Could Germany Have Won WW2?

[Nueo Soled]

Yes, if they dumped Hitler way before WW2 even started and choosed a much better military commander instead.

[Vulcan Prime]

If they hadn't horribly betrayed the USSR, and not been focused on the Holocaust(which they should have just left for after the war), they would have a secure eastern front. On the western side, they should not have been messing with American ships, and they should have kept the bombing focused on Britain's military instead of switching to civilian population and allowing the RAF to rebuild itself. If Japan hadn't bombed Pear Harbor, and the U-boats had been held back, the U.S would have probably stayed out of the war, and with Britain unable to assist their fallen comrades, Hitler might have won, if he forced Britain to surrender instead of trying to invade the entire country.

Of course, that's a lot of ifs.
Hitler lost, and I'm not torn up about it. In fact, I'm rather happy he did, since he was a little maniacal.
Even if he won, a war with the USSR would have probably broken out over eastern influences and etc, and the constant resistance fighting in western Europe and eventualy re-enter of Britain would probably cause the downfall of the Theird Reich. They were too damn crazy.

Wow, that is an awesome answer. *Likes*

[Purpelia]

Hitler wasn't Maniacal, he was an artist. There is a reason why serious politicians don't go into art and serious artists should not be allowed into politics. After all, was it not Nero who artistically plaid his fiddle during the great fire of Rome?


* For the love of all that is science don't take this post seriously.

[Absurrania]

Hitler wasn't Maniacal, he was an artist. There is a reason why serious politicians don't go into art and serious artists should not be allowed into politics. After all, was it not Nero who artistically plaid his fiddle during the great fire of Rome?


* For the love of all that is science don't take this post seriously.

SERIOUS POST! How dare you! Praising a murderer & a maniac! DIEEEE!

[Spirit of Hope]

Essentially as we look at the question “Could Germany win WWII?” we must define what we mean. So lets break it down:

“Could Germany Defeat the US?” No, first by the time the US was involved Germany was already in serious trouble. The attack against the USSR had failed to meet its primary objective, the taking of Moscow, or important secondary objectives, taking Stalingrad or Leningrad. In addition they Britain was still fighting and bombing German cities. Neither had Germany made significant advances or had significant victories in Africa.
So overall, stretched out fighting on multiple fronts, out numbered and being out produced on all fronts.

So we obviously have to rewind and find another time for Germany to win “WWII”.

“Could Germany Defeat the USSR?” This one is complicated, Operation Barbosa could probably have taken Moscow if it had been run better, the question becomes would the fall of Moscow have led to the defeat of the USSR. Moscow was central to the railway network and telegraph lines of the USSR, plus it held a large amount of symbolic purpose. However most industry had already been moved beyond the Urals and thus out of reach to the German air force. Personally I feel that with the way the war was going even the taking of Moscow wouldn’t have taken the USSR out of the war. They were fighting in North Africa, and losing plus Britain was still in the war, again, posing a threat to German cities. Additionally Japan was about to go to war with the US, and that would drag the US into Europe.

So we rewind even further.

“Could Germany control most of Western Europe?” I’m looking at starting with Dunkirk, here we say the Germans continue there attack and capture the forces that in our time line got away. Now, this would be a significant strike against Great Britain. Now would be the question of getting GB out of the war, Germany doesn’t have the surface navy to support a landing in GB, nor the equipment to transport the troops even if they could ensure no intervention by the Royal Navy. I would go about this by using the submarine fleet to begin attacking GB shipping. Keep Germanys planes to a limited role of attacking ships and away from GB air space. Start talking to Spain and see if you could do an assault on Gibraltar, and follow that up with operations in Africa. The entire time push the British to surrender agree to an armistice, anything to avoid having to keep fighting them for any length of time. You might get them to agree to a truce or an armistice. At which point Germany has “won” a very different “WWII”.

The question then becomes what would happen between Germany and the USSR. Here I would say, whoever attacks loses.

TLDR: Germany probably couldn't win against the USSR in 1941, but it could probably beat GB at around the same time if it fought smart.

[Manchovia]

I believe that Hitler could have won WW2 - however, I do not think he could have beaten the USA and the USSR at the same time. So his only chance for victory would have been to rapidly conquer Western Europe, including Britain, then negotiate a peace with the countries of the British Empire, or if possible get a Vichy-style government in the UK to control them. Then invade the USSR early in 1941 (as soon as the thaw has finished), to allow for a quick victory before the winter. Take care to stop the factories being relocated, and persuade Japan to invade the Eadtern USSR rather than start war with the USA. Then, when you control the USSR, go into mass production mode, before mounting a joint attack with Japan (and Canada, Mexico etc?) on the USA. But it would all be very difficult.

[Trotskylvania]

To defeat Britian, Hitler must ignore Franco, invade Spain and capture Gibraltar. Since Spain just recovered from a civil war and is too weak to participate in actual full combat, Spain would had easily fallen into the hands of the Nazis while Franco, a half jew, might had been part of the statistics of the Holocaust. The ports of Spain would had been productive for the war effort in the Atlantic.

With Spanish Morocco and Gibraltar captured, the British forces to the east of the world would had been isolated since the Suez canal, of which had been regarded by the British as their gateway to the east had been become for them, out of reach. Hitler at this point could either postpone Barbarossa and focus in the conquest of British colonies in Africa and the east and later gather enough resources to win himself in Russia.

However, it takes a lot of persuasion for Hitler to persuade Japan not to include America into the war by restraining them to conquering all of East Asia BUT the Philippines and prevent pearl harbor. The conquest of East Asia and seeing how the Japs are effectively encircling them would project a different image to America, mess with them and the Philippines will be gone.

While as for Hitler again, Barbarossa could had been finished it weren't for Hitler's intervention in sending the 6th army alone to attack Stalingrad and thinning his offensive power in the Southeast by sending a chunk of his forces to the Caucasus. Instead of focusing in Kiev, which had delayed Hitler's invasion to Moscow, he should had left pockets of unorganized resistance in Kiev and totally send Moscow forces into disarray, Hitler would had totally gained, if not total victory, but upper-hand in the east.

If the British empire refuses to capitulate, Hitler should had denied his conscience and used Tabun gas unto the V-2 or V-1 rockets and fired them to annihilate the entire population of London. He should also had spammed Britain with gas filled rockets to send mainland Britain into disarray and proceed with conquering Britain by a modified version of Sea lion and then hope for Churchill to capitulate, just kidding, int this scenario, the British government might had been casualties.

Japan should had been persuaded to also invade from the east in the Soviet union as an optional bonus for Hitler's final victory.

There's a little thing called the Pyrenees in the path of that invasion. The resource and logistical strain on the Nazi economy will force the diversion of almost a million men from the Eastern Front. Barbarossa will have to be delayed for at least a year, and in that time the Soviets will close the gap in terms of military effectiveness, and may even seize the initiative by attacking first. Gibraltar won't fall easily or quickly, and the very public betrayal of ally will enable the opening of a second front in mainland Europe, because Spain will not fall quickly enough.

And how are they going to capture Spanish Morocco? the British still control Malta, and the Royal Navy will now have access to Spanish naval facilities, as well as Portuguese ones, will be able to smash the hell out of any attempt to cross the Straits into Spanish Morocco.

And how is he going to focus on Africa? Rommel was at the very limit of his logistics, they could not feasibly send any more to North Africa, and even if they could, the transport system is so bad that even reaching the Nile is effectively impossible. The port facilities are just too far away. All the British have to do is wait for German units to wither on the vine, and then hit them. Just like they did IOTL, as it happens.

No, that's completely impossible. The Japanese cannot sustain any sort of fight in the South Pacific, regardless of America's involvement or not, without seizing American possessions, especially the Philippines. And with the American oil embargo, the Japanese have really only two choices: pull out of China to appease America, or gamble everything to take the East Indies, which will necessarily mean war with the US and the UK. Pearl Harbor or no, the US has been gearing up for war, and will respond to further Japanese aggression. Which will inevitably be directed towards the Philippines anyway.

You've got the events of two different years mixed up in your assessment of Barbarossa. The destruction of the Kiev Front and ancillary unites was absolutely neceassary for the attack on Moscow. Army Group Centre could not take a straight path to Moscow, the Pripet Marshes were in the way and had to be bypassed. That necessitated a concerted effort to siege Sevastopol, and push Soviet forces across the Don. This left a massive salient centered around Kiev. Continuing straight on to Moscow would be suicidal, as the Kiev Salient would just push into the German lines of communication, and cut off three whole Panzer armies, and the bulk of German mechanized forces, leading to their complete annihilation by Soviet counterattack.

If they had followed your strategy, the war would have been over by 1943 at the very latest.

V-1s weren't ready until 1944. And if he had used Tabun gas, the British would have begun loading their mass bombing raids with anthrax, which would have killed far more Germans than gas raids on London would have killed. Like, depopulate the entire country and render it uninhabitable levels.

[Viritica]

Yes, but if they had taken out Moscow and captured Stalin (who planned to stay) then the Soviet government would likely have collapsed. They would have been pushed back to the east and would have begun fighting amongst each other over who gets control over the rest of Russia. Besides, Hitler didn't want all of Russia. He planned to stop at the Urals which would have made a relatively nice defensive position.

And how was Japan's attack inevitable? A large part of the reason they attacked was because the US had put oil sanctions on them. If the Nazis captured the oil fields in Russia then they could have supplied the Japanese thereby preventing the Pearl Harbor attack.

Stalin could be replaced. The Soviet government didn't micro-manage like the Nazis, which is why you have brilliant leaders like in Leningrad and Stalingrad. And the Urals wouldn't have held the Soviets forever.

America was funding the Chinese and had an interest in maintaining influence in the Pacific. This goes against Japan's desire to conquer everything, oil or no oil. And it would take years for the Nazis to get oil all the way to the Japanese. If they even had enough to spare, that is. And you'll notice Japan was running out of oil long before Barbarossa even started, let alone before the oil fields could be captured.

Stalin was the government. He was everything during that time. He was effectively the supreme leader of the USSR. Without him and without Moscow the entire Soviet government would likely have collapsed. And imagine the power vacuum that would of taken place had he been captured or killed? And with Moscow captured Stalingrad and Leningrad would likely have followed suit.

I do think the Urals could of held the Soviets back. Mountains make excellent defenses. You could build endless bunkers and artillery pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were likely going to be extremely demoralized after having been steamrolled over in less than a year and the fact that a large part of people towards the east in the USSR were already pessimistic of the war.

[Zitru]

I agree, the Nazis could have won World War Two, especially if the didn't attack the USSR. Plus, Germany was weak at that time after the Treaty of Versailles.

[Great Kleomentia]

They didnt have the resources, but they did have the talent in terms of they had scientists capable to do so. Remember, most of Nazi scientists later fled to the US and continued their work under the administration and funding of the US government.

Those were, almost without exception, not the right kind of scientists.

Yes, they had brilliant aeronautical engineers and metallurgists, and they did some brilliant work making rockets later. But not only is making nuclear weapons entirely different, it's a whole lot harder. The German physics community had pretty much purged everyone who had even a twinkling of understanding of relativity and nuclear physics, and the whole field was generally denigrated as "Jewish physics" under Nazi ideology. Many had fled to the UK or the US by 1938.

Fair point.

[Senkaku]

Had Hitler not been so anti-Semitic (which would've secured him a number of good scientists to aid him in his efforts to get the bomb as well as lots of money, soldiers and material that he would've poured into the Holocaust), and had he not invaded the Soviet Union, and had he not focused on his expensive and ultimately futile Wunderwaffens, none of which proved to be all that effective, and if he'd sent more aid and intelligence to Japan, the Axis could've won. But it wouldn't have been pretty.

[Viritica]

Yes, if they dumped Hitler way before WW2 even started and choosed a much better military commander instead.

Hitler was a master at uniting Germany and he already had brilliant generals leading his Armies (Rommel's tactics are still studied today). Had Hitler just let his generals do their thing they could of won.

[Lolloh]

Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.

[Trotskylvania]

Stalin could be replaced. The Soviet government didn't micro-manage like the Nazis, which is why you have brilliant leaders like in Leningrad and Stalingrad. And the Urals wouldn't have held the Soviets forever.

America was funding the Chinese and had an interest in maintaining influence in the Pacific. This goes against Japan's desire to conquer everything, oil or no oil. And it would take years for the Nazis to get oil all the way to the Japanese. If they even had enough to spare, that is. And you'll notice Japan was running out of oil long before Barbarossa even started, let alone before the oil fields could be captured.

Stalin was the government. He was everything during that time. He was effectively the supreme leader of the USSR. Without him and without Moscow the entire Soviet government would likely have collapsed. And imagine the power vacuum that would of taken place had he been captured or killed? And with Moscow captured Stalingrad and Leningrad would likely have followed suit.

I do think the Urals could of held the Soviets back. Mountains make excellent defenses. You could build endless bunkers and artillery pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were likely going to be extremely demoralized after having been steamrolled over in less than a year and the fact that a large part of people towards the east in the USSR were already pessimistic of the war.

Stalin had already ceded the initative to the rest of the government by December. His death would not have caused a power vacuum. The Soviet government would have carried on, and the Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom would have taken the reins to ensure an orderly transition. All of the government ministries are safely out of Moscow, the army will keep fighting, and the Party treats all people as interchangeable parts.

The Germans will never make it to the Urals, the logistic system made it impossible. Moscow was entirely out of their reach, what makes you think that they could support their armies any further into the Soviet Union.

Leningrad didn't fall in spite of 900 days of siege, and Stalingrad didn't fall, even with the Germans dogpiling everything they had available on it. They are not going to fall if Moscow falls.

[Viritica]

Stalin was the government. He was everything during that time. He was effectively the supreme leader of the USSR. Without him and without Moscow the entire Soviet government would likely have collapsed. And imagine the power vacuum that would of taken place had he been captured or killed? And with Moscow captured Stalingrad and Leningrad would likely have followed suit.

I do think the Urals could of held the Soviets back. Mountains make excellent defenses. You could build endless bunkers and artillery pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were likely going to be extremely demoralized after having been steamrolled over in less than a year and the fact that a large part of people towards the east in the USSR were already pessimistic of the war.

Stalin had already ceded the initative to the rest of the government by December. His death would not have caused a power vacuum. The Soviet government would have carried on, and the Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom would have taken the reins to ensure an orderly transition. All of the government ministries are safely out of Moscow, the army will keep fighting, and the Party treats all people as interchangeable parts.

The Germans will never make it to the Urals, the logistic system made it impossible. Moscow was entirely out of their reach, what makes you think that they could support their armies any further into the Soviet Union.

Leningrad didn't fall in spite of 900 days of siege, and Stalingrad didn't fall, even with the Germans dogpiling everything they had available on it. They are not going to fall if Moscow falls.

Moscow was entirely out of reach? Bah. Do you know just how close the Nazis came? If I remember correctly, some Nazi scouts actually reported coming within visual range of Moscow. The Germans only wanted Leningrad because of the number of troops it held. The Germans could simply have surrounded it and starved the Soviets into submission. The reason the Germans lost the Battle of Stalingrad was because Soviet reinforcements arrived. Moscow was the main telegraph and railway center of the USSR. No Moscow means no reinforcements. Stalingrad falls too.

The Urals were a logistical nightmare but the Germans could have pulled it off.

[Trotskylvania]

Yes, if they dumped Hitler way before WW2 even started and choosed a much better military commander instead.

Hitler was a master at uniting Germany and he already had brilliant generals leading his Armies (Rommel's tactics are still studied today). Had Hitler just let his generals do their thing they could of won.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

All the brilliance in the world doesn't mean dick if your tanks have no gas, your men are starving and sick due to lack of supplies, and you have no bullets to fight with.

Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.

Hitler halted the invasion of Russia for a month because his forces were not in position. Barbarossa that's short a million men goes over like a lead balloon, and even if they can some how get those men into position, it wasn't the timing that mattered. The Russian winter was not what defeated the Wehrmacht, it was the Red Army. And they couldn't have taken Moscow, regardless of when they began the invasion, because they could not supply anyone that far into the Soviet Union. The only reason why the weather hit the German army so hard was because of the logistical problems. The could not move any supplies, let alone winter coats, in sufficient quantities towards the front. They had advanced too far, and no amount of voodoo is going to change the fact that the Soviets engaged in scorched earth policies, there's break of gauge and no rolling stock, and their military is ultimately reliant on horse drawn transportation for logistics outside of the small Panzer force.

[Shanix]

Had Hitler not been so anti-Semitic (which would've secured him a number of good scientists to aid him in his efforts to get the bomb as well as lots of money, soldiers and material that he would've poured into the Holocaust), and had he not invaded the Soviet Union, and had he not focused on his expensive and ultimately futile Wunderwaffens, none of which proved to be all that effective, and if he'd sent more aid and intelligence to Japan, the Axis could've won. But it wouldn't have been pretty.

Just to expand on this, Germany had 7 competing Atomic Bomb projects by wars end.

Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.

As much a miracle as a British Monarch being Anglican.

Hitler was a big problem, but it's another thing entirely to fight the biggest (land-wise) country in the world when ~80% was inhospitable at the time, the proudest of nations, the quickest to rouse beast of a nation, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Hitler made his bed, he just decided to flail around on it towards the end when bedtime came.

The Me262, could not have saved Germany in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to have the best tech. But as we saw in that war, when you've got 10,000 shit-tier planes and troops swarming over 10 of their technological powerful enemies, its not the tech that's winning. A quote from Hitler's diary serves to emphasize best:

...we have underestimated the Russian colossus...[Soviet] divisions are not armed and equipped according to our standards, and their tactical leadership is often poor. But there they are, and as we smash a dozen of them the Russians simply put up another dozen.

I now must ask, of what month of halting do you speak? More often that not (read: always), when the Wehrmacht stopped, it stopped because Generals Winter and Rain appeared. The inability to properly prepare for the invasion cost the Nazis Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, not "halting the invasion for a month for some reason." Had he managed to continue past weather, I hardly imagine that Stalin, Zhukov, or any Soviet would allow the Naizs to take Moscow. No, that would be near impossible. Like with Napoleon, Moscow would burn before the Nazis took it.

TL;DR Anyone who states that the Nazis could have won, have not studied WWII, or enough of it.

[Trotskylvania]

Stalin had already ceded the initative to the rest of the government by December. His death would not have caused a power vacuum. The Soviet government would have carried on, and the Deputy Chairman of Sovnarkom would have taken the reins to ensure an orderly transition. All of the government ministries are safely out of Moscow, the army will keep fighting, and the Party treats all people as interchangeable parts.

The Germans will never make it to the Urals, the logistic system made it impossible. Moscow was entirely out of their reach, what makes you think that they could support their armies any further into the Soviet Union.

Leningrad didn't fall in spite of 900 days of siege, and Stalingrad didn't fall, even with the Germans dogpiling everything they had available on it. They are not going to fall if Moscow falls.

Moscow was entirely out of reach? Bah. Do you know just how close the Nazis came? If I remember correctly, some Nazi scouts actually reported coming within visual range of Moscow. The Germans only wanted Leningrad because of the number of troops it held. The Germans could simply have surrounded it and starved the Soviets into submission. The reason the Germans lost the Battle of Stalingrad was because Soviet reinforcements arrived. Moscow was the main telegraph and railway center of the USSR. No Moscow means no reinforcements. Stalingrad falls too.

The Urals were a logistical nightmare but the Germans could have pulled it off.

The ensuing counterattacks were some of the worst defeats the Wehrmacht had faced before Operation Bagration. Because even obsolete Soviet tanks are better than German ones that have no gas or ammunition. Trying to take Moscow was impossible, and it all comes down to the constant theme I've been harping on: it's logistics, not tactics. The Soviets had better logistics, period. The logistics of supporting attacks on Moscow are impossible, it's too far, there's break of gauge, no rolling stock, partisan activity, and scorched earth policies.

The Germans did try to surround and starve Leningrad into submission. They spent 900 days doing this, and it still failed.

No, taking Moscow will not prevent the Soviets from reinforcing Stalingrad. The reinforcements were all either newly raised units from the hinterland, or they were forces diverted from the Central Asian and Far Eastern theaters. The forces around Moscow were engaged in an entirely separate operation, closing the German salients at Rzhev and Velikie Luki. But that's neither here no there, because Moscow won't be falling.

No, they couldn't even pull off taking Moscow, their troops were out of food, fuel and ammunition and could not be resupplied hardly at all, let alone for combat operations. The Urals might as well have been on the Moon.

[Lunas Legion]

Had Hitler not been so anti-Semitic (which would've secured him a number of good scientists to aid him in his efforts to get the bomb as well as lots of money, soldiers and material that he would've poured into the Holocaust), and had he not invaded the Soviet Union, and had he not focused on his expensive and ultimately futile Wunderwaffens, none of which proved to be all that effective, and if he'd sent more aid and intelligence to Japan, the Axis could've won. But it wouldn't have been pretty.

Just to expand on this, Germany had 7 competing Atomic Bomb projects by wars end.

Are you kidding? It's a miracle Germany LOST. The main problem was Hitler. His commands of fighting to the last man, repudiating logical orders, and refusing to pioneer important technologies, essentially doomed the Nazis. Of course, the USSR invasion was part of it. However, had the Germans made us of the Me232, they probably would've at least held off the Allies to have a truce. Further, Hitler also halted the invasion of Russia for a month for some reason. If he had just pushed, he could've taken Moscow and crushed the Soviets.

As much a miracle as a British Monarch being Anglican.

Hitler was a big problem, but it's another thing entirely to fight the biggest (land-wise) country in the world when ~80% was inhospitable at the time, the proudest of nations, the quickest to rouse beast of a nation, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Hitler made his bed, he just decided to flail around on it towards the end when bedtime came.

The Me262, could not have saved Germany in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to have the best tech. But as we saw in that war, when you've got 10,000 shit-tier planes and troops swarming over 10 of their technological powerful enemies, its not the tech that's winning. A quote from Hitler's diary serves to emphasize best:

...we have underestimated the Russian colossus...[Soviet] divisions are not armed and equipped according to our standards, and their tactical leadership is often poor. But there they are, and as we smash a dozen of them the Russians simply put up another dozen.

I now must ask, of what month of halting do you speak? More often that not (read: always), when the Wehrmacht stopped, it stopped because Generals Winter and Rain appeared. The inability to properly prepare for the invasion cost the Nazis Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, not "halting the invasion for a month for some reason." Had he managed to continue past weather, I hardly imagine that Stalin, Zhukov, or any Soviet would allow the Naizs to take Moscow. No, that would be near impossible. Like with Napoleon, Moscow would burn before the Nazis took it.

TL;DR Anyone who states that the Nazis could have won, have not studied WWII, or enough of it.

Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.

[Trotskylvania]

Just to expand on this, Germany had 7 competing Atomic Bomb projects by wars end.


As much a miracle as a British Monarch being Anglican.

Hitler was a big problem, but it's another thing entirely to fight the biggest (land-wise) country in the world when ~80% was inhospitable at the time, the proudest of nations, the quickest to rouse beast of a nation, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Hitler made his bed, he just decided to flail around on it towards the end when bedtime came.

The Me262, could not have saved Germany in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to have the best tech. But as we saw in that war, when you've got 10,000 shit-tier planes and troops swarming over 10 of their technological powerful enemies, its not the tech that's winning. A quote from Hitler's diary serves to emphasize best:


I now must ask, of what month of halting do you speak? More often that not (read: always), when the Wehrmacht stopped, it stopped because Generals Winter and Rain appeared. The inability to properly prepare for the invasion cost the Nazis Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, not "halting the invasion for a month for some reason." Had he managed to continue past weather, I hardly imagine that Stalin, Zhukov, or any Soviet would allow the Naizs to take Moscow. No, that would be near impossible. Like with Napoleon, Moscow would burn before the Nazis took it.

TL;DR Anyone who states that the Nazis could have won, have not studied WWII, or enough of it.

Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.

The Germans couldn't support the armies they did have in Ukraine. What on Earth makes you think putting more troops in their to divide the resource pie would be anything but disastrous. What makes you think that the Soviets won't use the weakness of Army Group North to go crashing into East Prussia? What makes you think that they can prevent the Kiev-Smolensk salient from flanking their attacks without Army Group North to take the area and tie down Soviet forces?

What makes you think that Nazis, who were ideologically committed to a policy of murder by starvation of the entire Slavic race, could exploit Ukrainian nationalism better than the Soviets? These are fundamental, core parts of the Nazi belief system, and to prevent them you basically can't have Nazis involved anymore, and he butterfly effect alone means there wouldn't be war in the first place.

[Shanix]

[cut out to save everyone space]

Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.

No. The biggest problem was, as always, over extended supply lines. Even if they hit the Oil Fields, they would have had to defend them against the Soviet War Machine across its entire expanse to make it worth while, otherwise the Soviets could encircle the Germans (See: End of Stalingrad) and pulled a Leningrad.

Speaking of Leningrad and her friends, why would Hitler want them? Simple. Morale. You're a soviet citizen and you find out that Lenin's City fell and Moscow came afterwards, well GGNORE everyone. GGNORE indeed. So he couldn't not go for them, it could bring an end to the war quicker.

Exploiting the Baltics seems like it could have worked, but you're talking about a force increase, in the North, to fight in the North. Or, more accurately, fight with shittier equipment and training and expect to keep up with the Wehrmacht, then get given shit detail because they aren't German. No way would they allow Baltic Soldiers into proper German Ranks. They wouldn't let the Finns in.

[Trotskylvania]

Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.

No. The biggest problem was, as always, over extended supply lines. Even if they hit the Oil Fields, they would have had to defend them against the Soviet War Machine across its entire expanse to make it worth while, otherwise the Soviets could encircle the Germans (See: End of Stalingrad) and pulled a Leningrad.

Speaking of Leningrad and her friends, why would Hitler want them? Simple. Morale. You're a soviet citizen and you find out that Lenin's City fell and Moscow came afterwards, well GGNORE everyone. GGNORE indeed. So he couldn't not go for them, it could bring an end to the war quicker.

Exploiting the Baltics seems like it could have worked, but you're talking about a force increase, in the North, to fight in the North. Or, more accurately, fight with shittier equipment and training and expect to keep up with the Wehrmacht, then get given shit detail because they aren't German. No way would they allow Baltic Soldiers into proper German Ranks. They wouldn't let the Finns in.

Actually, changing courses away from a direct assault on Leningrad is the only operational mistake worth noting. Because the only way they can fix their supply conundrum anywhere is to take the harbor, port, and rail facilities of Leningrad. The Soviets will demolish them, sure, but the only way they can get supplies to the front in sufficient quantities is through Leningrad harbor. Repairing and using the Leningrad ports is the only thing short of an act of God that can help alleviate the supply problem, and that would only be for Army Group North.

[Shanix]

No. The biggest problem was, as always, over extended supply lines. Even if they hit the Oil Fields, they would have had to defend them against the Soviet War Machine across its entire expanse to make it worth while, otherwise the Soviets could encircle the Germans (See: End of Stalingrad) and pulled a Leningrad.

Speaking of Leningrad and her friends, why would Hitler want them? Simple. Morale. You're a soviet citizen and you find out that Lenin's City fell and Moscow came afterwards, well GGNORE everyone. GGNORE indeed. So he couldn't not go for them, it could bring an end to the war quicker.

Exploiting the Baltics seems like it could have worked, but you're talking about a force increase, in the North, to fight in the North. Or, more accurately, fight with shittier equipment and training and expect to keep up with the Wehrmacht, then get given shit detail because they aren't German. No way would they allow Baltic Soldiers into proper German Ranks. They wouldn't let the Finns in.

Actually, changing courses away from a direct assault on Leningrad is the only operational mistake worth noting. Because the only way they can fix their supply conundrum anywhere is to take the harbor, port, and rail facilities of Leningrad. The Soviets will demolish them, sure, but the only way they can get supplies to the front in sufficient quantities is through Leningrad harbor. Repairing and using the Leningrad ports is the only thing short of an act of God that can help alleviate the supply problem, and that would only be for Army Group North.

I'll admit, yeah, that's true. Thanks for pointing that out. But that would primarily only be able to help the Morale side of the War (Taking Lenin and Stalin's Cities, as well as Moscow), not the resources one that would be beneficial in the long term.

[Lunas Legion]

Germany could have won. If Hitler made the Lorentz decision in favour of one side (north or south) rather than splitting between them, and chose to go south, he would easily have beaten the Russians. The forces used to siege Leningrad and attempt to siege Moscow would have been better used in the steppes of the south, and once the Causcaus had fallen, Hitler has his oil supply secured, and taken it from the Soviets. The US can only ship so much oil into the USSR, and soon enough it would have run out and had to surrender based off simple lack of resources. Also, if Hitler exploited the sense of nationalism that had been suppressed by the Soviets in the Baltic states/Ukraine/Cossacks, the partisan issue would be reduced in the western areas of Russia, and he would have had manpower reserves to draw on as well.

The Germans couldn't support the armies they did have in Ukraine. What on Earth makes you think putting more troops in their to divide the resource pie would be anything but disastrous. What makes you think that the Soviets won't use the weakness of Army Group North to go crashing into East Prussia? What makes you think that they can prevent the Kiev-Smolensk salient from flanking their attacks without Army Group North to take the area and tie down Soviet forces?

What makes you think that Nazis, who were ideologically committed to a policy of murder by starvation of the entire Slavic race, could exploit Ukrainian nationalism better than the Soviets? These are fundamental, core parts of the Nazi belief system, and to prevent them you basically can't have Nazis involved anymore, and he butterfly effect alone means there wouldn't be war in the first place.

The Soviets repressed the Ukranian nationalists. If Hitler had postponed his mass-genocides until after the war was won, then he could have still exploited it. By reducing Army Group North, I mean pulling the Panzer and Motorized forces out of that section of the line and committing them in a southern offensive similar to Fall Blau. Hitler also should have abandoned Mussolini in Africa; it had little resource value, and Rommel and his Afrika corps could have been used much more effectively on the Eastern Front. Same for the German forces in Finland; they could have been put to much better use fighting alongside Army Group South.

Effectively, a mass reallocation of resources from other theatres could have at least given Hitler a better chance of winning the war. If the Causcaus fell, and with the Red Army unused to conducting mobile offensives, having been on the defensive the whole war, any attack in the North could have been stalled. Finland would more than likely fall, but that is of minimal consequence to the larger strategic importance, as with the Causcaus oil fields and the Black Sea secured, Hitler can move supplies over that instead of the inferior railway network to his forces over there, and more than likely secured the southern part of the proposed AA occupation line.

The north is another matter altogether, though, as we don't know whether Stalin would attempt a counterattack on the forces moving up towards Astrakan or punched out near the Finnish border to try and relieve Leningrad and then launched a attack through the Baltics and down the German front line.

[Albynia]

You might want to narrow down the scenario.

I mean, yeah, sure Germany could have won if the USSR or USA wasn't involved.