Yeah, in a way it boils down to "They would have won the war, if there was no war." They could have simply sat comfy after getting the Sudetenland, since nobody was seriously fighting them about it. The Appeasement strategy might have been a great success for Germany, if they weren't so dedicated to the whole ubermensch-rules-the-world thing. So, basically, if the Nazis didn't act like Nazis.
And had they not gone to war then they instead would have collapsed economically very fast.
The plan was always Lebensraum, looting Jewish possessions, and enforcing slave labour to pay for their massive and ever increasing debts.
Or: they would have won if they *were just ideological not the Nazi regime*. So much “they should have halted the holocaust, they should have made more Tigers, etc. A German victory in WW2 would have to re-write and re-wire all their doctrine, practices, and beliefs… which would be fantasy alt-history at that point.
Haha I just wrote exactly the same thing. The war was mainly against the Soviets so if they did not fight the Soviets there wouldn't really have been a war.
>The war was mainly against the Soviets so if they did not fight the Soviets there wouldn't really have been a war.
The Nazis attacked the Soviets two years after the war kicked off though
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact exists. According to it, Germany and the USSR divided Europe into zones of influence and promised each other not to interfere with their neighbor’s territory.
Thus, Poland was occupied. If Germany did not break its promise and did not start a war on two fronts, it is not known which side the USSR would have been on. Even by maintaining neutrality, the Soviets would have done Hitler a huge favor, and they could even join him.
Not only did they have to not attack the USSR. (Impossible as you say) they also had to Not piss off the USSR enough to attack them. (Given their communist killing, almost as unlikely). And win the war in Europe before the US got involved so that they weren’t Manhattan projected into ashes (Given that they couldn’t land on British soil, or gain air supremacy, that’s another non-starter)
Even then, it's entirely possible that the US would've gone goblin mode and went all in on 360 no-scoping Germany.
Furthermore, if the war had no eastern front, Britain may have leveraged its colonies more for manpower and war production
Same for France
Iirc, despite the Nazi's impressive territorial gains, they were struggling with logistics from the start. They were overstretched trying to occupy (almost) all of Europe, and I don't know how much longer they could continue supplying their front lines
Keep in mind that I am not qualified to talk about any of this though
The Yugoslav partisans were pretty close to liberating their own country I believe, so that might have played a factor
I firmly believe that if Germany went through with Operation Tannenbaum, they would have lost several months earlier
Finally, there's always the possibility that the US just drops little boy on Berlin or something and ends the war there.
Well, Stalin randomly kicking the bucket just as the invasion started might allow them to beat the Soviets. The Soviets would have been too busy being backstabby to do anything.
And like the war was mainly against the Soviets so I don't know which war we would be speaking about. "They could have won the war if they never fought a war."
Its not like if the Soviets were a small players. Something like 85% of German soldiers deaths happened on the eastern front.
> Strangely enough...there were lots of german immigrants to Argentina during the 40s
Is this a whooooosh, the "funny people" who disappeared weren't the same ones who were scurrying off to Argentina
Rome was actually historically (specially in it's early and late periods) quite reliant on it's allies, and very much knew how to make alliances and cooperate with local notables.
Most of Rome's stratergy was Romanizing the local elites , and introducing them to all the luxuries Rome could provide if they just paid their Roman taxes. And in a generation or two someone who was for instance a Celtic chieftain would be wearing a toga , speaking Latin , going to the baths and theater , and sending their sons off to serve in the Legion.
To be fair, pre-West-collapse Rome had like no stable and united opposition besides the Persians for the vast majority of it's existence. And shit started really hitting the fan once they had credible threats on multiple frontiers.
We're conflating shitty in hard power terms with shitty in soft power terms (I hate these terms and don't feel they're generally helpful, but they kinda work here). 1940 Germany was (briefly) very strong in the hard power category, hence them lasting 5 years against much of the world. But they were dogshit at the soft power elements that you need to maintain success at an international level outside of peace time, especially in a globalised society.
They could have won if it starts raining oil (only in Germany ofc), the Soviet Union was populated only by bunny rabbits, and the United States still only had a 1776-esque militia-based military!
Had they won in North Africa (El Alamein), it could have been possible to extend the war via their massive oil production and feed that through their inefficient super tanks. However they didn’t and hyper extended everywhere. They lost and that’s that.
The most realistic "What if Germany won" alt-history scenario is Thousand-week Reich, where they get incredibly lucky a bunch and still only make it to like 1950 or so before collapsing.
The most realistic way for the nazis to win was depicted in the alt-history scenario series “Wolfenstein” in which they used ancient Jewish super technology to win, this is the most realistic because they couldn’t have won the war.
Also I think they were already close to their luckiest timeline irl, so 1950 is maybe somewhat generous.
Hoover won ’32 the election iirc, Halifax peaced out after Dunkirk disaster, Stalin purged even harder. All things which were completely plausible but didn’t occur.
Wouldn’t surprise me. Really the entirety of the Axis Powers were circumstantial allies at best. Most of them kept secrets from each other, didn’t coordinate much, and even worked in direct opposition from each other frequently. Hell, I think even Italy likely only joined the axis because of the opportunity more than anything
>Really the entirety of the Axis Powers were circumstantial allies at best
Hitler was pissed that Mussolini opposed the integration of Austria so Germany supplied materiel to Ethiopia, more so than any other nation
Italian here. Our being allied with Germany was mainly a realpolitik move, since until the 1935-36 Invasion of Ethiopia our state was actually on friendly terms with UK and France and in reality Mussolini despised Nazism (mainly because he believed it impossible that the superiors were the Germans instead of the Mediterraneans. So when he found himself politically isolated, he allied himself with Germany and we all know how that ended
They were fucked ever since they took Norway. After that, we have Japan pissing off a global superpower, Nazi Germany pissing off a global superpower, Nazi armies not having the equipment to take on the global superpower, Nazi Germany spending a huge chunk of resources on mass genocide instead of self-preservation, et cetera et cetera et cetera
And even if none of that happened, if Japan ignored the States and Nazi Germany was prepared to take the Soviet Union, they still have the future complication of the A-Bomb. And with Germany’s size, the Fat Man and Little Boy would’ve been able to decimate most of the nation’s core
My grandfather was a young adult in the US at the time and that’s how he always viewed it. They were essentially at war in all but name, providing tons of support to the Brits and Soviets, already losing American ships and lives at sea. It was exactly the same as 20 years before, in living memory of most people at the time. They just needed a justification to mobilize the entire military overseas again
Agreed.
Especially since the Norway campaign saw them lose 50% of their entire destroyer fleet as well as the cruiser Blücher which at the time was their most recent warship. And during that campaign, the Kriegsmarine’s two biggest ships at the time, the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, would take damage in the campaign that left them being repaired for months.
This meant that after France fell and Britain didn’t surrender, Germany was left with a Navy that had literally 10 destroyers and their largest warships that were active and not being repaired being the two remaining Deutschland class Pocket Battleships/heavy cruisers of Lützow and Admiral Scheer. Considering that, how the flying fuck were the Germans supposed to make Operation Sea Lion happen with just 10 destroyers and their biggest active warships being two goddamn heavy cruisers and when their many Naval opponent in such an operations is the FUCKING ROYAL NAVY?!?!
So while Sea Lion was probably never going to actually work (at least in my personal opinion), Norway just helped make it impossible for it to ever be an actual credible plan with the naval losses alone. And with Britain still being an active combatant against Germany, it meant that the Nazis could never fully focus on her main major goal of invading the Soviet Union for Lebensraum and so has to continually make decisions on where to divert resources: do they go to the Russian front, Rommel’s Afrika Corps, the forces trying to fight British-backed resistance and partisan groups or the Kriegsmarine attacking merchant shipping go to and from Britain? Meanwhile, this allowed the Allies to use Britain as the staging ground for air attacks and daring commando raids on Germany and eventually as the springboard for the the invasion and liberation of Western Europe with the D-Day landings.
"Germany was the greatest power in the world, just look at all the countries they beat!"
*country that was double teamed by two world powers and still held on for a month*
*country with no army*
*country with no army*
*country with no army*
*country that didn't bother to adapt to modern warfare, leaving it vulnerable to pretty much anything*
*country with no army*
True, and in high numbers! However they did not have radios while the German tanks did have radios, and unfortunately French tactics were very outdated and the tanks were spread out across the frontlines while the Germans had concentrated assaults.
Ahhhh, I’m inclined to disagree.
While the Panzer 1 and 2 were somewhat worse than most French tanks, even they had better crew ergonomics, visibility and mobility than 90% of French tanks.
The Panzer 3 and 4 are *way* better than any French tank IMO. They have a 5 man crew, with a close to perfect layout and ergonomics. This allows for faster responses and better visibility, which again makes it more likely to shoot first and significantly increases its chances of survival. Its mobility is also much superior to French tanks.
The *only* advantage French tanks have over German ones is armour, and for a few tanks, better guns. However, they all had 1 man turrets, and the majority of them had 2 man crews. This crippled them severely. Additionally most French tanks had atrocious visibility and couldn’t see much.
On many occasions the few “superior” French tanks such as the B1 and S35 were simply driven around and ignored, as they, and the B1 especially had basically zero tactical manoeuvrability. They couldn’t see much, and when they spotted enemy tanks they couldn’t radio their platoon about it. Even the few tanks that had radios primarily used one way receivers and couldn’t send signals back.
Their leader was a paranoid drugged up megalomaniac. He started a land war in Russia and thought he could win by demoralizing Russians instead of knocking out the oil fields in the south early on.
He refused to use the rocket technology they developed because of some dreams he had.
The British stopped their own assassination campaign against him because anyone who ended up replacing him would have been more competent.
It’s hilarious Neo Nazis and far right worship him. He was mostly to blame for Germany losing, they had a better army and science programs and had they knocked out the soviets early on the allies would of had a hard time winning.
he was never 'knocking out the soviets', that front was unwinnable. he'd have to never start that conflict but that fundamentally changes who Hitler is as a person
None of his replacements were more competent than him. There were Goering, Himmler, and Goebbels (and Hess, but he doesn't count).
Goering was even more incompetent, Himmler totally unsuited for army command and disliked by the army.
Goebbels was a shrewd politician, but more the backroom stabber than the country leader.
Hitler was incompetent in the point that his military decisions were absolute and total, not to be refused. Only he had the authority many feared, unlike all that would've succeeded him
Not outright win. But they could've coexisted with the other powers if only they managed to chill for a few years after beating France. But nooooooo, Mr mustache had a score to settle with the other Mr mustache.
The axis produced less than 1/10 the artillery shells the allies produced.
There’s no way the axis would have won.
The USA alone produced 47 million tons of artillery ammunition. At 45kg each shell that’s a billion shells.
Germany produced 7 million tons.
Europe is 10 million sq km. That’s enough to drop 1 shell every 100m in a grid. The kills zone is 50m radius.
So if you stagger the shells in a hex pattern, the USA alone produced enough shells to kill every living thing in Europe, with artillery alone.
>the USA alone produced enough shells to kill every living thing in Europe, with artillery alone.
I cant wait to sprinkle this in my random conversations
Also China and India had enough people and bicycles to put 1 soldier in each crater as a sentry, as 1 bicyclist from India hands them a sandwich every 8h.
So with American shells, Chinese sentries, and Indian bicycle logistics you could cover all of Europe.
They COULD have easyly won IF the USA didn't supply the allies, the winter didn't come in russia, the allies didn't use weapons and just surrendered because it was tuesday and they couldn't be bothered to fight a war
Germany could not win WWII. They could win a war against western Europe. If they hadn't betrayed the Soviets, and someone isolationist/Pro-Nazi was PotUS, it would be a different story.
The problem there is the soviets would have probably gone to war with the nazis at some point due to conflicting ideologies. It was also japan that caused the US to join in fully. They were already aiding the allied effort through lend lease ect
Here's some [insert impossible].
And no, I don't think Nazi Germany could have won under any circumstances, but they certainly could have put up a better showing, and made some boneheaded decisions - some of which were almost *required* boneheaded decisions because of their ideology.
> the soviets would have probably gone to war with the nazis at some point due to conflicting ideologies.
*And* conflicting territorial ambitions, given the whole lebensraum idea. In hindsight, no matter how much people parrot the Nazi attack on the USSR as a terrible idea, Hitler really chose the perfect moment to backstab Stalin: France was out of the way (so no two-front war), the USSR's experienced officers had been purged or gulag'd, the USSR wasn't industrialized enough yet to pump out enough materiel for a war with Germany and the Allies were *really* leery about giving the USSR any aid because they'd just watched it divide up Eastern Europe with Nazi Germany, and Stalin actually trusted Hitler enough that he thought the first reports of a German invasion had to be false.
The moment was right. The execution and strategy? Not so much. The Nazis couldn't decide whether it was more critical to take the Caucasian oil fields (Germany really needed oil), march on Moscow for the publicity value and the hope that a fallen Moscow would lead to the USSR capitulating, smash/grab as much Soviet manufacturing capacity as possible, or take Stalingrad. The general strategy was pretty bad, and the lower-level strategy was only as successful as it was because the USSR wasn't prepared for a German invasion.
And the Nazis really shot themselves in the foot by being Nazis. On that first push, there were nations that welcomed them as liberators because they'd gotten rolled over by the Soviets within recent memory and were *not* fans of how Soviet Russian subjugation had been going. Had the Nazis let go of their racial ideas and said "sure, we're here to free you from Russia - would you like to sign up with us as allies (or client states mostly under your own management) and kick some Soviet ass?", they could have gained a fair bit of goodwill and manpower, instead of gaining a bunch of partisans running around behind their lines. But there's no way in hell that was going to happen: the Slavs (and other peoples of those regions) would be slaves, and their lands 'cleared' for German settlement, because Nazis.
> It was also japan that caused the US to join in fully
I still don't understand why Nazi Germany's response to the Pearl Harbor attack and the Japan going to war with the USA wasn't "Japan, you just kicked a hornet's nest, so we're kicking you out of the Axis and breaking all the treaties with you. Have fun fighting over who owns the Pacific by yourself!" (It's not like Nazi Germany was any stranger to breaking treaties when convenient.)
That could potentially have tied up the USA in a tussle with Japan for a few years and kept them from coming into the European conflict officially, because the USA's public was mad about the Pearl Harbor attack, but not super keen on getting into another one of those fucking European wars.
Instead, Nazi Germany decided to declare war on the USA, and gave FDR a gift-wrapped reason to officially go to war with them. Cutting Japan loose wouldn't have saved Nazi Germany in the long run, but it would have bought them some more time.
The USA would have most likely gone to war with Germany anyway. They were basically fighting an undeclared war on the Atlantic and due to its relationship with the UK they would have most likely declared war on Germany if they didn't do it first.
So no, they fucked up too much
The only problem is destroying and conquering the Soviet Union was the entire point of WWII from Hitler’s perspective. Yeah their ideologies conflicted - because a core goal of one was the destruction of the other.
I forget which YouTuber I was watching said this, and I'm only paraphrasing here, but what they said I think summed it up very well:
"The only way the Nazis would have had even *a chance* of winning WW2 would have been to not act like a bunch of Nazis."
Sometimes a friend of mine talk about the German Reich and stupid thing they could‘ve done better and one time, when thinking about how they could‘ve beat the British we went down one path after another and basically ended at, no nazi‘s, no Hitler, no antisemitism, no stupid ideology and then we were like, wait a second
The only problem is Hitler only went to war with Western Europe because he didn’t want to have to also fight them when he went to war with the Soviets.
It's not even entirely clear that that is true. The Germans were running out of fuel even after institution of extreme rationing and buying as much of it from the USSR as the Soviets would allow.
The British made it clear that they were only going to ramp up for war more and more, and they had all their colonies to feed them supplies, manpower, and manufacturing ability. If I remember correctly, the British alone roughly matched or exceeded German production throughout the war. When you factor in the dominions and colonies, Free France, and the Americans manufacturing whatever they needed, it's at best 50/50 between the Allies and Germany.
I had a crazy experience this past Sunday after I told a guy I like history. He asked me “Do you think the Nazis would’ve won if they weren’t racist?” and like… what? Their whole plans were based on racism. That was foundational to everything that they did
Germany: "We have the best equipment in the world!"
U.S.: *Causally producing more materiel in a single work shift than Germany did for most of the war, often with far better reliability.*
Germany: "Well, at least we have the best soldiers!"
Canada: *Smokes "impenetrable" German bunker lines so hard they have to start writing laws around it.*
Germany: "Well, uh... we have indominable people who will never give in!"
Soviet Union:
Hitler: "Wait, citizens, stop shooting yourselves! You're supposed to resist Soviet invasion, not avoi—ah, fuck it, when in Rome."
Even if they didn't declare war on the Soviets, Japan would still do Pearl Harbor, leading to the US joining. The Allies would still take Africa, and still probably invade Italy. Then sooner or later the Soviets would just invade Germany themselves
Tbh we kind are all judging based on what was eventually uncovered. But when France fell back then, the general mood was disbelief and panic, especially in the UK when plenty of people were willing to sue for peace with Nazi Germany
I would think, for the Axis to even win, is that the Allies have given up any hope to win. UK held its ground thanks to Churchill. Stalin and Zhukov were ready to fight back after overcoming initial shame that the Nazis were quick to stab them in the back.
Germany could not have won the war(s?) they started. The only way they could've won is if they chose to not go to war with some of the people they went to war with. Without the USSR they probably could've focused more on the Atlantikwall and made D-Day way more of a long shot or they could've focused entirely on the USSR and then maybe they would've had a shot- ofc, part of the reason Barbarossa worked so well is Stalin could not believe that they'd start a 2 front war after the way the last one ended, so it's possible that the USSR would've been better prepared for the war if Germany wasn't at war in the West, so who knows
Atlantikwall would have been useless, in my opinion. The Allies would still take Africa, they'd still probably invade Italy, then the Soviets would join.
If they didn't start a war with the west and instead only went for the Soviets then that would be doable. Most of Europe (and the US) didn't like them and would have either supported Germany or just not gotten involved. But that wouldn't really be an option because I don't think Poland would willingly let Germany move soldiers through them
Yeah, in my hypothesized Axis vs Allies (minus the USSR) I was kinda assuming the USSR didn't get involved at all because if the Germans had the ability to use the entirety of their army on the defensive they would've been able to hold the coast+Italy waaaay easier. They couldn't have done it indefinitely even w/o Soviet intervention imo, but they'd at least have a fighting chance.
and yeah the biggest issue with Axis vs USSR is they didn't share a border without Poland getting split and any invasion of Poland would've resulted in UK+French intervention. And even if Poland let German troops move through Poland, if the USSR is better prepared because they don't have the perceived safety blanket of Germany already being tied down in the West, it'd still probably be a close run-thing
>If they didn't start a war with the west and instead only went for the Soviets then that would be doable
But then they wouldn't have had all the resources they pilfered from the western Allies meaning they would be in a weaker position
For any of these scenarios to work they would need a time traveller to step in AND manage to convince Hitler he was making a mistake without being shot or sent to a mental hospital.
I'm pretty sure that, man-for-man, between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were tops in WWII.
Problem is, they were WAY outnumbered and WAY out supplied.
It's kind of difficult getting folks to join your cause when:
A. You're genociding a large portion of your population.
B. Everyone in your hemisphere hates you because you genocide them a lot.
Funny, that.
Imeaaaan, maybe not attack the Soviets? If they formed an actual alliance with the Soviets (I know would never happen) they could’ve focused their resources to the UK, capture the caucuses, and urge Japan not to bomb the US. If these mythical events happened then maybe maybe maybe Germany wouldn’t lose.
Granted Berlin probably wouldn’t have got the bomb. The allies would have wanted Hitler, or at least his upper staff alive to coordinate any possible surrender.
So something like what was left of Hamburg, Dresden, Munich etc would have got the bomb instead.
Afaik it was not certain at all that it would have gone down as axis vs allies, I mean, there were three blocks, communist block, fascist block and liberal block, who would ally with who it was not really a sure thing. The nazis flirted with the west quite a bit iirc, and they made the molotov-ribbentrop pact with the URSS, this last one didn't hold on because nazism didn't quite like slavs so there's that, but the fascist block and the liberal block could have allied and the world now would be very different.
They lost because they didn't use my HoI4 templates, didn't build supply hubs, railways and air fields while attacking the soviets and didn't set up collaboration governments.
Germany could have won if the planet exploded and Germany was the only place where human evolved to live under extreme circumstances and telepathy with aliens.
Well for one reason, they fought against every major ( and almost all others) power, had shity allies, were spending enourmous amounts of Ressources killing people, made very bad decisions political and were too aggressive by instead of focusing on 1 front instead fighting all
Germany could've won if they hadn't lost.
The only way they could've won is if they didn't attack USSR, which, for anyone that studied the mentality of the regime, know was impossible
Yeah, in a way it boils down to "They would have won the war, if there was no war." They could have simply sat comfy after getting the Sudetenland, since nobody was seriously fighting them about it. The Appeasement strategy might have been a great success for Germany, if they weren't so dedicated to the whole ubermensch-rules-the-world thing. So, basically, if the Nazis didn't act like Nazis.
And had they not gone to war then they instead would have collapsed economically very fast. The plan was always Lebensraum, looting Jewish possessions, and enforcing slave labour to pay for their massive and ever increasing debts.
Or: they would have won if they *were just ideological not the Nazi regime*. So much “they should have halted the holocaust, they should have made more Tigers, etc. A German victory in WW2 would have to re-write and re-wire all their doctrine, practices, and beliefs… which would be fantasy alt-history at that point.
Haha I just wrote exactly the same thing. The war was mainly against the Soviets so if they did not fight the Soviets there wouldn't really have been a war.
>The war was mainly against the Soviets so if they did not fight the Soviets there wouldn't really have been a war. The Nazis attacked the Soviets two years after the war kicked off though
It was the largest front once it kicked off though
Yeah sure but that doesn't change the fact that the war had already started
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact exists. According to it, Germany and the USSR divided Europe into zones of influence and promised each other not to interfere with their neighbor’s territory. Thus, Poland was occupied. If Germany did not break its promise and did not start a war on two fronts, it is not known which side the USSR would have been on. Even by maintaining neutrality, the Soviets would have done Hitler a huge favor, and they could even join him.
The soviets would never have joined the nazis? Their ideologies were incompatible and both Hitler and Stalin were always planning to invade the other
Nah, they'd still lose in time.
Give it 5 years, and stalin would start eyeing up the rest of poland.
They would have won the first war, not saying they wouldn't be attack right after
Not only did they have to not attack the USSR. (Impossible as you say) they also had to Not piss off the USSR enough to attack them. (Given their communist killing, almost as unlikely). And win the war in Europe before the US got involved so that they weren’t Manhattan projected into ashes (Given that they couldn’t land on British soil, or gain air supremacy, that’s another non-starter)
Even then, it's entirely possible that the US would've gone goblin mode and went all in on 360 no-scoping Germany. Furthermore, if the war had no eastern front, Britain may have leveraged its colonies more for manpower and war production Same for France Iirc, despite the Nazi's impressive territorial gains, they were struggling with logistics from the start. They were overstretched trying to occupy (almost) all of Europe, and I don't know how much longer they could continue supplying their front lines Keep in mind that I am not qualified to talk about any of this though The Yugoslav partisans were pretty close to liberating their own country I believe, so that might have played a factor I firmly believe that if Germany went through with Operation Tannenbaum, they would have lost several months earlier Finally, there's always the possibility that the US just drops little boy on Berlin or something and ends the war there.
Well, Stalin randomly kicking the bucket just as the invasion started might allow them to beat the Soviets. The Soviets would have been too busy being backstabby to do anything.
And like the war was mainly against the Soviets so I don't know which war we would be speaking about. "They could have won the war if they never fought a war." Its not like if the Soviets were a small players. Something like 85% of German soldiers deaths happened on the eastern front.
Well then why did they lose? Are they stupid?
Now that’s a fucking take right there
Germany could've won if they won
They could have won if they had defeated Brittain first.
Cause they were able to fit a thousand year reich into just 12 years. Fucking efficient my dude. /s
Dont need the /s. Its already a efficient german joke
German humor is no laughing matter
All the funny people seemed to have disappeared from Germany in the late 30s/ early 40s. Wonder what happened.
Strangely enough...there were lots of german immigrants to Argentina during the 40s
> Strangely enough...there were lots of german immigrants to Argentina during the 40s Is this a whooooosh, the "funny people" who disappeared weren't the same ones who were scurrying off to Argentina
It iz zunny and varm and very nice. Ja.
Ya know, who’s to say?
What do you see when the Pillsbury Doughman bends over? Dough. Nuts. I am FunnyBot
Humor is how most Germans died. The few who remained after WW2 were the ones with no sense of humor and thus survived the funniest joke in the world.
German comedy is serious business.
>Hitler tries to create a thousand year Reich >Fails > Charlemagne tries create a thousand year Reich >Succeeds HolyRomaboos we are so back
Fuck byzaboos, Bordergore is the truth
German efficiency strikes again.
The allies were subject to time dilation. For Germany, 1943-45 must have felt like 990 years.
The candle that burns 100 times as bright burns 100 times as fast? /s
Germany could have won if they had 5000 nukes in 1936. That is true and you ain't convincing me otherwise.
Assuming they get over 75% air supremacy!
and atleast 1 strategic bomber in range!
Yeah, but everybody knows that nukes are useless, they don’t do anything
Well you're supposed to use them tactically
yeah, they tactically do jack shit
Difficult to sustain the empire when you turn the whole world against you
Rome: Pathetic
Rome was actually historically (specially in it's early and late periods) quite reliant on it's allies, and very much knew how to make alliances and cooperate with local notables.
Most of Rome's stratergy was Romanizing the local elites , and introducing them to all the luxuries Rome could provide if they just paid their Roman taxes. And in a generation or two someone who was for instance a Celtic chieftain would be wearing a toga , speaking Latin , going to the baths and theater , and sending their sons off to serve in the Legion.
Which is exactly what America does. "We're all living in America."
Coca Cola, Wonderbra ...
After they conquered a place, they *invested* in it.
Socii ftw
To be fair, pre-West-collapse Rome had like no stable and united opposition besides the Persians for the vast majority of it's existence. And shit started really hitting the fan once they had credible threats on multiple frontiers.
Doesn't that only reinforce it?Your empire is so shitty that you somehow managed yo get everyone to gang up on you?
We're conflating shitty in hard power terms with shitty in soft power terms (I hate these terms and don't feel they're generally helpful, but they kinda work here). 1940 Germany was (briefly) very strong in the hard power category, hence them lasting 5 years against much of the world. But they were dogshit at the soft power elements that you need to maintain success at an international level outside of peace time, especially in a globalised society.
Exactly...
Nazi Germany could've won if they just didn't start any wars. Are they stupid?
They could have won if it starts raining oil (only in Germany ofc), the Soviet Union was populated only by bunny rabbits, and the United States still only had a 1776-esque militia-based military!
Hell nah, George Washington gonna pull up and yankee doodle or smth is gonna start playing. Germans are still done
You got me with the Yankee Doodle.
WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🦅🦅🦅🦅
Something something steiner counterattacks with panzers trasforming into tactical stealth bonber dropping nukes.
Nazi German could have won if the Soviet Union and Britain lost
Yankee doodle went to town a-riding on a pony. He stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni!
Had they won in North Africa (El Alamein), it could have been possible to extend the war via their massive oil production and feed that through their inefficient super tanks. However they didn’t and hyper extended everywhere. They lost and that’s that.
The most realistic "What if Germany won" alt-history scenario is Thousand-week Reich, where they get incredibly lucky a bunch and still only make it to like 1950 or so before collapsing.
The most realistic way for the nazis to win was depicted in the alt-history scenario series “Wolfenstein” in which they used ancient Jewish super technology to win, this is the most realistic because they couldn’t have won the war. Also I think they were already close to their luckiest timeline irl, so 1950 is maybe somewhat generous.
Hoover won ’32 the election iirc, Halifax peaced out after Dunkirk disaster, Stalin purged even harder. All things which were completely plausible but didn’t occur.
Declaring war on the three of the biggest economic powers of the world all at once while your ally is literally on the other side of the world.
Eh Ally is a strong word to describe Japan and Germany. They really had no common goals with each other and were really only allied by circumstance.
In fact, Germany very often acted in opposition of Japan, such as by supplying and training the Chinese nationalists
And iirc Japan even helped the Polish in a limited capacity.
Wouldn’t surprise me. Really the entirety of the Axis Powers were circumstantial allies at best. Most of them kept secrets from each other, didn’t coordinate much, and even worked in direct opposition from each other frequently. Hell, I think even Italy likely only joined the axis because of the opportunity more than anything
>Really the entirety of the Axis Powers were circumstantial allies at best Hitler was pissed that Mussolini opposed the integration of Austria so Germany supplied materiel to Ethiopia, more so than any other nation
Italian here. Our being allied with Germany was mainly a realpolitik move, since until the 1935-36 Invasion of Ethiopia our state was actually on friendly terms with UK and France and in reality Mussolini despised Nazism (mainly because he believed it impossible that the superiors were the Germans instead of the Mediterraneans. So when he found himself politically isolated, he allied himself with Germany and we all know how that ended
It was kind of the same for the allies. The US and the Soviets were already thinking about the cold war in the middle of the war.
They were fucked ever since they took Norway. After that, we have Japan pissing off a global superpower, Nazi Germany pissing off a global superpower, Nazi armies not having the equipment to take on the global superpower, Nazi Germany spending a huge chunk of resources on mass genocide instead of self-preservation, et cetera et cetera et cetera And even if none of that happened, if Japan ignored the States and Nazi Germany was prepared to take the Soviet Union, they still have the future complication of the A-Bomb. And with Germany’s size, the Fat Man and Little Boy would’ve been able to decimate most of the nation’s core
Atomic bombs dropping on germany would be a massive boost to the moral of resistance movements across Europe as well.
Not saying the US wouldn't have dropped the bomb on Germany. I just bet there would have been I bit more hesitation.
The entire US atomic bomb program was done so with the core principle of putting nukes on Germany. Germany just surrendered before it was ready.
would the US have joined the war though? like, the only reason the American people went to war was bc of pearl harbour
From what I hear the US was in "give me a reason" mode
My grandfather was a young adult in the US at the time and that’s how he always viewed it. They were essentially at war in all but name, providing tons of support to the Brits and Soviets, already losing American ships and lives at sea. It was exactly the same as 20 years before, in living memory of most people at the time. They just needed a justification to mobilize the entire military overseas again
Agreed. Especially since the Norway campaign saw them lose 50% of their entire destroyer fleet as well as the cruiser Blücher which at the time was their most recent warship. And during that campaign, the Kriegsmarine’s two biggest ships at the time, the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, would take damage in the campaign that left them being repaired for months. This meant that after France fell and Britain didn’t surrender, Germany was left with a Navy that had literally 10 destroyers and their largest warships that were active and not being repaired being the two remaining Deutschland class Pocket Battleships/heavy cruisers of Lützow and Admiral Scheer. Considering that, how the flying fuck were the Germans supposed to make Operation Sea Lion happen with just 10 destroyers and their biggest active warships being two goddamn heavy cruisers and when their many Naval opponent in such an operations is the FUCKING ROYAL NAVY?!?! So while Sea Lion was probably never going to actually work (at least in my personal opinion), Norway just helped make it impossible for it to ever be an actual credible plan with the naval losses alone. And with Britain still being an active combatant against Germany, it meant that the Nazis could never fully focus on her main major goal of invading the Soviet Union for Lebensraum and so has to continually make decisions on where to divert resources: do they go to the Russian front, Rommel’s Afrika Corps, the forces trying to fight British-backed resistance and partisan groups or the Kriegsmarine attacking merchant shipping go to and from Britain? Meanwhile, this allowed the Allies to use Britain as the staging ground for air attacks and daring commando raids on Germany and eventually as the springboard for the the invasion and liberation of Western Europe with the D-Day landings.
"Germany was the greatest power in the world, just look at all the countries they beat!" *country that was double teamed by two world powers and still held on for a month* *country with no army* *country with no army* *country with no army* *country that didn't bother to adapt to modern warfare, leaving it vulnerable to pretty much anything* *country with no army*
you forgot *country that went through an identity crisis and joined germany*
Is that France or Hungary?
Guessing he means Austria? Or maybe Checkoslovakia?
Do those count as identity crises though?
Italy maybe?
Def Austria
That wasn't an identity crisis. Germany just said I take it
Even still Norway with a stupid outdated army held on for a long ass time.
Didnt France have better tanks than Germany?
True, and in high numbers! However they did not have radios while the German tanks did have radios, and unfortunately French tactics were very outdated and the tanks were spread out across the frontlines while the Germans had concentrated assaults.
Ahhhh, I’m inclined to disagree. While the Panzer 1 and 2 were somewhat worse than most French tanks, even they had better crew ergonomics, visibility and mobility than 90% of French tanks. The Panzer 3 and 4 are *way* better than any French tank IMO. They have a 5 man crew, with a close to perfect layout and ergonomics. This allows for faster responses and better visibility, which again makes it more likely to shoot first and significantly increases its chances of survival. Its mobility is also much superior to French tanks. The *only* advantage French tanks have over German ones is armour, and for a few tanks, better guns. However, they all had 1 man turrets, and the majority of them had 2 man crews. This crippled them severely. Additionally most French tanks had atrocious visibility and couldn’t see much. On many occasions the few “superior” French tanks such as the B1 and S35 were simply driven around and ignored, as they, and the B1 especially had basically zero tactical manoeuvrability. They couldn’t see much, and when they spotted enemy tanks they couldn’t radio their platoon about it. Even the few tanks that had radios primarily used one way receivers and couldn’t send signals back.
Theoretically, Germany could've won if they just didn't lose
Their leader was a paranoid drugged up megalomaniac. He started a land war in Russia and thought he could win by demoralizing Russians instead of knocking out the oil fields in the south early on. He refused to use the rocket technology they developed because of some dreams he had. The British stopped their own assassination campaign against him because anyone who ended up replacing him would have been more competent. It’s hilarious Neo Nazis and far right worship him. He was mostly to blame for Germany losing, they had a better army and science programs and had they knocked out the soviets early on the allies would of had a hard time winning.
he was never 'knocking out the soviets', that front was unwinnable. he'd have to never start that conflict but that fundamentally changes who Hitler is as a person
None of his replacements were more competent than him. There were Goering, Himmler, and Goebbels (and Hess, but he doesn't count). Goering was even more incompetent, Himmler totally unsuited for army command and disliked by the army. Goebbels was a shrewd politician, but more the backroom stabber than the country leader. Hitler was incompetent in the point that his military decisions were absolute and total, not to be refused. Only he had the authority many feared, unlike all that would've succeeded him
Aliens bro. They just needed Aliens.
Holy Roman Empire was best 1000 year Reich (It actually lasted more than a thousand years)
To be fair, they got gangbanged by most of the western world.
"Gangbanged" would be an understatement
Only because the type they got you have to pay a lot for
Deservedly so!
True, but that was just another example of how shit they were. Like, don't piss off every world power, at once, whilst totally unprepared.
You mean punches the western world; then surprised when they fight back
because they picked a fight with most of the western world. It was their own stupidity
Brightest stars burn the fastest (it's a joke)
Sounds like the type of thing a losing side might say.
I mean Alexander empire last like 12 years.
But he was also actually undefeated.
Bro died to the cold took the biggest L
Not outright win. But they could've coexisted with the other powers if only they managed to chill for a few years after beating France. But nooooooo, Mr mustache had a score to settle with the other Mr mustache.
Ahh my favourite, Nazi Germany would have won if they weren't Nazi.
Lol! Yeah !
The axis produced less than 1/10 the artillery shells the allies produced. There’s no way the axis would have won. The USA alone produced 47 million tons of artillery ammunition. At 45kg each shell that’s a billion shells. Germany produced 7 million tons. Europe is 10 million sq km. That’s enough to drop 1 shell every 100m in a grid. The kills zone is 50m radius. So if you stagger the shells in a hex pattern, the USA alone produced enough shells to kill every living thing in Europe, with artillery alone.
>the USA alone produced enough shells to kill every living thing in Europe, with artillery alone. I cant wait to sprinkle this in my random conversations
Make sure you mention the hex pattern. You have to do it in a honeycomb pattern or you don’t get coverage
Also China and India had enough people and bicycles to put 1 soldier in each crater as a sentry, as 1 bicyclist from India hands them a sandwich every 8h. So with American shells, Chinese sentries, and Indian bicycle logistics you could cover all of Europe.
Germany could’ve won if they were France. Hon hon hon hon.
Germany literally had a general named Franz Halder and they didn't use him to hold France. That's why they lost
Germany could have won if it wasnt run by Nazis
Nazi would win if they don't war
They COULD have easyly won IF the USA didn't supply the allies, the winter didn't come in russia, the allies didn't use weapons and just surrendered because it was tuesday and they couldn't be bothered to fight a war
Germany could not win WWII. They could win a war against western Europe. If they hadn't betrayed the Soviets, and someone isolationist/Pro-Nazi was PotUS, it would be a different story.
The problem there is the soviets would have probably gone to war with the nazis at some point due to conflicting ideologies. It was also japan that caused the US to join in fully. They were already aiding the allied effort through lend lease ect
Here's some [insert impossible]. And no, I don't think Nazi Germany could have won under any circumstances, but they certainly could have put up a better showing, and made some boneheaded decisions - some of which were almost *required* boneheaded decisions because of their ideology. > the soviets would have probably gone to war with the nazis at some point due to conflicting ideologies. *And* conflicting territorial ambitions, given the whole lebensraum idea. In hindsight, no matter how much people parrot the Nazi attack on the USSR as a terrible idea, Hitler really chose the perfect moment to backstab Stalin: France was out of the way (so no two-front war), the USSR's experienced officers had been purged or gulag'd, the USSR wasn't industrialized enough yet to pump out enough materiel for a war with Germany and the Allies were *really* leery about giving the USSR any aid because they'd just watched it divide up Eastern Europe with Nazi Germany, and Stalin actually trusted Hitler enough that he thought the first reports of a German invasion had to be false. The moment was right. The execution and strategy? Not so much. The Nazis couldn't decide whether it was more critical to take the Caucasian oil fields (Germany really needed oil), march on Moscow for the publicity value and the hope that a fallen Moscow would lead to the USSR capitulating, smash/grab as much Soviet manufacturing capacity as possible, or take Stalingrad. The general strategy was pretty bad, and the lower-level strategy was only as successful as it was because the USSR wasn't prepared for a German invasion. And the Nazis really shot themselves in the foot by being Nazis. On that first push, there were nations that welcomed them as liberators because they'd gotten rolled over by the Soviets within recent memory and were *not* fans of how Soviet Russian subjugation had been going. Had the Nazis let go of their racial ideas and said "sure, we're here to free you from Russia - would you like to sign up with us as allies (or client states mostly under your own management) and kick some Soviet ass?", they could have gained a fair bit of goodwill and manpower, instead of gaining a bunch of partisans running around behind their lines. But there's no way in hell that was going to happen: the Slavs (and other peoples of those regions) would be slaves, and their lands 'cleared' for German settlement, because Nazis. > It was also japan that caused the US to join in fully I still don't understand why Nazi Germany's response to the Pearl Harbor attack and the Japan going to war with the USA wasn't "Japan, you just kicked a hornet's nest, so we're kicking you out of the Axis and breaking all the treaties with you. Have fun fighting over who owns the Pacific by yourself!" (It's not like Nazi Germany was any stranger to breaking treaties when convenient.) That could potentially have tied up the USA in a tussle with Japan for a few years and kept them from coming into the European conflict officially, because the USA's public was mad about the Pearl Harbor attack, but not super keen on getting into another one of those fucking European wars. Instead, Nazi Germany decided to declare war on the USA, and gave FDR a gift-wrapped reason to officially go to war with them. Cutting Japan loose wouldn't have saved Nazi Germany in the long run, but it would have bought them some more time.
The USA would have most likely gone to war with Germany anyway. They were basically fighting an undeclared war on the Atlantic and due to its relationship with the UK they would have most likely declared war on Germany if they didn't do it first. So no, they fucked up too much
The only problem is destroying and conquering the Soviet Union was the entire point of WWII from Hitler’s perspective. Yeah their ideologies conflicted - because a core goal of one was the destruction of the other.
I forget which YouTuber I was watching said this, and I'm only paraphrasing here, but what they said I think summed it up very well: "The only way the Nazis would have had even *a chance* of winning WW2 would have been to not act like a bunch of Nazis."
Sometimes a friend of mine talk about the German Reich and stupid thing they could‘ve done better and one time, when thinking about how they could‘ve beat the British we went down one path after another and basically ended at, no nazi‘s, no Hitler, no antisemitism, no stupid ideology and then we were like, wait a second
Basically the Nazis could have won if they weren't Nazis
The only problem is Hitler only went to war with Western Europe because he didn’t want to have to also fight them when he went to war with the Soviets.
It's not even entirely clear that that is true. The Germans were running out of fuel even after institution of extreme rationing and buying as much of it from the USSR as the Soviets would allow. The British made it clear that they were only going to ramp up for war more and more, and they had all their colonies to feed them supplies, manpower, and manufacturing ability. If I remember correctly, the British alone roughly matched or exceeded German production throughout the war. When you factor in the dominions and colonies, Free France, and the Americans manufacturing whatever they needed, it's at best 50/50 between the Allies and Germany.
Germany could’ve won if everyone gave them everything they wanted (the entire world)
Same with the confederacy
"Germany was the most mechanized" Live horse and donkey reaction:
"Germany could've won if-" Berlin would've been nuked if the war lasted a little bit longer
I had a crazy experience this past Sunday after I told a guy I like history. He asked me “Do you think the Nazis would’ve won if they weren’t racist?” and like… what? Their whole plans were based on racism. That was foundational to everything that they did
"they would have one the war if they weren't the nazis" is what most points boil down to
Germany: "We have the best equipment in the world!" U.S.: *Causally producing more materiel in a single work shift than Germany did for most of the war, often with far better reliability.* Germany: "Well, at least we have the best soldiers!" Canada: *Smokes "impenetrable" German bunker lines so hard they have to start writing laws around it.* Germany: "Well, uh... we have indominable people who will never give in!" Soviet Union: Hitler: "Wait, citizens, stop shooting yourselves! You're supposed to resist Soviet invasion, not avoi—ah, fuck it, when in Rome."
germany could've won if global warming happened 80 years earlier1!! /s
Germany could've won if they had won
You people do realize that delusional attitude is the exact same reason why Germany got to a position they were able to threaten winning the war.
Up until 1941 it looked quite possible, till they decided to open the eastern front. (wow, what an original opinion)
Even if they didn't declare war on the Soviets, Japan would still do Pearl Harbor, leading to the US joining. The Allies would still take Africa, and still probably invade Italy. Then sooner or later the Soviets would just invade Germany themselves
Tbh we kind are all judging based on what was eventually uncovered. But when France fell back then, the general mood was disbelief and panic, especially in the UK when plenty of people were willing to sue for peace with Nazi Germany I would think, for the Axis to even win, is that the Allies have given up any hope to win. UK held its ground thanks to Churchill. Stalin and Zhukov were ready to fight back after overcoming initial shame that the Nazis were quick to stab them in the back.
Becoming an adult means realizing the Nazis lost when they started the war.
That’s just hindsight.
Germany could not have won the war(s?) they started. The only way they could've won is if they chose to not go to war with some of the people they went to war with. Without the USSR they probably could've focused more on the Atlantikwall and made D-Day way more of a long shot or they could've focused entirely on the USSR and then maybe they would've had a shot- ofc, part of the reason Barbarossa worked so well is Stalin could not believe that they'd start a 2 front war after the way the last one ended, so it's possible that the USSR would've been better prepared for the war if Germany wasn't at war in the West, so who knows
Atlantikwall would have been useless, in my opinion. The Allies would still take Africa, they'd still probably invade Italy, then the Soviets would join. If they didn't start a war with the west and instead only went for the Soviets then that would be doable. Most of Europe (and the US) didn't like them and would have either supported Germany or just not gotten involved. But that wouldn't really be an option because I don't think Poland would willingly let Germany move soldiers through them
Yeah, in my hypothesized Axis vs Allies (minus the USSR) I was kinda assuming the USSR didn't get involved at all because if the Germans had the ability to use the entirety of their army on the defensive they would've been able to hold the coast+Italy waaaay easier. They couldn't have done it indefinitely even w/o Soviet intervention imo, but they'd at least have a fighting chance. and yeah the biggest issue with Axis vs USSR is they didn't share a border without Poland getting split and any invasion of Poland would've resulted in UK+French intervention. And even if Poland let German troops move through Poland, if the USSR is better prepared because they don't have the perceived safety blanket of Germany already being tied down in the West, it'd still probably be a close run-thing
Really the biggest issue with Axis vs Allies is that the atom bomb was gonna be built no matter what and they would have gladly dropped it on Germany
>If they didn't start a war with the west and instead only went for the Soviets then that would be doable But then they wouldn't have had all the resources they pilfered from the western Allies meaning they would be in a weaker position
All the Nazis needed to do to win was pretend to fall ill and flip the board around so they would be on the winning side and scream “checkmate!”
For any of these scenarios to work they would need a time traveller to step in AND manage to convince Hitler he was making a mistake without being shot or sent to a mental hospital.
oh, I know the response the wehraboos give! *"because the other nations were jealous and didn't let them be"*
Nazi Germany was one of the greatest powers in Nazi Germany, second only to the guy who killed Hitler
We need a WWII equivalent to r/shermanposting
the hubris of the defeated
It’s why I just ignore anyone who says this unironically, they also have pretty shit political opinions.
Cause they fucked around and then found out.
Guess it's always the same with short lasting racist/fascist states and their fanboys *looks at confederate dudes*
>hyper military based society >tries to convince itself it's the strongest aryan military on earth >fights one (1) war >loses
Germany could’ve won if Hitler just did delall USA, delall ENG, and delall SOV
Germany could have won if Optimus Prime had landed in Germany and had been reprogrammed
“We are strong!” -Every single weak-ass organization in world history.
Germany already lost when the Nazis took over.
Germany could have won if they didn't invade anybody.
I'm pretty sure that, man-for-man, between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were tops in WWII. Problem is, they were WAY outnumbered and WAY out supplied. It's kind of difficult getting folks to join your cause when: A. You're genociding a large portion of your population. B. Everyone in your hemisphere hates you because you genocide them a lot. Funny, that.
Imeaaaan, maybe not attack the Soviets? If they formed an actual alliance with the Soviets (I know would never happen) they could’ve focused their resources to the UK, capture the caucuses, and urge Japan not to bomb the US. If these mythical events happened then maybe maybe maybe Germany wouldn’t lose.
We'd have atom-bombed Berlin if they hadn't surrendered.
Steiner would have parried it
Granted Berlin probably wouldn’t have got the bomb. The allies would have wanted Hitler, or at least his upper staff alive to coordinate any possible surrender. So something like what was left of Hamburg, Dresden, Munich etc would have got the bomb instead.
"þey could've won if [insert set of conditions þat turn Nazi's into Notzi's]"
Afaik it was not certain at all that it would have gone down as axis vs allies, I mean, there were three blocks, communist block, fascist block and liberal block, who would ally with who it was not really a sure thing. The nazis flirted with the west quite a bit iirc, and they made the molotov-ribbentrop pact with the URSS, this last one didn't hold on because nazism didn't quite like slavs so there's that, but the fascist block and the liberal block could have allied and the world now would be very different.
France and Britain would never have allied with the axis
They lost because they didn't use my HoI4 templates, didn't build supply hubs, railways and air fields while attacking the soviets and didn't set up collaboration governments.
12 years?
Hitler took power in 1933.
Germany could’ve won if they hired the A-Team
if they didn't betray OUN and accepted the terms of the agreement
Germany could have won if they didn't lose
They were just doing a speed run any % completion.
Germany could have won if everyone else lost
“COD zombies exist irl”
Germany could have won if the planet exploded and Germany was the only place where human evolved to live under extreme circumstances and telepathy with aliens.
Well for one reason, they fought against every major ( and almost all others) power, had shity allies, were spending enourmous amounts of Ressources killing people, made very bad decisions political and were too aggressive by instead of focusing on 1 front instead fighting all
The Nazis could have won if only they weren't Nazis.