How Germany could have won the second world war

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
 

gulfman

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
861
Reaction score
560
Points
920
Better yet.If he kept all of his scientists from leaving Germany he would have had the atomic bomb first.The world would have been his.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,828
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,855
Interesting! I do like "what ifs" like this.

Hitler was far too narcissistic too succeed. The "mistakes" you mentioned, and many more, came right from his narcissism. He also was reactionary and short-sighted in his strategy. He thought he would plunder all the resources of Europe, if needed. And he quickly realized he couldn't plunder them in time. I would say, by 1943, he knew it was all over.

Could he have held Russia? Maybe, without the Allies pestering him. And no Africa invasion, let's not forget that.

Regarding one "what if" you raise: Would the western world really have gone to war with a powerful Germany, when word of the Holocaust got out? I'm not so sure they would have. The US and Britain were't exactly stalwarts against anti-semitism themselves. And even today, we sit by as a madman starves, tortures, rapes, and plunders his entire population (North Korea). Would any of us be shocked in the least to hear of mass executions in North Korea? We weren't the last time we heard about it. Not shocked enough to do much about it, anyway. We aren't going to war with a powerful China over some dead North Koreans, and I doubt we would have gone to war over dead Jews in the Third Reich.
 
Last edited:
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
Interesting! I do like "what ifs" like this.

Hitler was far too narcissistic too succeed. The "mistakes" you mentioned, and many more, came right from his narcissism. He also was reactionary and short-sighted in his strategy. He thought he would plunder all the resources of Europe, if needed. And he quickly realized he couldn't plunder them in time. I would say, by 1943, he knew it was all over.

Could he have held Russia? Maybe, without the Allies pestering him. And no Africa invasion, let's not forget that.

Regarding one "what if" you raise: Would the western world really have gone to war with a powerful Germany, when word of the Holocaust got out? I'm not so sure they would have. The US and Britain were't exactly stalwarts against anti-semitism themselves. And even today, we sit by as a madman starves, tortures, rapes, and plunders his entire population (North Korea). Would any of us be shocked in the least to hear of mass executions in North Korea? We weren't the last time we heard about it. Not shocked enough to do much about it, anyway. We aren't going to war with a powerful China over some dead North Koreans, and I doubt we would have gone to war over dead Jews in the Third Reich.
Great response.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There is a show on Netflix wherein the U.S. lost the second world war and came under the control of the Nazis, or so I have been told. I believe it's called "The man in the high castle". I've never watched. The idea that Germany was going to "take over the world" was laughable. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Germans probably did about as well as they could have done. They won a staggering victory against the French and British. And then their armies waltzed through Russia, at least until late 1941. They had a HELL of a run, but it wasn't going to last forever, and it didn't.
 

Litwin

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
351
Points
95
Location
GDL&Sweden
There is a show on Netflix wherein the U.S. lost the second world war and came under the control of the Nazis, or so I have been told. I believe it's called "The man in the high castle". I've never watched. The idea that Germany was going to "take over the world" was laughable. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Germans probably did about as well as they could have done. They won a staggering victory against the French and British. And then their armies waltzed through Russia, at least until late 1941. They had a HELL of a run, but it wasn't going to last forever, and it didn't.
i lived in a totalitarian state.i can say that "The man in the high castle". is just a comic based film. it has noting to do with reality
 

Litwin

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
351
Points
95
Location
GDL&Sweden
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
"Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. " no it was literally impossible, Hitler " the ultimate prize," was conquering Ukraine. not just my word, T Snyder wrote a book about it
 

Litwin

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
351
Points
95
Location
GDL&Sweden
"The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad." once Germans took Moscow, USSR ´d collapse its for sure
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
There is a show on Netflix wherein the U.S. lost the second world war and came under the control of the Nazis, or so I have been told. I believe it's called "The man in the high castle". I've never watched. The idea that Germany was going to "take over the world" was laughable. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Germans probably did about as well as they could have done. They won a staggering victory against the French and British. And then their armies waltzed through Russia, at least until late 1941. They had a HELL of a run, but it wasn't going to last forever, and it didn't.
i lived in a totalitarian state.i can say that "The man in the high castle". is just a comic based film. it has noting to do with reality
Where did you live.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
"Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. " no it was literally impossible, Hitler " the ultimate prize," was conquering Ukraine. not just my word, T Snyder wrote a book about it
Thanks. Using the word "conquering" was a poor choice. Perhaps "defeated" is more appropriate.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,189
Reaction score
5,963
Points
290
Of course, if a certain child-bearing space ship had been launched a few hours sooner ...

 

Litwin

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
351
Points
95
Location
GDL&Sweden
all
There is a show on Netflix wherein the U.S. lost the second world war and came under the control of the Nazis, or so I have been told. I believe it's called "The man in the high castle". I've never watched. The idea that Germany was going to "take over the world" was laughable. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Germans probably did about as well as they could have done. They won a staggering victory against the French and British. And then their armies waltzed through Russia, at least until late 1941. They had a HELL of a run, but it wasn't going to last forever, and it didn't.
i lived in a totalitarian state.i can say that "The man in the high castle". is just a comic based film. it has noting to do with reality
Where did you live.
all totalitarian regimes are the same , my grandmother lived under Nazis , they were much more skillful occupants , much more skillful than commie - Muscovites . if you were not a Jew of ´cos,
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,443
Reaction score
16,300
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
Actually Hitler would have won had he not declared war upon America as quickly as he did. America was isolationist at the time, and would not likely have initiated a war with Hitler. If Hitler had waited just a year we would have committed all of our forces to the Pacific instead of initially Europe as we did. This would have freed Hitler up to invade the UK and then Russia without having to worry about a second front in the West, allowing all resources and manpower to fight in Russia.

It would have also allowed Hitler to complete the major advances in warfare they came close to completing. Not only the V rockets, but Germany had developed a stealth fighter. Because of limited resources Hitler dropped the production of the fighters to create a stealth bomber version. This was intended for a one way mission to major east coast cities with a nuclear bomb in it, which they had also come close to completing. Had these programs been successful the world would be much different than it is today.

It was all about timing.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
17,191
Reaction score
2,575
Points
290
Location
Texas
The problem is of course Hitler himself; Germany was doomed the second Hitler shot his main right wing rival, the head of the Wehrmacht, and seized the government.

Otherwise, as a 'what if', the OP is pretty good overall; Stalingrad was a stupid blunder, but he could have won there if he hadn't split up his forces at the beginning and launched a decent attack. But then he would have to give up the original goal of seizing or at least destroying the oil fields. Interesting is Fred Koch's role in the Soviet oil industry, as a side note. The basis of the Koch fortune is his work for Stalin in developing and modernizing the oil industry there.

The British saved Moscow from falling; don['t know how one gets them out of the war re an invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union; the 'Great Game' between Russia and the British Empire had been going on since Pete rthe Great, and hand't let up one iota by 1941.
 
OP
K9Buck

K9Buck

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
1,832
Points
280
The problem is of course Hitler himself; Germany was doomed the second Hitler shot his main right wing rival, the head of the Wehrmacht, and seized the government.

Otherwise, as a 'what if', the OP is pretty good overall; Stalingrad was a stupid blunder, but he could have won there if he hadn't split up his forces at the beginning and launched a decent attack. But then he would have to give up the original goal of seizing or at least destroying the oil fields. Interesting is Fred Koch's role in the Soviet oil industry, as a side note. The basis of the Koch fortune is his work for Stalin in developing and modernizing the oil industry there.

The British saved Moscow from falling; don['t know how one gets them out of the war re an invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union; the 'Great Game' between Russia and the British Empire had been going on since Pete rthe Great, and hand't let up one iota by 1941.
It's fun to speculate.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
34,777
Reaction score
7,566
Points
1,130
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
34,777
Reaction score
7,566
Points
1,130
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
Actually Hitler would have won had he not declared war upon America as quickly as he did. America was isolationist at the time, and would not likely have initiated a war with Hitler. If Hitler had waited just a year we would have committed all of our forces to the Pacific instead of initially Europe as we did. This would have freed Hitler up to invade the UK and then Russia without having to worry about a second front in the West, allowing all resources and manpower to fight in Russia.

It would have also allowed Hitler to complete the major advances in warfare they came close to completing. Not only the V rockets, but Germany had developed a stealth fighter. Because of limited resources Hitler dropped the production of the fighters to create a stealth bomber version. This was intended for a one way mission to major east coast cities with a nuclear bomb in it, which they had also come close to completing. Had these programs been successful the world would be much different than it is today.

It was all about timing.
Stalin’s Stooge was all about war with Germany. This is why he set up Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. He knew Hitler would have to declare war on the US, which was FDR’s goal all along.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,189
Reaction score
5,963
Points
290
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.
Actually, the Soviets turned out to be pretty good cannon fodder to whittle away at the Nazis in the East.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
34,777
Reaction score
7,566
Points
1,130
Do you like historical "what ifs?" Here's mine.

Hitler took his eye off the ultimate prize, conquering the Soviet Union. Hitler needlessly and detrimentally went to war with Britain.

Upon taking France, Hitler should have disarmed the French (as they did), dismantled the Maginot Line and then announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing from France and state that they never wanted war with the allies and that their territorial claims in Poland were just. The French would have retained their navy (as they did anyway) and their colonies. I'm confident that the French would have readily accepted such generous terms from the Germans.

Hitler would have refrained from invading Denmark, Norway and north Africa while also refraining from any attacks against the U.K. Politically speaking, Churchill would have had virtually nill support for engaging in war against the Germans considering that the French were out of the war and at peace with Germany and considering that the Germans were not taking any aggressive actions against the U.K.

Hitler also would have needed to NOT declare war on the U.S., as he was apparently bound by agreement with Japan to do.

Had Hitler done these things, Germany would not have been at war with the western allies. He would not have expended and wasted massive resources engaging in needless wars in the "Battle of Britain" or in north Africa nor in occupying and fortifying France.

There would have been no British and American bombers bombing Germany's infrastructure. It's quite possible that American aid to the Soviets would never have happened or that the support would have been significantly less.

Hitler could have had the one-front war that he always wanted and have gone to war with the Soviets without having one arm tied behind his back, so to speak.

I will also add that Hitler's desire to actually take Stalingrad was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. He didn't need to take that city. They could have taken the oil fields in the Caucasus oil fields.

One glaring omission was Hitler's genocide of the Jews. Obviously, this would have been problematic for Germany in the long-term as the western allies, sooner or later, were going to learn of what was happening and would have responded with war. Hitler could have delayed his war against Jewish people in order to focus on winning the war. Thereafter, he could have advocated for the state of Israel and then worked on a program to humanely send European Jews to the newly created state.

Hitler would have needed to take Leningrad and then fortify western Russia and the Ukraine in order to be able to retain his conquests. The Germans were never going to be able to take and keep Moscow or Stalingrad. The Germans simply could not won the battle of attrition with the Soviets over the long-term.

Here is what "winning" the war would have looked like for Germany.

1) Defeating the allied armies in France, disarming the French and then making peace with the allies and, of course, avoiding war with the U.S.

2) Seizing Leningrad, the Ukraine and the Caucasus oil fields and being able to hold those territories.

3) Avoiding genocide of the Jews by, instead, exporting Germany's Jews to Palestine or a newly created "Israel".

Still, the Soviets would not have taken this lying down and the idea that the Germans could have, in the long-term, been able to retain control of their territorial conquests in the east seems unlikely.

Thoughts?
Stalin’s Stooge in the White House, would never agree to this.
Actually, the Soviets turned out to be pretty good cannon fodder to whittle away at the Nazis in the East.
True, but has nothing to do with my post.
 

MedfordMan

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
144
Reaction score
23
Points
46
There is a show on Netflix wherein the U.S. lost the second world war and came under the control of the Nazis, or so I have been told. I believe it's called "The man in the high castle". I've never watched. The idea that Germany was going to "take over the world" was laughable. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Germans probably did about as well as they could have done. They won a staggering victory against the French and British. And then their armies waltzed through Russia, at least until late 1941. They had a HELL of a run, but it wasn't going to last forever, and it didn't.
I love Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which was the basis for Blade Runner, but "The Man in the High Castle" is a liberal fantasy based on a flawed premise.

You see the problem with world domination by the Nazi's is simple mathematics. No matter how repressive their regime, the simply didn't have enough people to invade and occupy a country like the US.

Dick's premise is that "fascist" elements in the US controlled by the Nazi's rise up and help the Nazi's keep and maintain power here.

I like the show. It's entertaining and interesting, but I have a hard time getting past the self indulgent and intellectually lazy premise underpinning it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top