All alt ww2 scenarios require monumental shifts in reality to even coming close to possible.Why does then ww2 scenarios get so much attention when they are all nonsense?Meanwhile something as Simple as not implementing unrestricted submarine warfare increases the odds of a central power Victory greately
>>18224823Germany might also have focused on closing off the Baltic rather than occupying Congress Poland.
>>18224823i feel like their plan should have been reversed, attack russia first and defend agaisnt france. ww2 germany could have stalemated the war by not invading russia, but this defeats the whole point of hitlers plans to control the great northen plain.
"Don't invade Russia in 1941" is a pretty simple decision that seems more historically decisive to me than the complicated and fraught argument about unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917.
>don't invade Belgium>fortify western front after minor offensives to capture high points and river banks>no unrestricted submarine warfare>encourage Austria to sign a deal with Italy to preserve peace>encourage Austria to adopt the "young school" naval strategy to quickly increase presence in the Mediterranean, perhaps with German industrial support>encourage Ottomans to focus on Russia in the east rather than start anything against Britain>assist Ottomans heavily if British go to war anyway>focus almost entirely on Russia and the Balkans>acknowledge it will be a long war and supply lines need to be built>focus on cordoning off Russia's river network as in pic related>when Russia collapses, don't support the provisional government or bolsheviks or any other group rising up, rather preserve the Tsar>turn Russian vassals into German/Austrian/Ottoman vassals, except Finland which would be too difficult to fight a guerrilla war in and Finland was semi-independent within Russia anyway>impose military limits on Russia but no economic limitations besides limiting tariffs>lift the "pale of settlement", "pogroms" and other memes on the jews, since yiddish is basically german>create a Germany of trad values with high birth rates and send the excess population east, which Germans had been doing through the 19th century anywayvoila, the aryanish volkisch utopia hitler dreamed of with minimal bloodshed and drama
>>18224842Stalin would have attacked Hitler eventually, but yes, smarter to let Stalin come than to attack him preventively
>>18224889Every profile of Stalin says that he was extremely patient, conservative and cagey. He wouldn't invade Germany until the stars were exactly right and total victory was guaranteed. When the war kicked off, he had just purged the military on political grounds.He thought the Poland deal was solid, a clear demarcation of Germany and Russia's spheres of influence that would enable both dictators to turn their attention elsewhere like the true gamesmen that Stalin was and Hitler wasn't.So maybe once his plans for rebuilding the Red Army and his plans for industralizing Russia were all complete, and he had all the tanks he needed lined up on the border, would he have picked a fight with Germany. Maybe. Decades of work.
>>18224894There's a July 1941 speech by Stalin where he states "War with Germany is inevitable. If Comrade Stalin and the Soviet government had succeeded in delaying the war for another year or two, it would have been better, but now the war has begun and we must win it.”, suggesting he wanted a war in 1942 or 1943.(Yes, Stalin talked about himself in third person in public speeches)
>>18224904>(Yes, Stalin talked about himself in third person in public speeches)Thank you for this le factoid, redditfriend! I upboat you're post!!!!! Le hey guys did you know Stalin talked about himself in third person during speeches? TIL that Stalin talked about himself in third person during speeches!!! Upboats to the left!Would you like to keep stacking up Stalin's public announcements to see if we can put together a 3d picture of his thought processes that way? I'm sure that listening to a communist dictator's radio broadcasts is the best way to form a clear realistic model of the balance of forcesdrink paint retard
>>18224842There is no way forward without invading the Soviet Union.Germany was in a deathmatch with England with no other options and England would eventually win given their resource and manpower advantage.
>>18224909Unwarranted shit-spraying. Quit being a fag, anon.
>>18224916LE AIO for saying on the radio that the war was inevitable even though we got caught flat-footed by an obvious military build-up and subsequent 'surprise" invasion and are currently getting crushed in the field?DAE think that this war that we were staggeringly unpepared for was inevitable and now that I said so all the le intellectuals accept it as fact?LE?
>>18224823sure but spoiler alert they werent close to winning either. How you going to win a continental war in europe if you dont deal with the british fleet? Germans have always been the dumbest european race.
LE HNNNNGGGAAAACCCTTTCHHHEEEWWWALLLLLYYYY, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitableafter it had already startedon his morning radio showwhich was called "Believe what I say or family goes to gulag"le owned with facts and logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!now please excuse me while I prepare to wake up fatter tomorrow than I did today, thus continuing a trend that is 4,584 days old
>>18224904It was in May as he was addressing the graduating class of the military academy in Moscow.
>>18224823>Why does then ww2 scenarios get so much attention when they are all nonsense?Because WW2 has been extremly hyped. It has:1. Almost modern military vehicles (such as tanks, planes, etc).2. Great amount of killings and destruction.3. Dictatorships with edgy aesthetics.4. Cliched "Good guys" vs. "Bad Guys" conflict.In WW1 there are no modern weapons and tech, edgy dictators and unambigous good or bad guys. All warring countries are responsible for that war.
>>18224947What could the brits realisticly do if the French and the italians got knocked out of the war?Crawl up the balkans or up the levant? I dont think so>>18224841>>18224842>Just dont invade Russia lmaaaaaaoThat falls very firmly under the category of monumental shifts in reality. Hitler was always going to invade Russia to crush bolshevism. That not happening amounts to turning to a what if Hitler and the nazis were completly diferent people>>18224984I would tendencialy agree but mainly due to mainstream ignorance About ww1You had the modern weapons and there asthetics , i would argue even more then ww2 but weraboo love to bust Over muuuh Hugo boss.But i understand that massive tank armies are more exciting then massed big guns blasting eveything
>>18224909Surprisingly emotional comeback
>>18224947The Schlieffen Plan almost succeeded, and if it had WW1 would most likely have been won.>muh british fleetWith or without naval supremacy Britians prospects of winning either war would have been very bleak without any major continental allies.
>>18224904Even neonazies on this board say that Barbarossa was pre-planned with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, just to absolve Hitler the responsibility of breaking bread with the communists and handing over 1/4 of Europe just so he can have his war with Poland.
>do in 1914>don't in 1941
>>18224889>Stalin would have attacked Hitler eventuallyEveryone says this but never produced so much as a shred of documents insinuating that this ever would have happened. It's an unquestionable presumption that you are expected to just accept despite Germany having invaded first.
>>18224856You retard.Russia was backwards and had no proper infrastructure, it takes forever for them to mobilize their army. It was the whole reason why they lost the war against Japan in 1904, because they couldnt wage war in the far east with their dogshit infrastructure.France on the other hand can mobilize very quickly.If Germany goes for Russia first, they cannot do it with full force and leave their second front exposed, like they could if they invaded France first.Also, since Russia has poor infrastructure, advancing into her deep interior is going to be a worse logistical nightmare than ww2, and for what? So they can use large armies to chase completely irrelevant strategic targets that ultimately wont matter because Russia will not sue for peace, and its not going to stop Russia from ultimately mobilizing their vast army.Also, if you leave France largely unchecked, France can mobiize her vast empire, which can outweight Germany in resources, mandpower, material etc.Going for Russia first will absolutely result in a 2-frontal prolonged war, something Germany didnt want.Literally everything made sense with the Schlieffen Plan from a grand strategic perspective when all circumtances are considered. The real problem was the decision of going through Belgium.
>>18224947America defeated Britian without dealing with the British fleet.Germans score way higher than the European average on IQ tests.
>>18225577>America beat Britain with the help of France and their navy on the other side of the globe in a timer period were an atlantic trip can take weeks if not months (in the context of them in a war of independence so invading Britain was not even in the equation for them)>therefore it makes sense Germany could somewho defeat Britain in an entirely seperate context
>>18224823The First World War was just your typical European imperial war. The Second World War, however, was a war of survival.The goal of WWI was to make the other side surrender and enforce demands through diplomacy. If the destruction of Austria had not happened, it would not have been considered a unique war. It was its unique consequence that made it unique.WWII was total destruction, a suicidal action.
>>18224909If you can't tolerate minor inconveniences and suddenly start complaining, you're very feminine. Be a man. There's no such thing as a perfect world where Prince Charming will come save you with the perfect words.>>18224904Everyone knew that a war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.What was surprising was that Stalin agreed to go along with the Germans and accept a middle ground with Hitler until Operation Barbarossa.
>>18225603>The First World War was just your typical European imperial war. There was no such thing as a typical imperial war you moron.European superpowers had successfully preserved peace after the Napoleonic war and the establishment of Vienna congress / Concert of Europe.The only exceptions were the Crimea war and the German unificiation wars, but there were short, local and isolated conflicts, and they were before real imperialism and industrialization. Even during the Napoleonic wars, the concept of nations was still vague.Everyone knew that ww1 was going to be the ultimate deciding war, and it was. It literally changed the entire European map and power structure from its core foundation, never before has a war done that. It left a power vacuum in 2/3 of the continent after Austrian, Russian, Ottoman and German empires were deleted. The previous order of the Vienna Congress was a multipolarity where all effort was concentrated on compensating every loss with a gain for each power to maintain a perfect scale. After ww1, Britain and France were left as the absolute dominant continental powers and ww2 was eseentially them trying to maintain their position.After ww2 USA and USSR was left as the absolute dominant power and the entire cold war was essentially them trying to maintain their position.So ww1 was groundbreaking and everyone knew that going in. That's why no peace was ever discussed during the war and nations were perfectly fine sending millions of men into the grinding trenches without pause, because everyone knew this war was going to make or break them.
>>18225569The Germans and Austrians both counted on the Russians taking forever to mobilize their army so that they could take care of France and Serbia first, but that didn't fucking happen. By the end of August they had already pushed deep into Galicia and East Prussia with a million men.Their infrastructure wasn't as bad as you seem to think. The Trans-Siberian railway that they relied upon against Japan is not remotely comparable to to the large railway network they had in European Russia; the former was literally just 1 single-track railwayline across thousands of kilometers all the way to the front in Manchuria, the latter had dozens of individual railwaylines to the western borders and parts of them were fucking quadruple-tracked, a recent investment that had been made specifically to expediate mobilization.Their railway network was still bad compared to the other great powers though, but that was a MUCH greater problem for the homefront than for the army as they opted to neglect civilian needs instead of trying to juggle both military and civilian demand, leading to food shortages in many cities while the large Ukrainian harvests were just sitting in storage.
>>18225543I have never heard a Neonazi say this
>>18225083what? we see what they do, they win the war. What is this comment even?>>18225521Again, what? You live in the timeline of "what happens". See: Napoleon. >>18225577this comment >>18225591 deals with this nonesense.As long as there is a british fleet around to blockade europe, there is no hope for a german victory in any scenario. The german economy gets grinded to a halt, and the whole thing collapses.
>>18224823Not even remotely true. Germany had no way of winning WW1 and a very conceivable way of winning WW2 if certain situations went in their way.In fact, Germany in WW1 was immensely lucky that Nicholas completely shit the bed at home and Russia collapsed into a civil war, but even with that save from grace they were starving to death before the US even entered the war and the southern front was in a complete state of collapseIn WW2 they actually had a chance of winning. If Soviets joined the Axis, if the Caucasus campaign was a success, if Mussolini didn't invade Greece, if Dunkirk was a success, etc. All of these could have changed the tide of the war.
>>18225753>See: Napoleon. He invaded Russia, failed miserably, all the countries he had forced into submission turned against him as he retreated and joined the Russians to decisively defeat the remnants of the Grande Armée in the Battle of Leipzig.The Brits had no hand in this other than being a minor inconvenience over in Iberia.>As long as there is a british fleet around to blockade europe, there is no hope for a german victory in any scenario.There would have been even less hope of a British victory if they had no prospective allies on the continent, the result would be a negotiated settlement favouring Germany which should count as a German victory.
>>18224823is that a black soldier?sixth one from the right
>>18225722all this is true but it's literally hindsight so it becomes completely redundant.The Schlieffen Plan was designed based on what they knew and that's why it made the most sense.
>>18224823Agreed, but there's alot of retards here who dont understand Nazi ideology and the prevailing thought of WW2's German military leadership. Hitler was given alot of flak when he invaded the low countries to topple France as the military thought and firmly believed France was the stronger between the USSR and France. After their decisive victory against them there exists no timeline where the Germans dont invade the USSR. From here you'll have many branching paths that lead to defeat all the same, the military wanted a beeline to Moscow and Leningrad while ignoring Ukraine, this would lead to a even earlier German defeat, Hitler wanted to focus on the south and this would lead to a stronger German performance as Moscow was useless as a target. But no matter what, all German high command wanted a total victory in the USSR, they believed with all their heart that they would collapse in the next few weeks till the battle of Stalingrad and by that point the USSR wouldnt make a peace anymore.
>>18224823The win condition in WW1 is occupy Paris, Rome, and St. PetersburgThe win condition in WW2 is occupy Moscow and ParisThey were a lot closer in WW2 but it was probably impossible to win in both
>>18225783No. It's simply the fact that you know more about ww2 than you do about ww1 and thats why you consider more factors. Had you known more about ww1 then you would have been able to argue an equal amount of factors there too.For example; The battle of the Marne was an extremely close-call. What if the Germans had concentrated their attack on the weaker French western flank during the battle? Winning Marne could effectively win the war since Paris would inevitably be captured.What happened was a series of miscommunication in the German command that left the western flank completely exposed which the French managed to turn the battle.Another major event was that Austria had two plans in the event of a war, one which was to focus on Russia and one which was to focus on Serbia. Because of a series of miscommunication between Austria and Germany, Austria ended up splitting her armies and even after that she ended up transporting armies back and forth which costed a lot of vital time.Had Austria concentrated with determination everything on Serbia at the outbreak of the war, Serbia would likely have falled immediately instead of holding out for years and splitting the entire Austrian army. This could potentially have prevented Romania and Italy fromt joining (tho also Bulgaria).Most importantly, not include Belgium in the Schlieffen Plan, since Lloyd George already hesitated to bring UK into the war.Also Germany not resuming the submarine warfare may have kept USA out, making it more likely that a more conditional peace is signed eventually.
>>18224823WW1 Germany was based, WW2 Germany was extremely cringe.
>>18225591I meant America defeated England in WWII, completely usurping them, dismantling their empire, and assuming all of their former roles.Britain was defeated without its Navy ever firing a shot.
