I used to think Germany was on a knife’s edge during Fall Blau and would have won the war with a few better decisions. Now I think they lost the war in 1941 or even 1940 by failing to secure peace with the British. What do you think is the latest Germany could have won the war with changes in military strategy and industrial policy alone?
In 1942, the strategy involved a retreat to the Estonian line and the Donets River, employing a defensive doctrine supported by artillery.
>>18538046By 1942 the war was impossible to win.Case Blue was more an act of desperation in a situation that had never been anticipated and was dreaded before ww2 even began. Case Blue was a bad plan but it was the only available option, the alternative would have been to simply sue for peace which of course Germany simply could not do.So when did Germany 'lose' ww2?Easiest answer would be 1941. The failure of Barbarossa meant that Germany was fighting a 2 front war with limited resources against two enemies that refused to sue for peace, with greater manpower and production, while simultaniously having access to near limitless resources, especially.by an increasingly more belligerent USA.The entire plan of Barbarossa was that the Soviet state would collapse within weeks. It was never designed for a resisting opponent, and absolutely not to the very gates of Moscow. Operation Typhoon was very much like Case Blue: an act of desperation. The Germans were desperately searching for a knock-out blow since the real failure of Barbarossa happened as soon as it was launched: The Red Army was much larger than anticipated, it was much deeper than anticipated, it could produce much more than anticipated, far greater Red Army formations escaped encirclement than anticipated, and the Soviet state never collapsed as anticipated.An alternative answer to the question would be mid-1940 when the British cabinet after the May 1940 cabinet crisis decided to continue the war. Many historians would argue that for as long as Britain remains in the war, escalation is inevitable. USA would become increasingly involved and the Germans simply had to attack east for resources since trade with the USSR simply did not cut it. The British were playing the long game of naval blockade and overwhelming bomber production, while the Germans were stuck on the continent with a huge army that couldnt be used to its full potential.Some would even say the war was lost on September 1 1939
>>18538046In my humble opinion, the only way Germany could have won ww2 would be in mid-1940:1. Somehow Germany manage to capture/destroy the British army in France2. Somehow the loss of the army would be enough to tilt the British cabinet to accept peace negotiations.3. Somehow Germany learns to coexist with the USSR and accepts their offer of joining the Axis4. Somehow Roosevelt gets JFK'ed5. Somehow the nazies stop being nazies / NSDAP gets coup'ed by the army.
>>18538046Early 1945.>no their enemies would fight to the deathNo they wouldn’t. The Soviets didnt fight to the death with Finland, it’s not unreasonable that Stalin could have had a moment of clarity if Germany blunted his assault and would have signed a peace with Hitler and let him further weaken the western powers and consolidate his own conquests in east Europe.>>18538106>>18538114These are what we call fatalists.WWII had a lot of dice rolls. Fatalism is silly.Just as the Ardennes wasn’t destined to succeed neither was Barbarossa destined to fail.
>>18538106>Some would even say the war was lost on September 1 1939No, it was invaded France and not allowed Operation Pike to proceed, thereby ensuring the successful implementation of the Nazi-Soviet pact or pressure allies power launch invasion of Norway to support Finland
>>18538196>why didn't Soviets fight to death in their invasion of a super small country but fight against racist empire that wanted to kill and enslave them and mass starved their POWa mystery
>>18538046August 1941. The USSR collapsing a few weeks into Barbarossa as planned would've allowed the European Axis to at least capture the territories they occupied in our timeline much quicker and easier (keep in mind that, despite a favourable k/d ratio, they still suffered massive casualties) while being able to dig in and go defensive against the rump states that would remain in the east. The remaining Soviet government either going the way of the Dodo or simply giving up would've driven the UK into capitulation as well.Aside from that, I generally find wars where the tide could've turned until the last moments far more interesting than ones where it was one-sided from the beginning. Take WW1, for example. The Germans could've won all the way up to early 1918 had things gone differently.>>18538196>Gets nuked by the US for not surrendering earlier
1941. Barbarossa is when they canned the match. They should have waited for Stalin to attack first instead
>>18538337>Take WW1, for example. The Germans could've won all the way up to early 1918 had things gone differentlyThings would have gone smoothly had not the US (The telegram from Mexico was not dispatched) and Greece (The pro-German King stays in power) entered the war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga_offensive_(1917)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporettohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_French_Army_mutinieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdowne_letter
1941. Barbarossa could have worked if it was planned better. But then again that would have required the Wehrmacht to not be the Wehrmacht and the Nazis to not be Nazis.
>>18538370Greece's entry didn't play out until mid-late 1918 when the Entente finally broke Bulgaria after over a year of intense fighting, and US mobilization only kicked in in the same year so my point about Germany winning in spring after Brest-Livosk but before the American flood still stands.
>>18538544The timing of American mobilization reinforces the notion of a strategic window for Germany in spring 1918, consistent with your observation. While your assertion holds temporally, operational realities make an actual German victory in that period highly improbable without additional hypothetical changes.
>>18538337>>18538196Both of these require the enemy to just give up. When is the last time germany could when, not just luck out on stalin falling down the stairs.And the answer is never. Germany was always too weak to win. They tried to conquer europe without a mechanized army in 1939 lol.
>>18538565Polack lost.
>>18538370Trvke fact
>>18538046Germany had achieved the most favorable scenario available with defeating France, which was deemed very unlikely. Germany’s position was between two hard places. Britain would never accept German hegemony, and Soviet Union remained a burgeoning power right on its Eastern Border. Neither could be decisively defeated in light of the realities in 1939. Germany should have simply been content with the gains of Munich, but it moved to overreach, triggering a war that couldn’t strategically be won at that point.
>>18538196>Just as the Ardennes wasn’t destined to succeed neither was Barbarossa destined to fail.It was destined to fail because we today in 2026 have all the facts, numbers and statistics and the benefit of hindsight so we know that the entire planning of Barbarossa was based on catastrophic miscalculation and wishful thinking so it's a mathematical certainty that nothing was going to unfuck Barbarossa, unless you have a magic wand and give Germany benefits they did not have. Even if everything in Barbarossa was executed perfectly it would still fail and that's why its perfectly reasonable to be determinstic about it. Once the Soviet Union did not collapse in the opening blow, and once it became apparant that the Red Army was twice as big as anitcipated, and once it became evident that the Wehrmacht would be up against a fighting resistance the entire way, something it had never prepared for in an operation meant to only last for 8 weeks, then they knew Barbarossa was in extreme jeopardy.It's not compareable to the success of the Ardenne because the allies had the equation to success, it simply wasnt utilized, but if everything had gone according to plan for the allies then the Ardenne offensive along with entire Case Yellow would have failed. You dont have that with Barbarossa.
>>18538565>They tried to conquer europe without a mechanized army in 1939 lol.They only wanted to conquer Poland. They knew they were piss poor weak especially against the western powers (who on paper absolutely mogged Germany in 1939, the backbone of the Wehrmacht were puny Panzer II). Hitler merely gambled that Britain wouldnt intervene and if Britain doesnt intervene then France wont either.When the gamble was lost Germany simply had no option but to follow through and hope for the best, tho Hitler desperately tried to appeal to the western allies to abort the war because he knew the odds were extremely stacked against Germany. Most of the German command was very pessimistic about any campaign in the west.Then when Germany defeated France so easily, the entire Wehrmacht suffered from victory fever, and the NS immdiately interpretated it as proof of racial superiority and what not, so they immediately thought "well if we can defeat France, then surely we can defeat the Soviets", since France and Britain were seen as first-rate powers while the Soviets were seen as third-rate power, especially after the debacle in Finland.This is pretty much how ww2 played out. They were aiming for a tiny chunk in 1939 and ended up going all-in because of how things played out. A string of luck in 1940 made them overcondifent in 1941, took on more than they could chew, and by 1942 they were completely fucked going up against the entire world, but at that point there was no way out except the firm belief of the "final victory".
>>18538046Once they invaded Russia and couldnt force them to surrender before 1942 it was pretty much over. It was a massive bet that they lost
>>185382211. None of that is true. There is an inherent contradiction in the Germans even taking prisoners at all and the claim they were trying to genocide the USSR. The USSR in most cases didn’t even take prisoners until the very end of the war when it was forced to by sheer necessity.2. Finland was apart of the German advance into Russia and Finland played a critical role in the siege of Leningrad.3. The USSR considered peace with Germany and decided against for practical reasons NOT because of some fantasy about genocide.You didn’t know that last part did you? That the USSR was considering a separate peace three times.>>18538337>nukedAnd?The US dropped the equivalent of 4500 atomic bombs on Germany throughout the war.What’s 4502 let or 4600?Also the assumption the Germans, fully equipped in the West due to a separate peace with the USSR, wouldn’t stop the bombers is laughable.How is the U.S. going to nuke Germany when they can’t penetrate German airspace?>they couldNo, if the Germans and Soviets made peace in say 1942 like the Soviets had considered, they’d have given the Germans the resource heavy west Ukraine, as they were considering doing. Germany would have had a much more advanced Luftwaffe of much more numerous more reliable interceptors, with A2A missiles as their RnD facilities no longer bottlenecked.>why doesn’t Russia just nuke Ukraine bro???The same reason the U.S. couldn’t nuke Germany.The U.S. wouldn’t even be able to bomb Germany.
>>18538565>to just give up???The USSR was considering “just give up” multiple times. They had a strategic endgame in which the Germans and Liberals fought each other to total exhaustion.Instead it was the USSR and Germany who fought to exhaustion and the USSR never recovered, becoming a total food dependent, and unable to make up the distance between them and the US during the Cold War.Stalin’s had a choice between land grab when he could justify taking land as “liberator” but he’d have to deal with “NATO” or let Germany pound “NATO” into dust but he has to face Germany or 1hp NATO in 1950, however he has all the time to build up and re-assess what happened from 1941.They ultimately failed in their strategic aim.This wasn’t luck, it was a decision made by the USSR.>neverHow did they defeat Poland and France in a two front war if they were incapable of conquest?You will not allow a scenario in which the Nazis win because you think that could justify another attempt at Naziism. You are not unbiased. You see this hypothetical as a political battleground. I am in the bunker discord. I have read your shitty RoE for 4trans.>that’s not me inMaybe but you’re repeating their talking points.Iran defeated the United States.Ukraine defeated Russia.Turkey defeated the British empire.Israel defeated the Arab coalition.If history was a Hoi4 game where stats alone mattered, then these wouldn’t be possible.Furthermore, any scenario in which we say “well Germany could do this or that” you’d simply make up a reason for the USSR or US or UK to “they’d do a perfect counter move”E.g.If Germany failed to defeat France, you’d say “well France would cut off the narrow end of the German advance through Belgium, heh dumb Chuds can’t think tactics like me.”Germany could have encircled millions of Red troops throughout 1944.Germany could have used better operational assets like Paradrops and naval support.
>>18539595We have all the facts and know the Ardennes offensive was destined to fail because it was a dice roll based on huge miscalculations and errors.The German spearhead was outnumbered, the French forces were ready for them, the axis of advance too narrow, the German lines were subject to British air raids. The Luftwaffe was greatly outnumbered by French and British air assets. The Germans would simply be bogged down like they were in 1914 and they’d be encircled and destroyed, leaving Germany without an armored force against a France who can advanced into the Saar with their now unparalleled armored troops into a Germany which had neither tanks nor aircraft to defend itself.Germany would 100% lose a war with France in 1940.With no possible chance of victory. This is based on the facts.
>>18539872>>18539891shitler lost because he fucked with Pole Gods
>>18539895>Germany would 100% lose a war with France in 1940. With no possible chance of victory. This is based on the facts.Cool. Hitler visit paris with his homie.
>>18539895That's exactly my point you stupid.The outcome of the Ardenne offensive can be changed if the allies had reacted differently.You dont have that in Barbarossa.Even if the Germany executed Barbarossa perfectly, it would still fail, because the entire premise of the campaign was false. The Soviet Union did not collapse from the opening blow as anticipated and the Wehrmahct never had the men and resources to conquer all of the USSR from a resisting opponent. So even if the Germans does everything -as planned- perfectly (which they pretty much did IRL) they still have no answer to what lies ahead.
>>18539897>kill polackUkrainian insurgent were based
>>18538370it was inevitable that germany would eventually lose ww1 when the us got involved by shipping munitions to the entente in 1915germany cannot sustain long wars with naval powers due to a lack of resources, especially when every other naval power is against themironically, if the us had gotten directly involved in 1915/ 1916 germany may have won in 1917 due to the us bowing out of the war due to the no doubt high casualties they would've suffered and the unrest over it at home, which would've likely caused the french troops to directly mutiny due to similar reasons along with a sudden lack of us troops for the meat grinder
>>18539897>country had to be gifted back into existence by actual powers twice in less than 30 years, both with different borders impressive
>>185380461940. Unless they prevent Dunkirk and force the British out of the war at least temporarily they don't have any chance of defeating the Soviet Union.
What if Germany had just released the entirety of France (Alsace-Lorraine included) the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway with favorable armistices on the condition that they remain neutral and resist attempts by Brits fucking around in their waters and air space?
>>18541611What if OP and WW2 dickriders can go back to pol?
>>18541541>germany would eventually lose ww1 when the us got involved by shipping munitions to the entente in 1915That mean nothing, US barely support much. Britain have to lie about hiding ammunition on sinking US cruise until declassify in the 1980s.
