Current Events > Could Hitler have won in WWII if...

(+) Yeah! (+)

In 1945 he flipped the board and declared his side the Allies and the other side the Axis?

I don't see why not

I mean yeah

No because RISK wasn't created until 1957

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

Like a board game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYGa9KZOy7c

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

September 1, 1939

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I don't see why not

Same. Logic is sound

No, he wouldve lost by forfeit.

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

Stalingrad is often stated as the turning point in 1943, but truth be told the failure of the initial German thrust into the Soviet Union in 1942 is probably where you could say that Germany lost the war. The Japanese turning point was Midway also in 1942. Their entire strategy revolved around conquering as much as possible before the American industrial capacity caught up, and yet the Japanese suffered so many losses at Midway even before the American fleet advantage became a thing that there was no chance for them.

Allied policy makers were spending basically all of 1943 planning for their eventual victories, because by that point it was a,ready obvious that they were going to win.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

September 1, 1939

Pretty much

Germany was kinda screwed long term. The only alternate reality where they "win" is one where they conquer the UK (which was not impossible) and then somehow maintain a non aggression pact with Russia and hte US

But at that point you're pretty much just saying "If the Nazis weren't Nazis....Could they have won?"

They never could have taken over anything more than Central Europe from the outset of the war, They would always lose a battle of attrittion.

And the moment they lost the Battle of Britain they lost any hope of conquering central Europe.

As crazy and huge as WW2 was and the knock on effects still felt today, there's no reasonable alternate history scenarios where the allies ultimately lose.

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

When he (Hitler) declared war against Russia: There's no way that you can win a war on two fronts.
Hitler learned it the hard way.

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

These things aren't really neatly organized like a sports game. The "turning point" is more like a slow realization over the course of several months.

That said they likely had multiple chances to end the war early with favorable results by agreeing to withdraw forces & settle territory disputes but that window closed after the invasion of the USSR.

The issue was going to war with Russia. Had they decided not to and threw all their forces at the eastern front theyd have taken Europe easily.

SHRlKE posted...

The issue was going to war with Russia. Had they decided not to and threw all their forces at the eastern front theyd have taken Europe easily.

Not really.

They'd failed to take the UK so the US was on the way and supplies were still coming in. Germany was losing a battle of attrition and desperately struggling to get supplies.

Russia also was absolutely going to invade Germany when they were weak. Which is why Germany had to strike first.

This "if only they didn't invade Russia" thing is a myth. They would have lost either way. Attacking first was just marginaly a better option.

Germany and Russia were never ever ever ever ever allies during the conflict. They had a non aggression pact because it benefited both partieis to do so and the second it didn't benefit, they would fight.

If Germany and sent their entirely armed forces and all resources to the west

1. It would take ages and be a massive undertaking/waste of resources
2. Wouldn't mean squat since they didn't take the UK
3. Russia would see Germany wide open and just roll in.

That is way in the past. Hitler can't win WWII.

He didnt?

R1masher posted...

He didnt?

All this says to me is the world needs losers for balance and people will be cowards when the tide turns

Supersex420 posted...

All this says to me is the world needs losers for balance and people will be cowards when the tide turns

Thats says a lot, youre quite gifted and gleaning what you want

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Germany and Russia were never ever ever ever ever allies during the conflict.

The USSR did provide assistance to Germany during the invasion of western Poland, though: it broadcast a radio signal from the transmitter tower at Minsk that helped guide German bomber crews to their targets. It was in response to a German request relayed by von Ribbentrop a few weeks earlier.

we're really lucky he didn't think of this or we'd all be drinking fanta right now

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

Honestly, the two biggest are Operation Barbarossa and Operation Overlord. Overlord was the hammer blow, but Barbarossa was really the nail in the coffin of any chance of Hitler not being totally defeated.

Bass_X0 posted...

When was the actual turning point in World War II that lead to Germanys defeat?

If we assume Russia was always a necessary victory condition, and Barbarossa had to happen, then the Battle for Moscow was a huge defeat. The Battle of Stalingrad (somewhat) shortly after that was disastrous. Either one of those could be looked at as the the point of no return.

What I like to go with, though, is the Battle of Kursk. It was a post Stalingrad offensive planned by the Germans, with the idea being that a big offensive in the area would lead to the Germans cutting off large portions of the Red Army and allow the Germans to prevent any future Soviet offensives for that year, allowing the Germans some space and time to setup for a potential 44 campaign.

What actually happened was the Germans hit a brick wall, for the first time in the war their offensive plans failed, and they were driven back. Its the last offensive operation conducted by the Germans in the war on the Eastern front, and would mark the start of the passing of the buck to the Soviets, who from this point on, would slowly advance on Berlin without stopping. In a nutshell, the Germans spent what energy they had left on this one big offensive, and once that energy was spent, there was no recovering.

Ive seen a lot of alt-history explanations for how Germany could still win after so-and-so battle or event very, very few of them ever suggest victory was possible after Kursk. It was clear to just about everyone involved by this point that the war was effectively over, and now it was just a matter of how much longer will it take to bring Germany down for good.

Crazyman93 posted...

Barbarossa was really the nail in the coffin of any chance of Hitler not being totally defeated.

Especially seeing as how roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht's strength was committed to the Eastern Front; imagine if it had all been thrown against the West. I very much doubt the Allied democracies would have been able to soak up losses on the colossal scale sustained by the USSR.

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Especially seeing as how roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht's strength was committed to the Eastern Front; imagine if it had all been thrown against the West. I very much doubt the Allied democracies would have been able to soak up losses on the colossal scale sustained by the USSR.

As I said:

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Not really.

They'd failed to take the UK so the US was on the way and supplies were still coming in. Germany was losing a battle of attrition and desperately struggling to get supplies.

Russia also was absolutely going to invade Germany when they were weak. Which is why Germany had to strike first.

This "if only they didn't invade Russia" thing is a myth. They would have lost either way. Attacking first was just marginaly a better option.

Germany and Russia were never ever ever ever ever allies during the conflict. They had a non aggression pact because it benefited both partieis to do so and the second it didn't benefit, they would fight.

If Germany and sent their entire armed forces and all resources to the west

1. It would take ages and be a massive undertaking/waste of resources at a time where resources were etremely limited with no means of replenishment.
2. Wouldn't mean squat since they didn't take the UK
3. Russia would see Germany wide open and just roll in.

You can't just teleport 80% of your forces into London. The logisitics of getting that force across all of Europe during a time of severely limited resources is insane and would take an extended period of perperation and exeuction

And then once they got there, they wouldn't have made a major difference. They still can't invade the UK. D-Day still happens, Americans roll in. Resources are now tighter than ever

And their buttocks are now exposed to Russia.

The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics. ~ Napoleon

buddhamonster posted...

If we assume Russia was always a necessary victory condition, and Barbarossa had to happen, then the Battle for Moscow was a huge defeat. The Battle of Stalingrad (somewhat) shortly after that was disastrous. Either one of those could be looked at as the the point of no return.

What I like to go with, though, is the Battle of Kursk. It was a post Stalingrad offensive planned by the Germans, with the idea being that a big offensive in the area would lead to the Germans cutting off large portions of the Red Army and allow the Germans to prevent any future Soviet offensives for that year, allowing the Germans some space and time to setup for a potential 44 campaign.

What actually happened was the Germans hit a brick wall, for the first time in the war their offensive plans failed, and they were driven back. Its the last offensive operation conducted by the Germans in the war on the Eastern front, and would mark the start of the passing of the buck to the Soviets, who from this point on, would slowly advance on Berlin without stopping. In a nutshell, the Germans spent what energy they had left on this one big offensive, and once that energy was spent, there was no recovering.

Ive seen a lot of alt-history explanations for how Germany could still win after so-and-so battle or event very, very few of them ever suggest victory was possible after Kursk. It was clear to just about everyone involved by this point that the war was effectively over, and now it was just a matter of how much longer will it take to bring Germany down for good.

TBH I don't understand why people now and German Generals at the time (Hitler didn't for the record) seem to think that taking Moscow would mean Russia is defeated.

Taking Paris took out France because at that point they had control over the government, most natural resources, most raillines and had bypassed most French defenses

In Russia taking Moscow would be a nice PR move but the Russian army and government would still be there and Germany would still be bleeding losses. Russia is a big place. There isn't just a central hub where you can take and dominate the country. This is still true today and was even more true back then.

Stalin also did a good job of moving as much industry as possible to the other side of the country and still had access to natural resources. So Germany wasn't really gaining anything productive when they gained ground in Russia, just a longer walk and a longer supply line.

I don't see any realistic alternate history scenario where Germany conquers Russia. It would take a string of ridiclous miracles and happenstance.

If he had followed his military advisors during the Battle of Britain, maybe.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No.

buddhamonster posted...

What actually happened was the Germans hit a brick wall, for the first time in the war their offensive plans failed, and they were driven back.

Hold up, weren't you just talking about the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad earlier in the post?

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

You can't just teleport 80% of your forces into London. The logisitics of getting that force across all of Europe during a time of severely limited resources is insane and would take an extended period of perperation and exeuction

I was thinking more in terms of what might have happened if the western Allies had somehow taken leave of their senses and attempted to storm "Fortress Europe" if the war on the Eastern Front hadn't been sucking German resources into a black hole.

If, for example, Stalin had wisely decided to watch and wait for a while longer (IIRC, the Soviet army had embarked on a massive, long-term program of reconstruction and reform after 1937 which was disrupted by Barbarossa) as the Germans remained in occupation in France and the Low Countries while the Nazi-Soviet pact still held together, however shaky.

(Although I suspect Germany would still have struck first against the Soviet Union sooner or later, and I think the flashpoint might have been Romania. Around two-thirds of Germany's oil imports came from Romania; the lifeblood of the German war machine was pumped from the oilfields of Ploesti. After June 1940, when the USSR annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, worries about further Soviet encroachment on Romanian territory must have kept German war planners awake at night.)

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Especially seeing as how roughly 80% of the Wehrmacht's strength was committed to the Eastern Front; imagine if it had all been thrown against the West. I very much doubt the Allied democracies would have been able to soak up losses on the colossal scale sustained by the USSR.

True. And Russia still stean rolled them.

I'd argue that either of those events could be removed and Germany still loses though. Not as soon, but before 1950.

No, he would still be dead today.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Hold up, weren't you just talking about the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad earlier in the post?

Yes. For some reason those failures arent considered offensive operations.

Im not an historian, or a military expert, I just like history. Not sure exactly what the distinction is, but Ive always seen it cited as the first time a German offensive operation failed.

For example, the excerpt from the wiki on it says this:

The Battle of Kursk was the first time in the Second World War that a German strategic offensive was halted before it could break through enemy defenses and penetrate to its strategic depths.[45][46]

buddhamonster posted...

The Battle of Kursk was the first time in the Second World War that a German strategic offensive was halted before it could break through enemy defenses and penetrate to its strategic depths.[45][46

Well, that explains it. At Moscow and Stalingrad they broke through the enemy defenses. Fighting in Stalingrad was building to building on some streets, and the Axis countries did surround the cities. They just failed to occupy.

There is no scenario where the Nazis could have won.

Only one way to find out

CE_gonna_CE posted...

Only one way to find out

Off to Alternate History Youtube we go!

Nazis wouldn't have won but USSR would have won the cold war.