Could Germany have won WW2 if they just made less mistakes?
>blocks your path
Yes they could have, but at that point it wouldn't be Nazi Germany. These hypotheticals are no longer discussing how the historical Nazis could have won, but rather how a fictional, non-Nazi version of Germany could have won, because they remove the consequences Nazi ideology.>what if Germany wasn't rabidly expansionist, recruited more Slavs into the Wehrmacht instead of try to kill them for Lebensraum, didn't invade Russia, didn't do the HolocaustWell, that's no longer Nazi Fascism. It would be like proposing how the USSR could have survived as a Communist state if they made their economy less Communist. A war against Britain was winnable but I don't believe the war including a Barbarossa was with the particular kind of ideological fanaticism they had unless they secured a very quick win on the Eastern Front to take Leningrad, Ukraine, and the Caucasus oil fields which isn't very likely. Unless you have some kind of time machine to give Nazis the atomic bomb or inform them of North African oil reserves.
>>17962262This 100%, the war would have unironically be easily won for any non Nazi controlled state because.. it wouldnt be a war of total victory as the krauts wanted in OTL
They did not have the means to achieve their strategic goals.In other words, it wasn't the strategy itself that was flawed, it was the entire premise on which they had to be achieved on.Some would say that Germany lost the moment the declared war on Poland, because it set them in direct collision course with the USSR, which wasnt the paper tiger that they had imagined, and the UK, who wasn't going to agree on any favorable German terms, and the USA, which was never going to remain neutral against any "aggressor nations".The only way Germany "could win", in my own humble opinion, would if:1. They somehow capture the BEF at Dunkirk and this will somehow tilt Britain to accept peace terms.2. They somehow find a way to coexist with the USSR as allies, and vice-versa.
>>17962269I read somewhere that Stalin offered peace in the first few months of Barbarossa, and that this peace was similar to Brest-Litovsk, but the Germans ignored the offer. This was a so-called war of annihilation, there would be no treaty.
>>17962195Yeah the atomic bomb is the sword of damacese the Germans can't get around. Even assuming a TAS run ofww2 where the Germans do everything right they simply have no answer to the atomic bomb.
>less [countable thing]
They might have extended the war by a few years, but because of their lack of natural resources, smaller population, and poor economic integration, there is no way they could have won.
>>17962192>if they just made less mistakeskek
>>17962262People get mad when you tell them "the Nazis lost because they were Nazis" but it really is the most straight forward explanation of the war.
>>17962356Germany getting it first
>>17962262>how the USSR could have survived as a Communist state if they made their economy less Communistdeng xiaoping: "hold my beer"
>>17962671I wouldn't call the neo-nazis that get mad about that people
>>17962192>Allies closing in on German border from east and west>hundreds of thousands of German troops still occupying parts of Italy and DalmatiaMakes no sense
>>17962192Yeah, if Hitler didnt want to sabotage it all from the start.
>>17962262Slavic cannon fodder would have been fucking worthless. The Germans could not even properly supply the forces they had at the front line.The bottle necks of the German military was not enough horses and trucks and not enough oil. (They also wasted to much artillery on air defense. And they fucked the air war in general.)Pushing barely Slavic militias to the Frontline would have strained their logistics even more than it already was.
>>17962349The BEF was a smaller force than the UK landed in France post Dunkirk. It was very important. But not that important.
>>17963296Germany thought Germany getting it first was impossible like in what world does the poor country with wayyyyyy less scientists get it first.
>>17962262I disagree. Had the German staff listened to Hitler more they would've won.There was one time when they did and it was when he insisted that sticking to already captured plans for invasion of France is stupid and they should go through Ardennes. Turns out Hitler's judgement wasn't bad in that case.During preparations to Barbarossa Hitler insisted that all the nonsense about taking Moscow or whatever is pointless and they should focus on taking Ukrainian SSR since significant enough amount of industry, farmland and resources were concentrated there. Other directions were meant to be more supportive. From there it would serve as a springboard towards Caucasus and the oilfields. Given that Barbarossa overperformed, they still kind of got there but most likely had the staff not introduced their own changes and effectively turned it into giant directionless encirclement battle except the enemy had reserves this time around, we would be talking about a battle of Stalingrad... in 1941. The same overperformance directed where Hitler wanted sets Germany up with resources to win total war against the Soviet Union and denies the same resources to them. Had the Germans been more nazi in their obedience to Furher and Hitlers ability to actually think about greater picture(he understood encirclement battle will work against France, but the USSR needed to be handled differently) would've shined through.
>>17963296Atomic science is Jewish science anon. You're not a Jew, are you?
>>17963642Not a chance. No oil would flow from the caucuses for years, after they were dynamited, and nothing changes the battle of Britain. And all of this is still ignoring the US.
>>17963584It was their main force in 1940, and the loss of France came as a devastating shock that caused a cabinet crisis on whether they should begin negotiations with Germany.Not saying losing BEF would have made Britain close the book, but there is a tiny slight chance that it could have. It was a huge morale boost for everyone that those 300.000 made it out, even if it wasn't that strategically vital in the end.
>>17963573It would have made soviet advance in 1942-1944 far more problematic because by coming as liberators and arming the population, you've basically reignited the civil war, and civil wars are extremely difficult to win by conventional means.Best way to beat Russia has always been to make them fight each others, not to advance with huge armies into the deep vastness of the interior chasing ultimately strategically unimportant targets. That's when Russia thrives and will essentially overcome any invader.
>>17962192Perhaps.Germany had precisely enough strength/resources/manpower to fight one world superpower. Not both. There's many different things that could have caused either the US or the Soviet Union not to enter the war, and that would be Germany's only chance at victory.They never could have actually defeated America, but they could have ground them to a standstill and negotiation. Russia they probably could have steamrolled if they weren't worried about preventing an Allied invasion of Western Europe, and worried about keeping northern Afrika.At the time of D Day, Germany had 10% of their troops in the Western front and it was mainly old men, young boys, and guys wounded/shellshocked from the Eastern front. If they had 80-100% of their guys in the West, the allies never could have successfully landed.After 4 or 5 failed attempts at D Day, America would probably be willing to just grant Germany Western Continental Europe.
>>17963642>had the staff not introduced their own changes and effectively turned it into giant directionless encirclement battle except the enemy had reserves this time around, we would be talking about a battle of Stalingrad... in 1941Eh not quite.The Germans cannot push that far against a fighting resistance. The entire idea was that the Soviets was a paper tiger (military evidence from Finland, and muh untermenschen jewish Bolsheviks) that it would collapse from the opening blow.They severely underestimated the sheer size of the Red Army as well.German logistics and manpower never accounted for an extensive war.Hitler himself lamented in late 1941 that had he known the true size of the Red Army, he would never have launched the invasionIt is true that the German generals wanted to chase strategic targets (traditional Prussian military academy emphasized on Schwerpunkt). That was called Operation Otto.When Hitler intervened, he named it Barbarossa, and the emphasis was instead to destroy the Red Army and not strategic objectives, however like you said, Hitler wanted to focus on the southern formation while the military men wanted to focus on the center.The generals won the debate, and the central formation got the strongest divisions. It then turned out that Hitler was right, not just about the southern resources, but also the fact that the Red army had its overwhelming concentration in the south, which led to the (actual) largest tank battle in history at Brody, and Army center had to divert forces to Kiev, something they wouldn't have had to do if Hitler got his way and made Army center the stronger axis of advanceNevertheless, Hitler is still responsible because Barbarossa relied on an early collapse of the Red Army and the Soviet state as a whole, also to simply be able to capture everything intact (the grain fields, the oil fields etc). And Hitler emphasized on destroying the red army rather than chasing strategic targets, even in the south
>>17963840>Germany had precisely enough strength/resources/manpower to fight one world superpower.They didnt have enough to fight any.They certainly did not have enough to fight USA. That shouldn't even be debated.They didnt have enough to fight the British empire because the British empire vastly outproduced Germany and would have accelerated the bombing campaign over time, they were also miles ahead in thr nuclear program (they were miles ahead of the Americans too initially), not to mention, the Royal Navy blockade was slowly starving Germany and all the european occupied territory Germany was burdened with.Likewise Germany had no means to actually defeat Britain which means Britain would just have kept going like they did against Napoleon. And they didn't have enough to fight the Soviets. Not objectively. Yeah Batbarossa was successful, but that was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the German control.Stalin ignored all warnings of imminent invasion, insisted on having all divisions in exposed frontline areas despite soviet generals urging him not to, and had botched the army command during the interwar period. Imagine the USSR in 1941 when led by literally anyone else than Stalin? Barbarossa would likely have failed in the initial first few months. German success early in the war relied extensively on gamble and allied catastrophic failure. Same goes for Case Yellow. Had the French reconnaissance the Ardenne roads just once, they would have spotted the German formations and it would have been a disaster for the operation, likewise if the French had put any meaningful defence at Sedan. In both Barbarossa and Case Yellow, they knew the exact plans of the German offensive but didn't act on it.
>>17963883In the first German bombing of Britain, all of the RAF aircraft were just sitting in hangars that Germany could have bombed the shit out of. This was pointed out to Hitler, who refused to give the order because he thought it was cowardly.Having 75-85% of British aircraft out of commison would have changed the game entirely in favor of Germany. They probably could have mounted a successful landing without the RAF in the mix.There's really a fuckton of "game changer" moments that could have swayed things in Germany's favor. It always confuses me when people act like their defeat was assured no matter what they do.Of course it would have required an entirely different gameplan and it's easy to see where the mistakes were in hindsight. Germany would have had to do their best to calm tensions with either US or the Soviet Union, until they're in a place to decisively beat them one at a time. Germany really needed to fund the development of the atomic bomb and maybe not threaten all the Jew scientists to the point that they all immigrated.They had to do a number of things different all concurrently, but I'm convinced that Germany could be occupying all of Western Europe today (in a method more direct than economic domination fo the EU); had they done a handful of things differently. But too many catastrophic errors were made and the Axis obviously couldn't fight off the entire world all at the same time.
>This was pointed out to Hitler, who refused to give the order because he thought it was cowardly.do you just live in your own world or something
>>17963947>do you just live in your own world or somethingEveryone does, what of it? Do you have something to say, a point to make, or a refutation of anything I just said? Or are you one of the Christcattle flat-earthers who pollute this fucking board with one sentence half-assed ad hominem bullshit. These idiots clearly should be removed, religious people and studiers of REAL history could not be more oil and water.
>Hitler didn't win the war cos he didn't want to use cowardly tactics just kys
>>17963935>In the first German bombing of Britain, all of the RAF aircraft were just sitting in hangars that Germany could have bombed the shit out of.In the first British bombing raids over Germany Hitler was just sitting in his office that Britain could have bombed the shit out of.Not that your bullshit was true to begin with.>This was pointed out to Hitler, who refused to give the order because he thought it was cowardly.Stormfaggot.Imagine being low IQ like you.>Having 75-85% of British aircraft out of commison would have changed the game entirely in favor of Germany.Let's pretend Britain and France bombs the entire wehrmacht in 1940 based on vague X Y Z factors, and now let us make a 300 post discussion based on that retarded premise.Or you can stop being an autistic dog everytime ww2 is debated.>They probably could have mounted a successful landing without the RAF in the mix.Yeah, with the Germans swimming across the channel, just because more planes were lost.>There's really a fuckton of "game changer" moments that could have swayed things in Germany's favor.Using magic and divine intervention aren't arguments.>It always confuses me when people act like their defeat was assured no matter what they do.Because the entire premise of that relies on the axis doing everything correct with surgical precision while the allies are as paralyzed and handicapped as physically possible to make every mistake and never bring able to adapt to the situation. Had we instead been spamming threads on "how could the allies have won ww2 sooner", we would have had probably an even greater variety of factors and scenarios to consider than we do in the typical "how can Axis win".>it's easy to see where the mistakes were in hindsight.Mistakes that the allies/Soviets made which could have been easily corrected.Not that it matters because the default power of the allies is simply unwinnable for Japan and Germany.
Regular reminder that Hitler had absolutely no, zero, nada, problem with bombing the shit out of Polish or Soviet planes while they were still on the ground and in hangars when he launched his noble and heroic surprise attacks on them.
>>17963935>Germany would have had to do their best to calm tensions with either US or the Soviet UnionOk so nazies not being nazies then.Which virtually cancels the entire war.>Germany really needed to fund the development of the atomic bombThere isn't a world in hell where Germany beats USA to the bomb for the financial reasons alone, and that's just one factor.>and maybe not threaten all the Jew scientists to the point that they all immigrated.Ok so nazies not being nazies then.>They had to do a number of things different all concurrently, but I'm convinced that Germany could be occupying all of Western Europe today (in a method more direct than economic domination fo the EU); had they done a handful of things differently.So you want to change the entire game plan, yet still argue from the premise that everything plays out like it did in 1940.>But too many catastrophic errors were made and the Axis obviously couldn't fight off the entire world all at the same time.Correction: catastrophic errors by the allies, which axis were still unable to take advantage if because of the overwhelming disadvantage.The Germans relied on short isolated wars and as long as the allies continue to fight then you're really just kinda stranded.
>>17963957Take your meds man. God damn
>>17962356>>17962195Sarin was deadlier than the Atomic bomb and easier to deliver, please stop boomerposting. Atomic weapons did not become WMD tier until 1955.1 Conventional bombing run killed more and destroyed more than both Atomic bombings combined.Germany had the equivalent of 500 Atomic bombs dropped on it, whats 2 more?
>>17962262>>17962671>xddd they lost bc dey were nodzee dat means dond be racisdgo the fuck away you slavic chimp, no one cares about your second world shitholes.
>>17963831They did come as liberators.Russia's intelligence bandwidth has a huge Neo-Nazi problem because the Nazis were so popular with Slavs.Retarded Polish toilet urchins will deny this because Poles are perpetual victims.jews will obviously lie about it.But I have visited Belarus, Slovakia, Ukraine, they love Hitler.
>>17963979What about National Socialism necessitates war with Britain?Please answer this with a direct quote from Hitler, not "uhhh they were heckin cartoon villains"Where does Hitler say Britian, or America, or Russia is an eternal enemy Germany can not co-exist with?
>>17965142>German deploys Sarin against Allied troops or civilians>Operation Vegetarian goes into effect>Now the RAF and USAAF are also carrying gas bombs and dropped them wholesale on German cities as well as firebombing them into dustNow what?
>>17965168>Vegetarian goes into effect>at the absolute most 20% European casualties>Germany retaliates with Sarin on the British isles>100% casualtiesnow what?>RAF gas>gas masks distributednow what?Sarin had a 100% lethality for anyone within 150 miles until 1970.British Gas wasnt even lethal for unmasked people outside of a 20 mile radius.You dont know what Sarin is, thats why you make silly posts like this.Sarin is today still classified as a WMD on the level of Nuclear weaponry in destructive power.It was developed by the Germans in the 30s.To put Sarin into perspective, The US had Sarin as a retaliatory weapon for a nuclear strike up until 1965 - that is how lethal it was, it was a retaliatory weapon for having a NUCLEAR BOMB dropped on you.There is nothing the British could deploy to reach a 100% casualty rating on Germany.There is nothing Britain could do to avoid a 100% casualty ratio being inflicted upon them given the use of Sarin.
>>17965176>Sarin on the British IslesWith what delivery mechanism?
>>17965181A Uboat using its 105mm deck gun could kill any city within 15km of the coast.But a tactical bomber could deliver Sarin far inland.
>>17965186>tactical bomberLooooooooooooooool
>>17962192They were in the right ball park with ideas of lightning warefare, just fell short with the execution. I think the spainish civil war got them too gung ho with the tactics and strategy of blitzkrieg that they neglected to focus enough time and reasources on the fundamentals, namely logictics. Barbarossa was damn near close to breaking the USSRs back before things turned south, better logictics in its early stages would of paid dividend. North africa is a great example, utter dominance tactically, let down by logistics. Theres a timeline out there where the quintessential machines of germanys ww2 efforts include better a standout truck next to the mk4 and 88, better cargo ships next to or even instead of the uboat, and garbage like dora and gustav dont exists at all in favor of better locos and depos, and next to all our favorite prussians sits proudly a logistical mastermind.
>>17965205Uh yeah do you know Sarin requires very small amounts to be incredibly lethal?It was developed specifically for mass dispersion from shell sized ordnance.A Ju87 could carry 15 of these without inhibiting its range at all.German tactical bombers could carry hundreds well over a thousand miles.
>>17965297>a lone JU87 flying over the English Channel without being swarmed instantlyLooooooooooooooooool
>>17962192>reddit video>reddit question>reddit answersHere’s the real answer for any lurkers: Hitler never made any strategic errors. He was Napoleon tier. He was defeated for the same exact reasons Napoleon was. Hitler could NEVER have won WWII.There, that simple.
>>17963831This is a cartoonish view of the entire thing. To reiterate what the other guy said, the Germans didn’t lose for lack of infantry, which is all the Slavs would have been able to give them. All that would have led to are more encircled, helpless ammoless sitting ducks. The Germans had THOUSANDS of ready-to-go tanks just sitting in warehouses never being used.The Germans lacked the oil to use them.
>>17963840>At the time of D Day, Germany had 10% of their troops in the Western front and it was mainly old men, young boys, and guys wounded/shellshocked from the Eastern front.You’re a fucking braindead predditor. The Germans had 70 divisions sitting in western France and the Low Countries. The Germans had 140 divisions on the Eastern Front, and about 50 in the Mediterranean/Balkans. It was over 25% of their total troop count. Later, when the Western Front was completely reopened in September, their numbers expanded tremendously.Furthermore, their BEST DIVISIONS were in the west, not the east. Take a look at some of the big names that show up on the roster. Only Pzrdivision Grossdesutchland, Das Reich maybe one other big name was over there. All The aces and best pzrdivisions were all in Normandy.Faggot troon
>>17965328Wrong again. The truth is, Germany actually successfully defeated the USSR in the Summer of 1941. The inferior slavic brain did not realise it had been defeated, so kept on fighting, like a bull ant when the hill is attacked.The Third Reich collapsed for unrelated reasons a few years later.
>>17965205Lone planes got through detection screens constantly on both sides during the war, anon. It was such a common thing that theyd just let them do it, often wasnt worth the gas to interdict.
>>17965311Yes! They did this constantly anon
>>17962192>Could Germany have won WW2 if they just made less mistakes?Yes, you can win the lottery if you choose the right numbers.And OP sucks cocks.Also, I had a even better alternative to you, sucker. Could Germany have won WW2 if the allies had made more mistakes?
>>17965357How many lone planes do you think they're going to let through after the first one drops gas bombs on British civilians?>>17965363And lone planes did significant damage to the Allied war effort yes?
>>17962192No, they were screwed from the start.
>>17962262>>17962269>This 100%, the war would have unironically be easily won for any non Nazi controlled stateYou guys are aware there was a war with a non-Nazified Germany, right? They lost that one too
>>17965142Kek, no it fucking wasn't you retard. Atomic weapons were superior and deadlier in every way.
>>17965176>Sarin had a 100% lethality for anyone within 150 miles until 1970.No, it didn't you fucking cretin.
>>17965142>>17965176>SarinSarin did not enter production until 1944 and even then it was extremely difficult to produce and handle because of its unstable and lethal composition.By the end of the war the Germans had not even managed to produced 1 ton of Sarin. So the problem is:1. Produced too late. The war was by then strategically unwinnable.2. Produced in insignificant quantities. Wouldn't have been decisive enough even if used.3. Too complicated to mass-produce and too complicated to be integrate into armaments.4. Fear of retaliation. The Germans believed that the allies had vast stockpiles of gas themselves.
>>17965386You sound absolutely fucking retarded
>>17963935>It always confuses me when people act like their defeat was assured no matter what they do.Once the Arsenal of Democracy got involved, it wasn't a matter of if, but when for nip/hun trannies.
>>17966787>the guy screaming about how the dregs of the luftwaffe could totally gas all of the UK without massive retaliation, is calling others fucking retardedLooooooooooooooooooooool. Look kid, I know you just read the wiki article on sarin and are all sperged up, but there's other things to consider
>>17966464They had other gases like Tabun which were almost as deadly much earlier
Germany only performed as well as they did in the first place because of many Allied/Soviet mistakes
>>17962671No that's just a butthurt leftypol take. There's no reason Nazi Germany couldn't have just made different strategic objectives or executed the ones they had at different and more opportune times. If you're looking for a more accurate reductive answer, you should say "the Axis lost because they were dwarfed by Allied population, landmass, and industrial capacity". It's not like a liberal version of the Axis nations would have won the war because they'd still have fairly similar material disadvantages against the West and USSR.
>>17967633You're running face first into this again >>17962262 A "liberal" version of the Axis wouldn't have invaded the USSR.
>>17967331They didnt begin produce Tabun until 1942.Sure they could focus production earlier, but what will change? The bombing over English cities only strengthened British resolve, why would gas bombing be any different? It's not going to make Britain sue for peace, if anything the RAF will begin to drop gas on Germany, and RAF was far better equipt for it. Even if Mustard gas is not as lethal as Tabun, it's still lethal, and the British would overwhelm the Germans in quantities of gas as they did with bombs.You're just gonna have ww2, but much more ugly and bloody.Global opinion would also absolutely turn on Germany for being the first to be dropping gas on civilian population.
>>17962192Oh, absolutely.Just imagine if they never invaded Russia and focused more on digesting Europe. You can't just go full jackhammer all the time, sometimes you need to play defense. And you've got to do this whether you want to or not, it's just not optional. You need somebody in overall command who understands that.
