ''change his ways.''

Hitler gets smashed nevertheless.

Because, since deities don't exist, the vision was caused by a Soviet agent who slipped up double ration of meth in Adolf's nightcup.

[Imperializt 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.

There was no lack of manpower sent to Russia. Or equipment, or even veteran troops being sent.

Hitler just made the classic mistake of invading Russia.
History has taught us there are four people you just don't invade. Britain, America, Russia and Afghanistan.

Everyone who has ignored this has not enjoyed it. Apart from that one time a thousand years ago.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

And had an industrial base that dwarfed his. And that his generals weren't the best in the world. And that the Allied generals were themselves quite good.

There is no conceivable scenario, bar some sort of alien invasion in support of the Nazis, where Germany wins the second world war.

Germany's nuclear weapons project could have magically pulled results, then he threatened London with it.

"Imagine a bomb, Mr Churchill. The deadliest bomb you can, and then imagine that I, and I alone, have it."

You would probably then observe Berlin sinking into eternal night.

[Lianhua (Ancient)]

Well sure, and if I was banging Sally Hindsight, maybe I would have invested in Google stock early on.

You're a horrible person, Mike.

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

couldn't have divine foresight because god doesn't exist /thread

[Nervium]

I sure as hell hope not.
And he was pretty dense tactically seen, sooo, chances are he could have stretched it, but still lose.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Probably not by 1941, no. He could have been lucky enough to break his alliance with Japan, keeping the Americans out of the war, but that's the only major thing he could have changed. I suppose if he had scored victories at Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad he could have forced a Brest-Litovsk style treaty on the Soviets and brought the war to an uneasy conclusion. Even then, the very nature of the Nazi regime meant that they'd likely fall apart by the 1960's anyway.

[Farnhamia]

Probably not by 1941, no. He could have been lucky enough to break his alliance with Japan, keeping the Americans out of the war, but that's the only major thing he could have changed. I suppose if he had scored victories at Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad he could have forced a Brest-Litovsk style treaty on the Soviets and brought the war to an uneasy conclusion. Even then, the very nature of the Nazi regime meant that they'd likely fall apart by the 1960's anyway.

He might have simply declined to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

The main failing in the Stalingrad campaign - really in most of the 3rd Reich's campaigns - was that Hitler couldn't keep from messing with the plans. After the successes of the early part of the war, he was convinced that he knew better than all his generals. He didn't.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I suppose if he had scored victories at Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad he could have forced a Brest-Litovsk style treaty on the Soviets and brought the war to an uneasy conclusion. Even then, the very nature of the Nazi regime meant that they'd likely fall apart by the 1960's anyway.

See, that's the thing, though. I don't really see Stalin agreeing to something like that. IIRC, he was willing to move the Soviet industrial base and fight on past the Urals. Assuming Hitler had, by some miracle, won battles at Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Soviets can just retreat even farther into their own territory. Hitler is going to overextend his war machine's logistics (which I think happened anyway) and hit the bottom of the manpower barrel before Stalin does.

And by 1942/3 the Red Army had largely recovered from the purges and the staggering losses during the opening of Barbarossa, so I'm not seeing much of a chance of the Nazis winning that level of victory against the Soviets, especially if the Red Army can catch its breath for even a moment.

Additionally, wasn't Brest-Litovsk the result of the Russian Revolution? I seem to remember the Brusilov Offensive only being squandered as a result of the Tsar being overthrown (or was it the Bolsheviks coming to power?). I don't really think there was any significant threat against Stalin's regime, so I don't see him agreeing to any such conditions.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I suppose if he had scored victories at Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad he could have forced a Brest-Litovsk style treaty on the Soviets and brought the war to an uneasy conclusion. Even then, the very nature of the Nazi regime meant that they'd likely fall apart by the 1960's anyway.

1) See, that's the thing, though. I don't really see Stalin agreeing to something like that. IIRC, he was willing to move the Soviet industrial base and fight on past the Urals. Assuming Hitler had, by some miracle, won battles at Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Soviets can just retreat even farther into their own territory. Hitler is going to overextend his war machine's logistics (which I think happened anyway) and hit the bottom of the manpower barrel before Stalin does.

2)And by 1942/3 the Red Army had largely recovered from the purges and the staggering losses during the opening of Barbarossa, so I'm not seeing much of a chance of the Nazis winning that level of victory against the Soviets, especially if the Red Army can catch its breath for even a moment.

3) Additionally, wasn't Brest-Litovsk the result of the Russian Revolution? I seem to remember the Brusilov Offensive only being squandered as a result of the Tsar being overthrown (or was it the Bolsheviks coming to power?). I don't really think there was any significant threat against Stalin's regime, so I don't see him agreeing to any such conditions.

1) Hitler would have to offer the treaty, though: from Stalin's perspective, Mein Kampf made it pretty clear that Hitler wanted the Slavic people pretty much wiped out. AFAIK, there were no attempts to hold a ceasefire at any point. If there was? I suspect Stalin may have been a little more open to a deal, although I couldn't say for certain either way.

2) I agree entirely. By 1942/3, it was pretty clear that the tide was turning against the Nazis with no hope of a reversal. Given the brutality Russia had experienced at the hands of the occupying Germans, I doubt Stalin would be open to a treaty when he saw the opportunity for complete revenge in those years.

3) It was the result of massive instability and economic and military failings. So yes, the Russian Revolution. But I'd say that a Soviet government forced to retreat and rebuild beyond the Urals would be in quite a similar position.

[Priory Academy USSR]

.
The main failing in the Stalingrad campaign - really in most of the 3rd Reich's campaigns - was that Hitler couldn't keep from messing with the plans. After the successes of the early part of the war, he was convinced that he knew better than all his generals. He didn't.

Indeed. I wonder whether Hitler's non-interference in Stalingrad could have brought the Germans victory there.

[Ethel mermania]

could napolean have won the battle of waterloo fi he had a air wing of b-52 bombers at his disposal?

[Farnhamia]

could napolean have won the battle of waterloo fi he had a air wing of b-52 bombers at his disposal?

You want tactical air support in Napoleonic Era battles, not strategic bombers. -5 points for missing the obvious "So long, Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" reference.

[The Nuclear Fist]

1) See, that's the thing, though. I don't really see Stalin agreeing to something like that. IIRC, he was willing to move the Soviet industrial base and fight on past the Urals. Assuming Hitler had, by some miracle, won battles at Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Soviets can just retreat even farther into their own territory. Hitler is going to overextend his war machine's logistics (which I think happened anyway) and hit the bottom of the manpower barrel before Stalin does.

2)And by 1942/3 the Red Army had largely recovered from the purges and the staggering losses during the opening of Barbarossa, so I'm not seeing much of a chance of the Nazis winning that level of victory against the Soviets, especially if the Red Army can catch its breath for even a moment.

3) Additionally, wasn't Brest-Litovsk the result of the Russian Revolution? I seem to remember the Brusilov Offensive only being squandered as a result of the Tsar being overthrown (or was it the Bolsheviks coming to power?). I don't really think there was any significant threat against Stalin's regime, so I don't see him agreeing to any such conditions.

1) Hitler would have to offer the treaty, though: from Stalin's perspective, Mein Kampf made it pretty clear that Hitler wanted the Slavic people pretty much wiped out. AFAIK, there were no attempts to hold a ceasefire at any point. If there was? I suspect Stalin may have been a little more open to a deal, although I couldn't say for certain either way.

2) I agree entirely. By 1942/3, it was pretty clear that the tide was turning against the Nazis with no hope of a reversal. Given the brutality Russia had experienced at the hands of the occupying Germans, I doubt Stalin would be open to a treaty when he saw the opportunity for complete revenge in those years.

3) It was the result of massive instability and economic and military failings. So yes, the Russian Revolution. But I'd say that a Soviet government forced to retreat and rebuild beyond the Urals would be in quite a similar position.

I'm just not seeing a chance that, even under the best possible circumstances, the Germans could pull it off. Even assuming they could force the Soviets all the way to the Urals, it would be a purely temporary measure. The Germans would have to administer the newly conquered regions, which would put incredible strain on an already overextended logistical scheme. The Germans would then, I suppose, be free to draw back fifty or so percent of their forces in the East to fight on the Western Front, assuming they left a small(er) force to garrison. But Stalin would undoubtedly use the time to recover and regroup, and at the perfect time would undoubtedly strike and likely overrun Hitler's forces.

Even in the best possible scenario, all I'm seeing is a longer, blooder, more drawn out war with even worse results for Germany. Think what the Red Army did to occupied Germany post war was brutal? Now imagine a occupying Red Army after the aforementioned scenario.

I'm not imagining Stalin just making sure Germany can ever stand on its own again, I'm seeing him putting in an effort to make the German nation extinct.

[Priory Academy USSR]

1) Hitler would have to offer the treaty, though: from Stalin's perspective, Mein Kampf made it pretty clear that Hitler wanted the Slavic people pretty much wiped out. AFAIK, there were no attempts to hold a ceasefire at any point. If there was? I suspect Stalin may have been a little more open to a deal, although I couldn't say for certain either way.

2) I agree entirely. By 1942/3, it was pretty clear that the tide was turning against the Nazis with no hope of a reversal. Given the brutality Russia had experienced at the hands of the occupying Germans, I doubt Stalin would be open to a treaty when he saw the opportunity for complete revenge in those years.

3) It was the result of massive instability and economic and military failings. So yes, the Russian Revolution. But I'd say that a Soviet government forced to retreat and rebuild beyond the Urals would be in quite a similar position.

I'm just not seeing a chance that, even under the best possible circumstances, the Germans could pull it off. Even assuming they could force the Soviets all the way to the Urals, it would be a purely temporary measure. The Germans would have to administer the newly conquered regions, which would put incredible strain on an already overextended logistical scheme. The Germans would then, I suppose, be free to draw back fifty or so percent of their forces in the East to fight on the Western Front, assuming they left a small(er) force to garrison. But Stalin would undoubtedly use the time to recover and regroup, and at the perfect time would undoubtedly strike and likely overrun Hitler's forces.

Even in the best possible scenario, all I'm seeing is a longer, blooder, more drawn out war with even worse results for Germany. Think what the Red Army did to occupied Germany post war was brutal? Now imagine a occupying Red Army after the aforementioned scenario.

I'm not imagining Stalin just making sure Germany can ever stand on its own again, I'm seeing him putting in an effort to make the German nation extinct.

That would probably be the most likely result, yes. I can't see Nazi Germany surviving for too long after any potential peace treaty anyway even if the Soviets didn't restart the war.

Anyway, my point remains: WW2 would be won, if only to result in greater bloodshed at a later date in one way or another.

[Ethel mermania]

could napolean have won the battle of waterloo fi he had a air wing of b-52 bombers at his disposal?

You want tactical air support in Napoleonic Era battles, not strategic bombers. -5 points for missing the obvious "So long, Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" reference.

your memory grows short, it was a snl skit



if memory serves john belushi played napolean.

[Farnhamia]

You want tactical air support in Napoleonic Era battles, not strategic bombers. -5 points for missing the obvious "So long, Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" reference.

your memory grows short, it was a snl skit

if memory serves john belushi played napolean.

Must have missed that one.

[Ethel mermania]

your memory grows short, it was a snl skit

if memory serves john belushi played napolean.

Must have missed that one.

farn, farn, farn, it was a classic godess;s are suppose to know these things.

[Stahn]

Tom Lehrer - So Long, Mom

[Farnhamia]

Must have missed that one.

farn, farn, farn, it was a classic godess;s are suppose to know these things.

I have better things to do on Saturday nights than sit around in front of the television watching some children acting silly.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Well sure, and if I was banging Sally Hindsight, maybe I would have invested in Google stock early on.

So that's what they mean by 'insider trading'.

[Stahn]

With hindsight, the nazi's had a good chance of winning the war.
If they concentrated their efforts on Moscow from the beginning of the Soviet invasion would have helped.

On the other hand, if it was the other way around, Stalin might have been able to conquer the whole of Europe before his Great Purge.

Hindsight is always 20.20.

[The Nuclear Fist]

With hindsight, the nazi's had a good chance of winning the war.
If they concentrated their efforts on Moscow from the beginning of the Soviet invasion would have helped.

On the other hand, if it was the other way around, Stalin might have been able to conquer the whole of Europe before his Great Purge.

Hindsight is always 20.20.

Capturing Moscow didn't work for Napoleon, it wasn't going to work for Hitler. The Soviets were more than prepared to move the industrial base into their central asian republics and dig in at the Urals.