Could the Nazis have Won ?!?

[Ein stein]

All in all i will say that the Nazi's thought of Russians as sub-human morons incapable of tactics. They made a mistake by totally underestimating the Russian ability to endure suffering and execute a strategy.

[Zottistan]

They had an incredibly stupid habit of diverting resources away from the fronts to fund their extermination camps. Which is immoral and all, but also makes no sense to me. Surely you should deal with your immediate existential threats first and your side-projects second. They could also have probably learned something from the less-is-more philosophy of armoured vehicle design.

[Oil exporting People]

>had the 2nd SS at Borodino been a day quicker or had XLI Panzer Corps pushed east towards Volokolamsk
Dead line of reasoning, bruv. It's akin to saying "if only the soldiers were better" or "if only Stalin hadn't abandoned Tukhachevsky". A strategist works with what he has, his decisions and personnel management are his inputs, those are what judgement is proclaimed upon.

It's Alternate History, and the diversion of XLI was a rather last minute thing anyway. Having 2nd SS make better time can be due to any number of factors that easily manipulable; alternatively, have the Luftwaffe hit 32nd Rifle's rail transports early.

In any case, Moscow would still be held, albeit encircled for some duration, its value as a transit hub and production centre denied to the germans (although also denied to the russians). Same with Leningrad.

There was no further defensive formations in front of Moscow in Mid-October, and the decision to abandon the city was not decided upon by Stalin until the 15th; the movement of governmental offices and files was already well underway and continued for sometime after the 15th as a precaution. Leningrad only survived the winter via supplies from ports along the Volkhov, and cutting them means the city starves to death.

Leningrad, interestingly enough, was able to maintain a decent enough airbridge, something the germans were not capable of doing for their encircled troops in Stalingrad. Difference in relative air superiority and depth of advance, I suppose. I don't think it true that there's overpenetration, save for risking encirclement, when it comes to taking cities, since the farther one can split an enemies lines from his forts, the better off one is.

Not actually accurate; 300 transport planes had been successfully used to keep 6th Army supplied during the summer stages of Case Blau, but by the time the encirclement occurred they had for the most part been diverted to North Africa to reinforce Rommel, with the actual number on hand being less than 60 to do the job they had previously done as stated with 300. As for Leningrad, air supply was never a major element in the cities survival, with that particular honor going to port cities along Lake Ladoga.

[Oil exporting People]

Sure, initially, the Nazis could've potentially secured Moscow without much hassle had they been stronger on the offensive. HOWEVER, this wouldn't have been a strategic victory by any means; at best, they'd've removed 90k troops from the fight, but the stream of reinforcements coming from Siberia and elsewhere would've eventually cut them off and surrounded them. Any operational victory involving the city would've been rendered moot by the Red Army.

The Soviets did not amass sufficient forces for the mass counter-attack until December, at which they hit the Germans who had been stuck out in the open, weakened by weeks of continuous fighting, and were suffering supply issues; as an aside, VERY few of said Soviet troops were actually Siberian, that is a myth. Despite said advantages, they still suffered a 3:1 loss ratio to Army Group Center during their offensive. Now contrast this with the altered situation. Taking Moscow by Mid-October grants six weeks of rest and entrenchments, and not being in constant combat reduces the strain on their logistics, allowing for the need shipping space for mass deployment of winter clothing and anti-freeze for the vehicles. Finally, taking Moscow slices the Soviet transportation network into pieces, meaning that any Soviet attack will be disjointed and unable to achieve concentration. In short, a sure German victory.

Again, operationally and tactically, these maneuvers made sense as per the Nazi's doctrine - tactical and operational superiority. But This maneuver by Rommel didn't dare look at the Strategic level, and that's where the failure in this came in. He didn't consider the strategic value of logistics, or the entirety of the front he was fighting on, etc. like most Nazi leaders, because the focus of Nazi doctrine was tactical and operational superiority. If they were concerned with strategic superiority, events like Operation Barbarossa never would've occurred and Rommel would've been canned from Africa for being a Captain in General's clothing.

See, here's where I know you don't know what you're talking about. Tactical refers solely to actions on the battlefield, while operationally refers to the overall goal of a certain action while strategic goals flow from this level; even ignoring that, it's still clear you have no idea what you're talking about considering what Rommel was trying to accomplish here. 8th Army is the only field force the Commonwealth has to oppose a thrust into Egypt; it's destruction means the path to the Suez and from there into the Middle East is now open. This was Rommel's ultimate goal, and the near encirclement of the two Corps as well as the overrunning of the British areas (A favored tactic by Rommel, as it supplemented his own supplies and allowed for greater operation depths to be achieved) would've doomed the aforementioned Commonwealth army.

[Torrocca]

Sure, initially, the Nazis could've potentially secured Moscow without much hassle had they been stronger on the offensive. HOWEVER, this wouldn't have been a strategic victory by any means; at best, they'd've removed 90k troops from the fight, but the stream of reinforcements coming from Siberia and elsewhere would've eventually cut them off and surrounded them. Any operational victory involving the city would've been rendered moot by the Red Army.

The Soviets did not amass sufficient forces for the mass counter-attack until December, at which they hit the Germans who had been stuck out in the open, weakened by weeks of continuous fighting, and were suffering supply issues; as an aside, VERY few of said Soviet troops were actually Siberian, that is a myth. Despite said advantages, they still suffered a 3:1 loss ratio to Army Group Center during their offensive. Now contrast this with the altered situation. Taking Moscow by Mid-October grants six weeks of rest and entrenchments, and not being in constant combat reduces the strain on their logistics, allowing for the need shipping space for mass deployment of winter clothing and anti-freeze for the vehicles. Finally, taking Moscow slices the Soviet transportation network into pieces, meaning that any Soviet attack will be disjointed and unable to achieve concentration. In short, a sure German victory.

This bit assumes heavily that the Nazi push into Moscow, assuming the line of defense broke, wouldn't lead to Soviet forces withdrawing to within the city and attempting to conduct urban guerrilla warfare, as was seen in the open phases of Stalingrad. Civilians in the city would've been mustered into fighting or factory work, and it would've been the same sort of hell faced in Stalingrad. And, unlike Stalingrad, most of the city of Moscow would've been comparatively undamaged from air raids. It's unlikely the Nazi forces would've been able to achieve any significant capturing of the city, except for perhaps the western outskirts, by Mid-October.

[United States of Natan]

Perhaps, if A) hitler hadn't made the fatal mistakes that led to their defeat in the first place, like invading the USSR in the winter, and B) invented the atomic bomb first, and C) managed to take over the world. However, taking over the world, even with atomic weapons, is no easy task, and even if they succeeded, it wouldn't be for long. The Nazi military would be too small, and spread too thin to contain any insurgencies that might spring up. They'd quickly lose ground, which would lead to infighting, and no doubt numerous assassination attempts on Hitler, from both members of the reich and from the rebels. with a massive power vacuum, the reich would weaken even more. Eventually, the reich would fracture, and break apart, leaving the rebels and the exiled governments to regain power and push the Nazis back into Germany.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Perhaps, if A) hitler hadn't made the fatal mistakes that led to their defeat in the first place, like invading the USSR in the winter, and B) invented the atomic bomb first, and C) managed to take over the world. However, taking over the world, even with atomic weapons, is no easy task, and even if they succeeded, it wouldn't be for long. The Nazi military would be too small, and spread too thin to contain any insurgencies that might spring up. They'd quickly lose ground, which would lead to infighting, and no doubt numerous assassination attempts on Hitler, from both members of the reich and from the rebels. with a massive power vacuum, the reich would weaken even more. Eventually, the reich would fracture, and break apart, leaving the rebels and the exiled governments to regain power and push the Nazis back into Germany.

Germany didn't invade the USSR in the winter, they launched the operation in June after being delayed by the sheer incompetence of their Italian allies.

I also disagree that rebellions would be a problem for very long if the Third Reich won. Because, ya know, Generalplan Ost and other such things.

[United States of Natan]

Perhaps, if A) hitler hadn't made the fatal mistakes that led to their defeat in the first place, like invading the USSR in the winter, and B) invented the atomic bomb first, and C) managed to take over the world. However, taking over the world, even with atomic weapons, is no easy task, and even if they succeeded, it wouldn't be for long. The Nazi military would be too small, and spread too thin to contain any insurgencies that might spring up. They'd quickly lose ground, which would lead to infighting, and no doubt numerous assassination attempts on Hitler, from both members of the reich and from the rebels. with a massive power vacuum, the reich would weaken even more. Eventually, the reich would fracture, and break apart, leaving the rebels and the exiled governments to regain power and push the Nazis back into Germany.

Germany didn't invade the USSR in the winter, they launched the operation in June after being delayed by the sheer incompetence of their Italian allies.

I also disagree that rebellions would be a problem for very long if the Third Reich won. Because, ya know, Generalplan Ost and other such things.

Well regardless, it was foolish to remain in the USSR through the winter.

Don't be so sure about the weakness of the rebellions. We're talking about the entire world, here, and all of those armies and people that would have opposed the nazis. No army can control millions of rebels like that, especially when they've got soldiers occupied doing other things, like running concentration camps, among other things. They can't devote every resource to taking out the rebels, and we're talking about large, decentralized pockets of guerrilla resistance units, backed up by exiled governments, trying to be squashed by an already stretched-thin army and regime controlled entirely out of centralized Berlin, which will no doubt be plagued by frequent assassination attempts, which will ultimately lead to power vacuums that further weaken the already thin regime.

[Purpelia]

We can all laugh at Germany invading the Soviet Union but at the time the whole thing really did not sound as stupid as we now know in hindsight. Let's look at the facts:

In WW1 Russia was arguably an empire at its peak. Yes, they had just lost against the Japanese in the east. But that's the far east and nobody in the civilized white world cares about that (It's 1900's, what do you expect?). And yet as they entered the war they immediately proved them self to be the sick man of Europe constantly plagued by material shortages, morale problems and just plain old starvation even during the early years when their country and armies were mostly in order. As an example at one point they literally bought all foreign rifles they could get irregardless of cost or caliber just so that they could have their troops shoot something.

The whole one man with a rifle, one man without a rifle idiocy that you see depicted for WW2 which is NOT true for that conflict was in fact true in WW1 and massively so. And that's before we get into shortages of important stuff like artillery. The end result of this was that, even though Russia fought bravely it inevitably collapsed after a few years of fighting. But we all know that history. So what happened next?

Well there was the little matter of a revolution. Two revolutions actually. The second being followed by a brutal and bloody decade long civil war. The kind that puts brother against brother, every single petty ethnicity against one another and generally chews the country up like a rabid pit-bull let loose on kindergarteners. So just by looking at that you have a country that by the 30's is at best going to be a disunited mess and a shadow of its former self. A self that, as demonstrated above was crap originally even before the whole mess started. So what reason was there to doubt they would be a pushover?

Well, maybe we should look at the record of wars they fought. Maybe that gives us some hint at true Soviet power. In 1919-21 the Soviet union fought Poland and lost. In 39-40 they fought Finland and basically lost.* They only fight they won was a small skirmish against Japan and that one was kept secret by both sides to prevent a war breaking out. And to top it off just before the invasion Stalin had completed a massive purge in the army leadership.

So when you take all these things together, an already failing empire loosing a world war, collapsing into a civil war and loosing half of its generals after loosing wars against petty neighbors. Is it really that surprising that Germany fought them to be a pushover? Everyone in the world fought them to be a pushover.

Just looking at the facts as they are it's clear that the Soviet Union should not have possibly been able to match even the performance of the Russian Empire, let alone win. It would literally take some sort of semi divine god-king with a will of sheer steel and a ruthless disregard for all human cost to even rebuild the country from those disasters enough to stave off starvation, let alone actually fight a war. And the sort of people that could and would go through with that instead of starting a third revolution. And how often does that happen historically?

-
Still, say you are a German general and you are unconvinced. You agree that the Soviet army should be a pushover but you don't feel your army is strong enough to do the pushing. Fair enough, let's look at the best and strongest land army in Europe. The one with the most highest quality tanks, men and fortifications. The one that... oh wait, it's 41. That army was France and it was because your army just beat them.


So by all logical analysis a German planner in 1940-41 really should have thought the invasion of the Soviet Union to be a forgone conclusion. Maybe they should have planned for a war of 2-3 years instead of one summer. But without insider knowledge from the Soviet Union and future vision there should have been no reasonable doubt that it was a forgone German victory. The fact it was not is not some sort of historical inevitability that they were too stupid to see but a testament to the sheer will of Stalin and his people to work and fight in the face of impossible odds.


* They won but with such a hilarious disparity of numbers and casualties that it's basically a loss.

[Mega Mexico]

We can all laugh at Germany invading the Soviet Union but at the time the whole thing really did not sound as stupid as we now know in hindsight. Let's look at the facts:

In WW1 Russia was arguably an empire at its peak. Yes, they had just lost against the Japanese in the east. But that's the far east and nobody in the civilized white world cares about that (It's 1900's, what do you expect?). And yet as they entered the war they immediately proved them self to be the sick man of Europe constantly plagued by material shortages, morale problems and just plain old starvation even during the early years when their country and armies were mostly in order. As an example at one point they literally bought all foreign rifles they could get irregardless of cost or caliber just so that they could have their troops shoot something.

The whole one man with a rifle, one man without a rifle idiocy that you see depicted for WW2 which is NOT true for that conflict was in fact true in WW1 and massively so. And that's before we get into shortages of important stuff like artillery. The end result of this was that, even though Russia fought bravely it inevitably collapsed after a few years of fighting. But we all know that history. So what happened next?

Well there was the little matter of a revolution. Two revolutions actually. The second being followed by a brutal and bloody decade long civil war. The kind that puts brother against brother, every single petty ethnicity against one another and generally chews the country up like a rabid pit-bull let loose on kindergarteners. So just by looking at that you have a country that by the 30's is at best going to be a disunited mess and a shadow of its former self. A self that, as demonstrated above was crap originally even before the whole mess started. So what reason was there to doubt they would be a pushover?

Well, maybe we should look at the record of wars they fought. Maybe that gives us some hint at true Soviet power. In 1919-21 the Soviet union fought Poland and lost. In 39-40 they fought Finland and basically lost.* They only fight they won was a small skirmish against Japan and that one was kept secret by both sides to prevent a war breaking out. And to top it off just before the invasion Stalin had completed a massive purge in the army leadership.

So when you take all these things together, an already failing empire loosing a world war, collapsing into a civil war and loosing half of its generals after loosing wars against petty neighbors. Is it really that surprising that Germany fought them to be a pushover? Everyone in the world fought them to be a pushover.

Just looking at the facts as they are it's clear that the Soviet Union should not have possibly been able to match even the performance of the Russian Empire, let alone win. It would literally take some sort of semi divine god-king with a will of sheer steel and a ruthless disregard for all human cost to even rebuild the country from those disasters enough to stave off starvation, let alone actually fight a war. And the sort of people that could and would go through with that instead of starting a third revolution. And how often does that happen historically?

-
Still, say you are a German general and you are unconvinced. You agree that the Soviet army should be a pushover but you don't feel your army is strong enough to do the pushing. Fair enough, let's look at the best and strongest land army in Europe. The one with the most highest quality tanks, men and fortifications. The one that... oh wait, it's 41. That army was France and it was because your army just beat them.


So by all logical analysis a German planner in 1940-41 really should have thought the invasion of the Soviet Union to be a forgone conclusion. Maybe they should have planned for a war of 2-3 years instead of one summer. But without insider knowledge from the Soviet Union and future vision there should have been no reasonable doubt that it was a forgone German victory. The fact it was not is not some sort of historical inevitability that they were too stupid to see but a testament to the sheer will of Stalin and his people to work and fight in the face of impossible odds.


* They won but with such a hilarious disparity of numbers and casualties that it's basically a loss.

Agreed.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

I have studied a lot of history, especially about the Nazis. Adolf Hitler, IMHO, was insane and a sociopath who had maxed out on Meth and couldn't have led his country to victory. Still..what if the Third Reich was taken over by someone else ? Or what would have happened if they prepared for war for a long time, say 20 years, and then busted out and waged war ? The German people were known as being very good with tools and machines. Do you think that if they kept from waging war immediately they would have won ? Say they waited for a 100 years, and then waged war ? Would that make any difference ?
So what do you think NS ? Could the Nazis have won the war if they took these measures ?

You sound like you have watched documentaries. Suffice to say, no. The USSR was industrializing faster. The French would benefit greatly from last second conscription increases after 20 years. Italy still would have a severe resource deficit. Japan would have lost the war in China without oil. I could give you a thousand more reasons but I am typing on a cellphone and it is a pain in the ass.

[The Krogan]

I have studied a lot of history, especially about the Nazis. Adolf Hitler, IMHO, was insane and a sociopath who had maxed out on Meth and couldn't have led his country to victory. Still..what if the Third Reich was taken over by someone else ? Or what would have happened if they prepared for war for a long time, say 20 years, and then busted out and waged war ? The German people were known as being very good with tools and machines. Do you think that if they kept from waging war immediately they would have won ? Say they waited for a 100 years, and then waged war ? Would that make any difference ?
So what do you think NS ? Could the Nazis have won the war if they took these measures ?

Arguably they had to start the war when they did, otherwise it would only have been a few more years till the Soviet Union would have actually been prepared for a war with the Axis. In any case the Germans overwhelming prowess in machinery and war during the Second World War is one of the most inflated historical perceptions of our time.

Heh, looks like people have already made my point, oh well.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Krogan even you have to admit that going from 0 military production to nearly 100k planes, 50k tanks, not to mention artillery. Production started in 1933/34, massive strategic bombing started in 41, raw resources were cut off from the USSR in 41 as well. In 8 years Germany went from a tiny professional corps to the second best equipped force in the world. You don't have to be a Wehraboo to see that this surpassed any expectations by far. The Navy of course played second fiddle to the other branches but still saw massive expansion until 1941.

Edit: btw OP this could be attributed to many things such as the ruhr, occupation of Czech mines/skoda works, Soviet help, okw's prefferential treatment over civilian industry, krupps prefferential treatment in contracts, and the virtual end of workers rights. It had little to do with Germanies natural industriousness. At least that is my opinion.

[Kubra]

>had the 2nd SS at Borodino been a day quicker or had XLI Panzer Corps pushed east towards Volokolamsk
Dead line of reasoning, bruv. It's akin to saying "if only the soldiers were better" or "if only Stalin hadn't abandoned Tukhachevsky". A strategist works with what he has, his decisions and personnel management are his inputs, those are what judgement is proclaimed upon.

It's Alternate History, and the diversion of XLI was a rather last minute thing anyway. Having 2nd SS make better time can be due to any number of factors that easily manipulable; alternatively, have the Luftwaffe hit 32nd Rifle's rail transports early.

There was no further defensive formations in front of Moscow in Mid-October, and the decision to abandon the city was not decided upon by Stalin until the 15th; the movement of governmental offices and files was already well underway and continued for sometime after the 15th as a precaution. Leningrad only survived the winter via supplies from ports along the Volkhov, and cutting them means the city starves to death.


Not actually accurate; 300 transport planes had been successfully used to keep 6th Army supplied during the summer stages of Case Blau, but by the time the encirclement occurred they had for the most part been diverted to North Africa to reinforce Rommel, with the actual number on hand being less than 60 to do the job they had previously done as stated with 300. As for Leningrad, air supply was never a major element in the cities survival, with that particular honor going to port cities along Lake Ladoga.

Yes, alternate history based on mere chance, aspects of friction changing in one way or the other. Judge what is manipulable by those involved in strategic considerations, not what is not.

Very true. Your point, exactly? Unless a city is razed to the ground, a very silly thing to do, especially with a transit hub, and can either live on what supply it has or be adequately supplied from some point, it's a fortress more defensible than any vaubanian fortification. When fought for, house by house, it is something that takes months to be properly taken, and many more simply to be made useful again.

I did not say it was the main point of supply for Leningrad. In general, it was much more efficient to move supplies by naval means than aerial means. It was, however, a very innovative means of imagining lines of supply, an innovation that we're quite familiar with these days. Let us imagine what is manipulable: if the ports are blockaded, what becomes of aerial means of supply, now the only for of supplying the city? What sort of efforts are exerted towards that end? What sort of efforts become necessary to cut off this line of supply? Perhaps we should consider your position on the aerial supply of the 6th army, you're probably right regarding the diversion; what if they had not been diverted, but the decision was made to continue it in the same or greater scope? What would become of the 6th? What means would the soviets consider to counter this problem?

[Kubra]

Krogan even you have to admit that going from 0 military production to nearly 100k planes, 50k tanks, not to mention artillery. Production started in 1933/34, massive strategic bombing started in 41, raw resources were cut off from the USSR in 41 as well. In 8 years Germany went from a tiny professional corps to the second best equipped force in the world. You don't have to be a Wehraboo to see that this surpassed any expectations by far. The Navy of course played second fiddle to the other branches but still saw massive expansion until 1941.

Edit: btw OP this could be attributed to many things such as the ruhr, occupation of Czech mines/skoda works, Soviet help, okw's prefferential treatment over civilian industry, krupps prefferential treatment in contracts, and the virtual end of workers rights. It had little to do with Germanies natural industriousness. At least that is my opinion.

A tiny professional corps in a country full of war veterans. In any case, when you're borrowing like a motherfucker and throwing it all at armament production and development then yeah, you're gonna have a fuck ton of war materiel, even if you don't end up with a stable economy.

And in any case, it wasn't "zero" military production. The Weimar republic had a lot of contact with the soviets, and they did joint military r&d on the sly. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I would fucking destroy the Nazis.

[Oil exporting People]

This bit assumes heavily that the Nazi push into Moscow, assuming the line of defense broke, wouldn't lead to Soviet forces withdrawing to within the city and attempting to conduct urban guerrilla warfare, as was seen in the open phases of Stalingrad. Civilians in the city would've been mustered into fighting or factory work, and it would've been the same sort of hell faced in Stalingrad. And, unlike Stalingrad, most of the city of Moscow would've been comparatively undamaged from air raids. It's unlikely the Nazi forces would've been able to achieve any significant capturing of the city, except for perhaps the western outskirts, by Mid-October.

No defenses were prepared around Moscow, no formations were in the city (besides a handful of internal security units attempting to evacuate the population, and not fit for combat against frontline forces), and, as you note, no real damage to cause sufficient amount of rubble (Which is extremely effective for defense) had been caused. Further, we're talking 60-70k troops spread out over an entire front, deployed into positions to act as a front screen; if, say, 2nd SS had wacked 32nd Rifles at Borodino, there is no way they could withdraw in time to prevent 2nd SS an 10th Panzer from taking the city. If XLI hadn't been diverted, it has the same combat power as almost the entirety of the front screen.

In short, there is no way to defend Moscow in early October if the Germans bring their weight to bare, or crack open the line as nearly occurred at Borodino. I believe even Zhukov discussed this in his Post-War memoirs.

[Torrocca]

This bit assumes heavily that the Nazi push into Moscow, assuming the line of defense broke, wouldn't lead to Soviet forces withdrawing to within the city and attempting to conduct urban guerrilla warfare, as was seen in the open phases of Stalingrad. Civilians in the city would've been mustered into fighting or factory work, and it would've been the same sort of hell faced in Stalingrad. And, unlike Stalingrad, most of the city of Moscow would've been comparatively undamaged from air raids. It's unlikely the Nazi forces would've been able to achieve any significant capturing of the city, except for perhaps the western outskirts, by Mid-October.

No defenses were prepared around Moscow, no formations were in the city (besides a handful of internal security units attempting to evacuate the population, and not fit for combat against frontline forces), and, as you note, no real damage to cause sufficient amount of rubble (Which is extremely effective for defense) had been caused. Further, we're talking 60-70k troops spread out over an entire front, deployed into positions to act as a front screen; if, say, 2nd SS had wacked 32nd Rifles at Borodino, there is no way they could withdraw in time to prevent 2nd SS an 10th Panzer from taking the city. If XLI hadn't been diverted, it has the same combat power as almost the entirety of the front screen.

In short, there is no way to defend Moscow in early October if the Germans bring their weight to bare, or crack open the line as nearly occurred at Borodino. I believe even Zhukov discussed this in his Post-War memoirs.

Hmm, y'know, looking into it, you seem right that Moscow might've been a bit easy for the Nazis to take. I disagree with some bits but, eh. I don't think losing Moscow would've ended the war for the Soviets, however.

[Kanadorika]

Plus they could've changed the name. Maybe kept the boots and longcoats.

Get rid of the skulls on their caps.

Field Marshal Mackensen will probably haunt you from beyond the grave for that remark.

[Oil exporting People]

Hmm, y'know, looking into it, you seem right that Moscow might've been a bit easy for the Nazis to take. I disagree with some bits but, eh. I don't think losing Moscow would've ended the war for the Soviets, however.

By itself, it's not a killing blow, so you are correct in that regards. As I noted, efforts were already being made to move the Government to Kuibyshev and Stalin himself was preparing to do likewise until the 15th when it began to look like the defenses before the city were going to hold. However, the loss of it as a railhub and its industry is a massive blow, which seriously hinders Soviet abilities to continue the war; most aircraft production, for example, was based near it. The Northern and Southern Fronts would also become next to impossible to support each other, as the additional time to route forces around the new gap in the railway adds weeks if not months to reinforcements and supplies between the now divided fronts. The loss of the city and its suburbs also does a number on Soviet manpower going into 1942, which is a time they can't really afford such.

[Great Trotskystan]

I don't think so. Yes, they could have forced Britain and the USSR's surrender, but not America's. Then it would become a stalemate, until the Americans developed an ICBM (I think the Americans would have done so before Germany got a nuke). Even a stealth jet could work. The only way they could win was demoralise the Americans, which would be hard to do.

[The Conez Imperium]

Krogan even you have to admit that going from 0 military production to nearly 100k planes, 50k tanks, not to mention artillery. Production started in 1933/34, massive strategic bombing started in 41, raw resources were cut off from the USSR in 41 as well. In 8 years Germany went from a tiny professional corps to the second best equipped force in the world. You don't have to be a Wehraboo to see that this surpassed any expectations by far. The Navy of course played second fiddle to the other branches but still saw massive expansion until 1941.

Edit: btw OP this could be attributed to many things such as the ruhr, occupation of Czech mines/skoda works, Soviet help, okw's prefferential treatment over civilian industry, krupps prefferential treatment in contracts, and the virtual end of workers rights. It had little to do with Germanies natural industriousness. At least that is my opinion.

A tiny professional corps in a country full of war veterans. In any case, when you're borrowing like a motherfucker and throwing it all at armament production and development then yeah, you're gonna have a fuck ton of war materiel, even if you don't end up with a stable economy.

And in any case, it wasn't "zero" military production. The Weimar republic had a lot of contact with the soviets, and they did joint military r&d on the sly. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

German military production was dilettante at best (I'm being super critical). When Speer became Minister of Armaments in 1942, he discovered that military factories closed for production at the normal working day of 8am-5pm. That's not how you win wars against super powers. Also women. Kinder, kuche and kitsch deprived Nazi Germany of 50% of potential workers.

It truly is a wonder how Germany war-industralised so quickly in such inefficient conditions.

[Socialist Union Of Deutschland]

I do not think the fascists could of won. Fascism is a self destructive ideology in my terms.

Fascism can only survive through controlling the masses under fear. And if a society is controlled under fear, a rebellion would later rise, overthrowing the fascist government.

The fascist nations were also outnumbered. The Soviet Union, the British Empire, the United States, China (both the conservative nationalists and the progressive communists), some territories of Africa and the Middle East, Canada, and the Partisan guerrillas in the Eastern Front would easily outnumber the fascists. They have more people, resources, and international respect.

Hitler and his personal military officers had very bad strategic military planning. Germany had no mass produced heavy bombers, and did not have too much territory in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Much artillery pieces were pulled by horses, assault rifles like the MP 44 were never mass produced, and many of the German and Austrian people did not like the oppressive, fascist government. Many escaped and turned to the British and American side on the West, or to the Soviet side on the East.

In 1939, the fascist government had bad economic plans. Only 19 automobiles were planned to be mass produced. Hitler's plan of Berlin was too unrealistic - tearing down much of the older parts of the city, building new buildings everywhere, creating a new road system, a huge new capitol building, and building bunkers that are so heavy, that the ground that the heavy bunkers were established on could sink slowly. It was too unrealistic.

If you look at history, most fascist nations either faded away into Third World liberal capitalist countries like Argentina, or Brazil. Or evolve into social democracies like Italy. Fascism is a phase that evolves when a capitalist system decays. The only way that a fascist nation does not go back to either liberal capitalism or a social democratic society is to have a socialist revolution.

[Quckscoping]

I do not think the fascists could of won. Fascism is a self destructive ideology in my terms.

Fascism can only survive through controlling the masses under fear. And if a society is controlled under fear, a rebellion would later rise, overthrowing the fascist government.

The fascist nations were also outnumbered. The Soviet Union, the British Empire, the United States, China (both the 3conservative nationalists and the progressive communists), some territories of Africa and the Middle East, Canada, and the Partisan guerrillas in the Eastern Front would easily outnumber the fascists. They have more people, resources, and international respect.

Hitler and his personal military officers had very bad strategic military planning. Germany had no mass produced heavy bombers, and did not have too much territory in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Much artillery pieces were pulled by horses, assault rifles like the MP 44 were never mass produced, and many of the German and Austrian people did not like the oppressive, fascist government. Many escaped and turned to the British and American side on the West, or to the Soviet side on the East.

In 1939, the fascist government had bad economic plans. Only 19 automobiles were planned to be mass produced. Hitler's plan of Berlin was too unrealistic - tearing down much of the older parts of the city, building new buildings everywhere, creating a new road system, a huge new capitol building, and building bunkers that are so heavy, that the ground that the heavy bunkers were established on could sink slowly. It was too unrealistic.

If you look at history, most fascist nations either faded away into Third World liberal capitalist countries like Argentina, or Brazil. Or evolve into social democracies like Italy. Fascism is a phase that evolves when a capitalist system decays. The only way that a fascist nation does not go back to either liberal capitalism or a social democratic society is to have a socialist revolution.

Did you read Speer's memoirs? That sounds a lot like them.

[Oil exporting People]

I don't think so. Yes, they could have forced Britain and the USSR's surrender, but not America's. Then it would become a stalemate, until the Americans developed an ICBM (I think the Americans would have done so before Germany got a nuke). Even a stealth jet could work. The only way they could win was demoralise the Americans, which would be hard to do.

Not really; war weariness was getting to be a real issue even by 1945. In a scenario where the Soviets have been knocked out by '42 or '43, vast amounts of the Wehrmacht can begin shifting West to face, well, The West and reliable ICBMs wouldn't be possible until about 1950; the United States is not going to fight a forever war in this strategic setup.