Could Germany have won ww2?

[@robertm.8653]

Like Indy Neidell says when it comes to alternative scenarios: " History does NOT happen in a vacuum. "

[@georgiwenckovsky9748]

a sabaton fan i see

[@BioHunter1990]

Correct. Unfortunately, Time Ghost are not always as present with their sources. But they are correct as anyone with a working brain will notice…Germany simply could not win. It wasn’t possible…there was no realistic scenario where they could win.

[@davemiller638]

​@@BioHunter1990 What about the scenario where all the enemy troops vanished

[@pault1289]

​@@davemiller638 😂

[@sterlinggecko3269]

"History does not happen in a vacuum" Neil Armstrong would like to have a few words with you. >.

[@josephjenott931]

"Or perhaps Italy could have done better." That got a chuckle from me.

[@blackwoodsecurity531]

italy really jumped the gun on maximizing production in the 30's

[@cdeer17]

I mean Italy only joined because they were dumb at the time and thought when they signed the offense and defense agreement that Germany wasn't going to attack anyone boy were they wrong 😂

[@AlexusMaximusDE]

​@@cdeer17Bullshit. Italy wanted war and conquest. They were happy to join the war.

[@snow-in4zp]

If i remember corectly than many german officers actually said that the average italian soldier faught and fallowed orders just as well if not better then the average german soldier and some even said if they had the right comand they wouldnt have needed help in africa.

[@usapanda7303]

Oh man that totally got me lolllll

[@damonedrington3453]

It depends on what “Win WW2 means”. If it means “get a deal and not total war” then yea it’s definitely possible. If you mean “totally defeat the powers against them in total war” the answer is just no. They were outmanned, outgunned, and out produced by such an insane level it’s honestly impressive they did what they did

[@farhanatashiga3721]

"Get a deal and not total war" in 1939-1940 would likely just be kicking the can down the road considering what Hitler and nazis believe ideologically

[@aethlred7380]

You can really thank Stalin for that. If he didn't murder his office corps through purges of sheer paranoia they likely put up a much better fight and the east collapses years earlier. And if the French bothered to actually conduct an offensive while Germany was invading Poland the war goes differently. Germany lucked into this timeline.

[@bcs-xp4ee]

German has worst luck possible to man. They fought 2 world wars and still manage to get somehow the worst teammates.

[@colealia7988]

@@aethlred7380 eh, the officer purges actually had a mostly net neutral effect. What did hinder the soviets was the massive reorganization their military had to conduct due to an exponential increase in scale, which they didn’t really have the infrastructure or bureaucracy for. Additionally, the lack of essential supplies, like foodstuffs and refined oil, made it very difficult for them to conduct a sustained war

[@The_Honourable_Company]

And when pitted against the British empire with its population of 413 million and almost undisposable war materials (at least for equipment) it would justve been a matter of time before Britain would've brought her entire empire, men, terror, navy and resources upon the third reich

[@AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

Ah yes this and "what if Germany won WWI" are classic HOI4 questions.

[@eyeli160]

But that one is somewhat easier. Plan the German spring offensive somewhat more in depth and have a couple cavalry divisions ready and the results would be a whole lot more substantial, probably not war winning, but it would result in a better position on the negotiation table

[@AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

@@eyeli160 Well yes, also the Germans not being actual bad guys in WWI also helps. Let's face it Germany being treated like they were the instigators of WWI was just political so people would have it easier to negotiate with them in this scenario. In WWII tho....... yeah.

[@wildfire9280]

@@AwayWithYouVileBeggar Honestly I think I prefer the timeline where Imperial Germany lives but I’m willing to bet that ends up in no EU and possibly eastern lebensraum depending on specifics so… maybe not.

[@AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

@@wildfire9280 Yeah you have to think if they were still in decent shape we wouldn't have the Painter's Party. That in change would lead to the Soviets being less bold and we'd probably see the Reichspakt like in Kaiserreich if they start to act up. We'd have an Intermarium led by Germany with Poland and Romania (probably Finland after the Winter War) being militarized and ready for a Soviet invasion. I guess kinda like you can do in HOI4 if you go monarchist.

[@breakingboundaries3950]

@@AwayWithYouVileBeggar and more power to the fascists would have been a good thing?

[@Recluse336]

I mean, if they had managed to obtain the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail they might have stood a chance. But luckily they were thwarted in obtaining those.

[@alexjeffrey3981]

yeah thank god for Indiana Jones

[@amirudinadnan7024]

That just hollywood cinematic universe. Germany would have won if stalin attack europe first and united states sided with hitler against stalin invasion. But it didn't happened that way.

[@jameswatson5807]

hahahahah stop it hahaha, I don't get the what if because the A-bomb was almost complete.

[@BarracusObamus]

@@amirudinadnan7024 it’s a joke lol

[@HORRIOR1]

Well maybe the Ark but the Holy Grail would have been completely useless.

[@dolmanationable]

"The Nazis would have won if they weren't Nazis" is a pretty good way I've heard it summed up

[@SurgicalJust0n6838]

In a purely hypothetical scenario say the nazis conquered Europe and beat the Soviets. Shortly afterward there is a chance that the nazi empire would've collapsed. Somebody phrased it as the nazis were a genocidal ponzi scheme that only Hitler could hold together, otherwise the nazis hated each other

[@TheDakkaman]

My understanding is that the Reich's strategic and sociopolitical goals were just so out of realistic boundaries that they'd have needed a government of Bismarcks to have a chance even with good luck, and they actively had neither.

[@lordbeaverhistory]

or you know, just a clear split between Competent Generals and politicians

[@dj1NM3]

@@lordbeaverhistory Unfortunately for the German people, their political leaders policies were directly intertwined with military expansionism, particularly eastwards into former Silesia and what was Eastern Prussia, along with hatred of Communisim, embodied in Stalin's USSR.

[@the_tactician9858]

​@@dj1NM3 And to add to that, the competent generals probably could not have pulled it off either. In fact, given most of our information we have on them either comes from autobiographies or from propaganda, most historians suspect that the generals were not as brilliant as often claimed, although they undoubtedly stayed a lot more competent than the loathed politicians.

[@KuK137]

@@lordbeaverhistory Competent generals such as who? Because no competent general would serve the nazis and actually good ones were purged in the 30s....

[@HDreamer]

@@the_tactician9858 And let's just say that even the best german tacticians absolutely sucked at Logistics, the weird and insane mixture of vehicles Germany drove into the USSR just to barely be able to supply its troops is insane.

[@Edward-ko8mt]

I think an interesting thing to point out is that Germany's economy was not ready for war by 1939, Hjalmar Schact (the economic minister) pointed this out and proposed a long term plan to prepare the economy for 1941, Hitler removed him and Goering established the 4 year plan instead. The Nazis never would have won WW2

[@tomhenry897]

Took most of Europe on that If knocked out England all that was left was the Soviets

[@Edward-ko8mt]

@@tomhenry897 fuel supplies weren't sustainable enough to continue conquest at that rate. Goering's 4 year plan and the total war policy was built on continuous blitzkrieg strategies. It can't be argued that the Nazis gained substantial territory during the early years of the war and appeared the rate wouldn't decrease, but the nation couldn't possibly continue at that rate. The Sho'ah came about in the circumstances it did partly because of the failing economy of the country

[@finlayames6216]

@@tomhenry897 that’s a pretty big if since Germany wouldn’t be able to manage an invasion of the UK itself, it simply lacked the naval capacity. The only real way they would beat the UK would be to break their will with bombing and sink enough supplies coming from abroad. Germany tried both and didn’t succeed in either

[@fireiron369]

@@finlayames6216not to mention even if Germany did Sealion England it wouldn’t help the fact that the Germans needed to invade the entire Soviet Union in under 6 months or else they would have ran out of fuel

[@tobythompson199x]

​@@finlayames6216 The RAF is why they couldn't launch an invasion of Britain. If the nazis had stayed focused on bombing the airfields and destroying planes and pilots instead of switching to bombing the city's with the hope of causing civilian morale to deteriorate they would have won the battle of Britain. Which then allows them to put all of their focus on the eastern front instead fighting on 2 of them.

[@pizzadog7575]

What if hypothetically, they discovered vaults of highly advance technology which was reversed engineered?

[@HenryManning94]

Ahh, I love the smell of Wolfenstein in the morning!

[@Journey_to_who_knows]

That they use to resurrect the dead in a cliche manner

[@andreikovacs3476]

Notes on Britain surrendering: Britain prepared itself to keep on fighting while assuming that the expeditionary force in Dunkirk would be lost. It having been recovered was an unexpected blessing and did not change its decision

[@edvindenbeste2587]

Exactly, and even the fact that they were saved was of little strategic importance considering they lost all their equipment and those men were by no means ready to go to war again

[@alexanderflemming6788]

Yep 100% nobody expected for Dunkirk to go the way it did but thanks to the British people coming together , the French resistance against German advance and Germany stopping and not just destroy it outright. All allowed for them to get as many back across the channel as possible.

[@elliott7531]

@@edvindenbeste2587Of course it was of strategic importance.. with the French army out of the war which was the largest land force in the world at the time - Britain; being a naval power had to build a massive Army of their own to replace the French. Who do you think would train and build that Army if the majority of experience soldiers were in PoW camps?

[@edvindenbeste2587]

@@elliott7531 but it was only a small portion of the army, a small amount of traumatised soldiers. Thing is, the UK or USA could just replace them if necessary, so losing a few troops wasn't gonna change the inevitable, the fact that Germany couldn't realistically win

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

​@@edvindenbeste2587I agree. Losing the BEF at Dunkirk wouldn't have signalled the End of the British army just as the defeat at Stalingrad didn't signal the end of the German army. It would have just ment that a large portion of Britains pre war regular troops and significant amounts of equipment would have been lost curtailing any British ambitions of launching a ground offensive for a while. However once replacements could be trained and equipment replaced the British army would have bounced back.

[@CptApplestrudl]

Considering the development of nukes as the endgame it's rather limited as to how this could have gone anyway. Had Germany withstood the Russian pushback, it would have been up to the Americans to nuke Berlin or not.

[@DarkMatterX1]

Would've preferred we nuked moscow.

[@Recon_in_Force]

​@@saumamarop8704 germany nuclear project wasnt even a thing after around 1942

[@generalfluffyproto]

Berlin was a target for project Manhattan

[@DominionSorcerer]

And the Americans would have nuked Berlin if Germany hadn't surrendered before the first nuke was completed, that was always the plan. Germany first was the Allied policy of the war before shifting to focus on the Japanese.

[@missk1697]

They would get intercepted lmao.

[@ussliberty109]

Win a war against the Soviets, absolutely. Win a war against the Soviets, Western Europe, and American manufacturing at the same time? There's just no way.

[@cookie5535]

Lmfao the soviets ruined the Nazis and could have in one on one they outmanned and outproduced them hard

[@maximilianodelrio]

Allies or not, they would have still failed at Barbarossa like irl, they were physically unable to move any further especially with their trash logistics. And their Caucasus campaign would have gone the same. You might think that without the allies on their back they would be able to send more resources and men to the east, but the truth is they couldn't send much more without having all those extra men starving to death because their logistics can't support them, and the soviets would wreck them and outproduce them either way

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

​@@cookie5535 They outmanned the Germans yet lost some 20 million more people? 👀

[@Plevins]

@@maximilianodelrio If Germany won Kursk, they would have encircled 1.4 million Soviets, 5000 tanks, 25000 artillery. That would have left 500,000 soviets to defend a 2000km expanse against roughly 600,000 experience Germans who would have broken the entire line leaving the road to moscow completely open.

[@maximilianodelrio]

@@Plevins you said it. IF. There was no way they could have possibly broke through the Soviet lines at Kursk, they only made a small dent before being stopped and then being pushed back over the entire Eastern front

[@untitleduck9623]

In a lot of alt history "Axis wins" scenarios, they experience a "happily ever after" where the different powers get along with each other, not accounting for the unsteady relations between the different members. I'd love to see a scenario where they all backstab each other instead cause that's what would likely happen if they had actually won.

[@astrobullivant5908]

Any scenario with the Axis winning would be much worse than the scenario depicted in the Man in the High Castle.

[@b3ygghsas]

Play HOI4 the new order mod, its a cold war scenario between the US, germany and japan with independent minor powers like italy and spain, just like you said everybody hates eachother in this mod

[@Storiaron]

The same happened to the allies as well.

[@thiccchungo1041]

Exactly, the axis wasn’t so much an alliance of equal partners but a name for Germany and it’s vassal slave states that had no choice but to serve under their banner, you can see how quickly it fell apart once the Allies started winning, such as Romania’s King Michael initiating a coup that saw the nation join the Allies as German forces rapidly collapsed in face of the Soviet offensive, Mussolini being disposed and later executed once the Allies landed in Italy, or Hungary which was occupied by German troops once it became clear they were planning on surrendering to the soviets, its pretty obvious that if Germany won it wouldn’t take much for its “allies” to try and wiggle a way out of their reign

[@b3ygghsas]

@@thiccchungo1041 Countries like romania or humgary would likely stay on germany’s sphere of influence, japan and italy on the other hand would surely become rivals with time

[@draketurtle4169]

Love how it comes down to Italy not being prepared and their incompetence.

[@robertekenstam1130]

They would have been competent of they had joined the war later. So they were just not prepared while Germany was prepared and invaded without talking to Mussolini first

[@UnholyWrath3277]

​@@robertekenstam1130incompetent comes in all forms. Joining before you're ready is just as incompetent as the actual performance on the field. Dont be an apologist

[@robertekenstam1130]

@@UnholyWrath3277 I agree, but I would still say that it's partially Germany s fault and at the same time also Italys fault. So all of it shouldn't be blamed on Italy

[@finlayames6216]

@@robertekenstam1130 Germany declared before Italy was ready because they didn’t really want or need Italy in the war directly. Italy stayed out of it until the invasion of the Benelux and France, and provided little to no held in that actual invasion. The most useful thing they did during their early involvement was tie up a fairly small amount of French forces on their border, which would have happened if they didn’t declare since France would have needed to defend the border regardless just in case. Besides, the French border guard was fairly minimal and even had they been deployed against Germany they likely would have made no real difference in outcome. They got involved just because Mossuli was worried he’d miss all the glory, not to tip the scales.

[@flipppyymccoup5814]

Mussolini told hitler italy wouldn't be ready for war until 1942 and then they got pulled into the war in 1940

[@MajesticDemonLord]

The biggest issue IMO is/was the Royal Navy. Gibraltar effectively sealed off the Med. Then you have to run the Channel or the Western approaches, which even though they did successfully do a couple of times (Royal Air Force caught napping) - it still doesn't mitigate the Naval advantage Britain and the allies had.

[@vojtechlansky86]

What if Franco joined and attack Gibraltar

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

​@@vojtechlansky86if spain would have joined, it would probably still be very weak from the civil war, and depending on the time, maybe even would have made for an easier D day

[@ninofromkitchennightmares1497]

​@hanneswiggenhorn2023 Spain was reliant on british trade to stay afloat. They would of befallen to either civil war or would of acted as the soft underbelly churchill desperately wanted. The only difference would of been instead of an Italian campaign it would of been a spanish one

[@mikelitorous5570]

The biggest things that would indicate a German victory would have been. Soviets being invaded by Japan rather than Japan bombing pearl harbour bringing the US into the war. However, the US would have joined later just under different circumstances, therefore they soviets fighting on two fronts that are nearly the otherside of the world from each other stretching them very thin. The British being routed at Dunkirk and the army either surrendering, being wiped out or only a handful of men escaping rather than the huge number we say irl that were nearly impossible due to the circumstances. And third if the oil fields in the Caucasus were captured with the Germans defeating the Soviets at Stalingrad which would have demoralised the Soviets even further than they already were due to the amount of resources and man power that they invested into that one battle.

[@supremereacter6453]

Japan was not going to join because of their defeat at khaklin gol and their main focus being china

[@brianlong2334]

​ @supremereacter6453 They literally cancelled their invasion on the 9th of August 1941 after the USA oil embargo on the 1st. The invasion was for September. They did a 180 and attacked the USA. The soviets even saw the building up of men and equipment and did the same in 1941. Look up (Kantokuen) and have a good read.

[@user-mf9wg6jq5f]

Pretty spot on.

[@supremereacter6453]

@@brianlong2334 In order of that scenario to happen you have to change how the fdr administration saw things. Also if the Japanese invasion took place it would of been a major defeat as a smaller force of Soviets troops managed to defeat a stronger Japanese army in the region

[@brianlong2334]

@Supreme Reacter No, they didn't.... If you're talking about Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese had fewer men, by almost 3x, yhe Japanese had a total of 30k the soviets over 80k, and the soviets had more equipment both in number and quality of said equipment what was it 100 yo 150 Japanese tanks vs 550 soviets, yet the Japanese had fewer casualties and lost less equipment. The USSR also had their best ww2 general very bad look in reality for the USSR. Or are you talking about the invasion of Manchuria in 1945, where the Japanese had 700,000 to 800,000 men, and the red army had 1.5 million to 1.8 million....? If so, the Japanese surrendered only about 22,000 Japanese were KIA, and some 11,000 USSR were KIA, the majority of the Japanese 660,000 surrendered, the Japanese allies of about 210,000 to 240,000 fled and ran home the majority were ethnic Chinese.

[@MommyMinty]

Alright guys, we have our new game plan. Italy don't suck as much.

[@dominicadrean2160]

I cannot wait for your alternate history videos that came out please let them be soon😊

[@jullo12]

Yeah Italy could’ve done a lot better but I heard that Mussolini told Hitler that his army wasn’t ready until 1942

[@BaoHadir]

The anime "The Saga of Tanya the Evil" illustrates the point really well. For context, Tanya used to be a man in 21st century Japan who was murdered by an ex-employee he had fired, via being shoved in front of a train. He's reincarnated in a world just before the start of their version of World War 1. Their version wouldn't be much different from ours, except they have flying mages with magic bullets mostly replace fighter planes. Tanya is one such mage, joining up in the Empire's military at age 10. While in a meeting with one of her superiors, she thinks about the current state of the war effort for the Empire, and compares it to her knowledge of WW1 Germany (essentially, this world is Earth with scientists having figured out how to make magic work). So she mentions the idea of a world war to her commander, the chain of alliances that would cause it, and that in such a massive war the object shouldn't be to win, but to not lose. Get the enemy to step back so you can negotiate. There was no way the Empire could win a war against every major country on the planet, so pushing back the enemy and nailing down a peace treaty should be the goal.

[@tonypeppermint5329]

Huh, nice.

[@Cell780]

WHEN THE FUCK IS SEASON TWO DROPPINGGG

[@Vergil462]

​@@Cell780 in 2345

[@rubiepie]

​​@@Cell780 this year or next year

[@coolchrisable]

Not only that she was smart and recorded all their battles like when those resistance fighters shot that un armed soldier in the head when he was trying to escape she had every legal right to basically blow the resistance fighters to meet jesus and she recorded the fighters killing that soldier too so no one could really argue against her. She was smart to record and document everything

[@lucasqualls5086]

The thing is that Germany was too insane. Everything they did and wanted led them to ruin and to make enemies of everyone. Kinda happens when you’re genocidal worlds conquerors.

[@ronin2963]

You should clarify that better. 'Germans' are a very pragmatic stoic people. Most are born and die in the same village. Hitler was insane and he couldn't keep his act together.

[@lucasqualls5086]

@@ronin2963 and yet they elected and support this man who 'couldn't keep his act together'. Not very stoic of them eh?

[@MJ2A]

“Genocidal world conquerers” That’s a simplistic myth

[@vlad_pickle2029]

A lot of Germany could’ve won WWII depends on the nazis not being nazis. That’s my problem is that leader’s motivations and stances are changed to give them a winnable scenario. Nazism itself was only sustained through war and betting their economy on war, the nazi ideology doesn’t preclude a stable system. Especially with Hitler being the only thing keeping the country together, when you give one man absolute control and the survival of the country depends on him the country is doomed to fail. People don’t last forever and make mistake, this is why by their ideology alone I don’t think a win is possible. Even if Germany got their miracle win how long does Nazi Germany last? Most likely only as long as Hitler does, the movie Downfall portrays this well, when Hitler lets his generals run everything they don’t know what to do. Also the cult of personality he had with the people made it almost impossible to hold annexed territory or even hold the country together after his inevitable end. Germany could never win because they were Nazis.

[@You-zo3in]

So you’re saying that Germany should not had ther ideology that’s becoming a bit confusing but to be honest we really don’t know

[@spark5558]

Thats like saying a person is set in stone no one is period this is stupid thinking.

[@Nictator42]

One of the biggest insurmountable issues for the Axis was their oil shortage. They just wouldn't have been able to keep up with a mechanized war of attrition forever.

[@ussliberty109]

Oil was one if the main reasons for invading the Soviet Union, which was oil independent. A lot of resources were spent on France and Britain early war, especially with the Kreigsmarine being pretty much destined to fail.

[@kennethmoses4900]

You’re forgetting about the viability of synthetic oil in the later stages of the war.

[@thiccchungo1041]

@@kennethmoses4900Germany relied on synthetic oil over the course of the entire war and it changed nothing, synthetic oil couldn’t match the resources that the Allies had

[@kennethmoses4900]

@@thiccchungo1041 Resources are a broad term. The comment only spoke about oil, so I stayed with oil. Later in the war, Germany’s limiting factor wasn’t oil; it was everything else.

[@spark5558]

​@@thiccchungo1041It does they didnt build up enough industry for it

[@bernadmanny]

If France had done even 2% better nobody would even be asking this question.

[@KekusMagnus]

Same with the Soviet Union early in the war, everyone forgets how Germany got incredibly lucky to get as far as it did in the first place

[@Mcree114]

The Germans were spotted moving an entire tank army through the vulnerable narrow passes of the Ardennes with no air cover. French command ignored the report. Had the French and Brits bombed that army that may have lost them the war right then and there. Germany's swift victory over France was just dumb luck, not military superiority. @@KekusMagnus

[@zerstorer335]

There’s also the butterfly effect in that you don’t just change whatever event you’re thinking about. Everything that follows will be different. If Italy doesn’t need help, Rommel doesn’t go down there with the Afrika Korps. If he doesn’t go to North Africa, he doesn’t get the direct experience with fortified positions that shaped his approach to the Atlantikwall defenses. Change something, and you have to expect that whatever you know about the war after that point is likely not the case and, thus, cannot inform a conclusion about what would follow.

[@ronantheroman7081]

I mean, considering they were surrounded on all sides... they did pretty well for what they had available.

[@PrimeDirective91]

Italy did what it could considering that Germany didn’t give them time to prepare. Had Hitler waited 5 years and funded his scientists… that could have been scary. Italy would have had the arms needed, Hitler would have had jets and possibly a stronger footing on nuclear weapons, and they could have built a larger force of Tigers. That said, things like jets and nukes came about out of desperation, and that desperation didn’t kick in until war commenced. Necessity is the mother of invention, but war is the father.

[@voster77hh]

Time to prepare for Italy? They were into their Libya , Ethopia and Albania adventures for years even without Hitler. Did Italians ever prepare for anything after the Ancient Fall of Rome? Italian regional city states never ever got their act together again.

[@lucadesanctis563]

​@@voster77hhthat's why we're we not preparare. Not enough funds given the colonial wars. Germany should have waited

[@voster77hh]

Mussolini did his ill fated misadventures in Libyia and Albania. He did not even look for oil in Libyia, which would have fixed everything. Never work with Italians. They'll do nothing, mess stuff up and blame someone else. Everyone wonders how they organized Ancient Rome 😂 It was Italians who did not wait. Beyond the trash talk you cannot "wait with war". Hitler was forced to fight for the fertile row crop wheat lands in Pommerania lost to Poland to feed German people during the hyperinflation caused by The Great Depression. Historically only Jewish traders did cross border import/export trade and banking at these times. That's why hungry men with starving kids and crying wives at home did mostly blame them for food price speculation and hoarding supplies as a group. People gloss over what a mess Versailles treaty and hyperinflation really meant to ordinary people before contraception was invented. WW2 was started over food. Then fought over iron from Norway/Sweden and then oil from Romania and Russia. Plus denying the British the Suez and Med shipping of oil and airbases to attack oil in Romania. Waiting would not have fixed food prices for people. Plus ordinary people did not understand hyperinflation as a high finance topic. What do they care?

[@greenredblue]

I love the "please, please don't @ me" This man _knows_ what he's up against.

[@mapleflag6518]

People who seem to not have an understanding of Germany’s resources.

[@not_so_weird]

Basically, “Nah man those losers were fucked from the start.” Based Stakuyi

[@Sivrn-Val]

That's.. not what he said at all?

[@diegob798]

Me when I hear exactly what I want to hear and not what people are saying

[@thiccchungo1041]

Realistically those genocidal bitches didn’t stand a chance against the raw strength they tried to take on

[@adenm8963]

​@@Sivrn-Valwhen a guy calls himself " not so weird" , chances are he's really is.

[@Burtlestiltskin]

Crazy to think about how different things would be now if certain things didn't happen the way they did. To the point of most of us not even being born as a result of something we had no control over

[@ComDenox]

Yes, we proudly, as allies of Germany, helped them lose WW2

[@mapleflag6518]

Based

[@Basedindividual69]

You should cover the Beheading War (aka Federalist Revolt) in Southern Brazil. I am currently reading a book about it and it is very interesting, it would be very cool to see you talk about it.

[@ANerdAndOverThirty]

I had to add on to your video how Important Winston Churchill was, and I stand by anyone else in that position wouldn't have been enough.

[@aAverageFan]

Joseph Stalin was more important for Allied victory

[@aDeprivedSeal]

My take on this question has always been that ots impossible for Germany to win a world war based on its geography. They dont have enough of anything in their own borders to sustain such a war, and chances are if they captured it along the way, it was probably destroyed by the retreating army.

[@Vlad2319]

Cocaine

[@richardsawyer5428]

There you go, you've summed it up in one word; "geography" . German geography; bloody brilliant for trading with friendly neighbours but piss off those neighbours and you're doomed.

[@elliott7531]

Imo - I think the closest Germany came to winning the war in Europe (at least in the west) was the 27th May 1940. Once Britain was across the channel - an invasion of Britain was not possible despite what people think. Germany had no amphibious assault ships and had nothing to counter the Royal Navy - which was the largest in the world at the time. British also controlled 80% of the world merchant shipping. The British get very little credit but the British Empire took Germany on in the largest air battle in history in 1940 and won alone - without any allies (other than colonies and nations from the empire)

[@ErichHiller44]

Except they didn't "win" outright they actually almost lost but Hitler being the idiot he was shifted focus and postponed it indefinitely and also if you look at losses more british fighters were down compared to German.

[@firesturmgaming]

They might have lost WW2 cos Il Duce invaded Greece and then Hitler had to rescue him possibly pushing their schedule back several weeks causing Hitler to launch Barbarossa nearer to winter than actually intended. It's a lot of things but I think that's one of the biggest factors.

[@yustinj.3910]

They just needed to do Berlin-Moscow Axis and drop 40 paratroopers on London smh my head

[@ryx1993]

The main thing I usually hear is " If Hitler waited longer to attack The Soviets "

[@imreallynoob8311]

It would probably be worst than irl By that time stalin althought not fully commit in mobilization already starting to be aware of german intentions, and starting to prepare their army, and the industry of the soviets are starting to grow day by day

[@GuruJudge21]

Then he gives Stalin more time to prepare, realize Hitler's plans are imminent and to recover from the purges and blunders he inflicted on the Red Army as Hitler runs lower on fuel and food. This sort of asterix is too often applied as if Stalin would continue to be friendly long enough for Hitler to deal with the Allies and that the Nazis didn't desperately need Soviet oil, both of which are imperatives for Hitler to strike quickly rather than wait.

[@mirroredvoid8394]

​@@GuruJudge21 Germany didn't have the navy to do that, conquering britian would have been impossible. Especially when the US started producing thousands of ships a year and radar technology making submarines less useful. Think about the damage the pacific fleet would done to german coastlines and shipping if they had to go to europe after defeating japan.

[@mirroredvoid8394]

​@@GuruJudge21 Germany didn't even have real aircraft carriers.

[@mirroredvoid8394]

​@@GuruJudge21 also im responding to the lower paragraph.

[@CasainQ]

I'll apply this to my next hoi4 playthrough

[@X64813]

It's also important to note that while Germany did defeat the French army, their control over the actual French population was very weak. It's very easy to resist occupation in the industrial Era when you can just give up working as a form of resistance.

[@BioHunter1990]

TIK lays it out repeatedly in extensive detail why Germany was never going to win.

[@tboicovas]

I think a big game changer would have just been Hitler not being so hasty to go to war with everyone. Even consolidating post poland would have been massive boost to further war effort. Same with france.

[@tboicovas]

@@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 problem was, they were isolated. The key to defeating Britain was not attacking it at all. The london blitz actually gave regular brits a tangible reason to hate germans. Using large ammounts of U-boats to cut the british from their colonies would have absolutely crippled them

[@supremereacter6453]

@@tboicovas the brits had always hated the Germans even before the london blitz propoganda from ww1 has the brits see the Germans as savages who wanted to conquer the world which lasted til ww2 Also germany industries wasn’t that large they can’t focus on building large numbers of u boats and tanks at the same time also the uk was doing heavy bombing of German industry making their situation wayyy harder

[@stephenkellett7836]

Germany also didn't have the production or naval capacity to "win" the war. They didn't have the economy to beat Russia and they didn't have the naval ability to launch an invasion of Britain. The Red Army was exhausting them before D-Day and Britain just had wait for a mistake, which came when Hitler declared war on the US.

[@albevanhanoy]

Russian winter: I'm gonna end that army's entire career.

[@dankminecraft_train4248]

Can you make a video about Operation Valkyrie and what would happen IF it succeeded? Hitler was pretty much useless late war and really needed to be rid of tbh

[@DominionSorcerer]

Nothing really differently because the plotters had such outlandish ideas they would rival Hitler's mania by the end of 1945 that they would have never accepted the total surrender demanded by the Allies.

[@connorbranscombe6819]

It’d be neat but ultimately Germany still loses and not much changes, I mean their plan was to ally the western powers to fight the Soviets lol, they were completely fuckin delusional.

[@RestitutorEuropa]

I actually think Germany had a greater chance of winning WW1 than it did in WW2.

[@abhi5504]

Absolutely not lmao, ww1 was doomed from the start. You cant go up against 4 world superpowers and expect to win

[@battledroid8010]

@@BlyatGaming17 Germany had a big chance to win WW1, even by 1917 when the Russians were practically beat by then and the French being in a state of mutiny, what did change was the entrance of the US Into the war, which gave the allies much more supplies and men.

[@RestitutorEuropa]

@@BlyatGaming17 Judging war performance by how many allies a country has is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen.

[@kawahoshii]

​@@BlyatGaming17 WW1 Germany was stronger and Russia was in shambles (the civil war) in 1917, the Soviets signed peace with Germany By early 1918 it still wasn't clear who will win the war, because while the US joined, Russia left

[@elbarto8282]

Y'all are making the same mistake Germany did. You're underestimating the will of the Soviet people and the industry that the USSR created in just 20 years.

[@DuplexWeevil337]

First Btw you content is amazing stak

[@LyricClock-fo8he]

Fact

[@joshportal2808]

What people keep forgetting in these kinds of discussions is to remember 1 key factor. After all the politics, there is actually only thing the Axis wanted, more resources. If the rest of the world had the par amount of resources of the Axis or less, there would be a high probability. The Soviets army with or without guns is still bigger than the entire German and Italian population combined. That is one out of 10 armies that fought the Axis not including military equipment. Plus the Nazis were literally using 30% to 40% of their resources to do the Holocaust. Not to mention every military organization was fighting every other for power in Hitler’s ears. Every armed forces including intelligence hated the SS more than the Soviets. There was 23 times the Luftwaffe bombed a SS camp and blamed it on the Soviets and Americans. The SS were known for killing a soldier’s family before sending them for trials even if the soldier was in fact innocent.

[@metl6929]

I personally believe that Germany could've become the master of Europe if they A. didn't attack the Soviet Union, and B. didn't declare war on the US. And it's really only attacking the Soviets that did them in; fighting the US only hastened their destruction.

[@BHuang92]

There was so many reasons why the Nazis would've never won WW2. They were doomed from the start and if they won, they wouldve been stupidly lucky!

[@NicoBlack69]

They complained about a shotgun. They weren't winning a damn thing.

[@ErichHiller44]

Dumbest thing I've ever heard

[@quasark5007]

Most based thing i've ever heard

[@ew264]

People also tend to forget how germany only got as far as it did due to ridiculous amounts of luck. The ardenner plan in the beginning of the battle of france should have failed. The only reason it succeeded was because it was so ridiculously dumb that the french generals thought it was a joke. Every single german general begged and pleaded with hitler for weeks to surrender the moment france entered the war. The french army was much bigger, had better and many more tanks (at the time), were more motorized, better trained soldiers, better defenses, stronger allies, more resources etc etc. Meanwhile 95% of the german army was still horsedrawn and the panzer divisions still used outdated interwar light tanks. The fact that germany even got past france was a enormous stroke of luck. Even mannstein who developed the plan for going through the ardennes saw it mostly as a coin flip and most likely to fail. Which was the german generals goal, lose a decisive battle and make hitler realize we can never win and get a nice conditional surrender. When the plan succeeded the generals were in shock. This contributed greatly to their feelings of invincibility during Barbarossa. They were convinced that if the battle of france succeded nothing could beat the german army because frankly the only explanation they could think of for why it couldve worked is that the germans were super soldiers.

[@stue2298]

TIk did a great long form video on this question. Without the what ifs.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

And he debunks Halder's "madman Hitler" myth. 😎

[@kobra6660]

Italy did so bad nobody even talks about the italy campaign

[@MrStevenWolfe]

Biggest issues I saw were not knowing when NOT to piss in everyone's cereal. -Make the deal with Russia, split Poland for a no-conflict pact, then *actually* stick to it -Don't harang the Japanese and South Americans to instigate the US -Stop when you've claimed the mainland (basically after Dunkirk) -fortify and upgrade that industrial base -TRUST THE MILITARY LEADERSHIP TO DO THEIR JOBS Every time I think of WW2, I thank God Adof was as incompetent as he was with combat strategy and tactics

[@Averyhappypotato335]

Potential history easily debunks these claims. I recommend you give his “Germany can’t win wwii” video a watch

[@animatorofanimation128]

1). USSR and Germany were probably always going to go to war, in fact one of the reasons the Soviets supplied Germany was because they wanted a protracted war that would drain Germany and Britain. 2). dont know what South America has to do with it but at this point in the war Japan either had to sue for peace with China or go to war with the West, they no longer had the means of continuing the war without American or SEA oil 3).Germany would've been fine with a peace after the fall of France, it was Britain who refused 4). way easier said than done, you cant just "upgrade" an advanced economy, at that point there are lots of theories and methods that people argue for 5). The military made a ton of dumb decisions too. Kursk is the famous example (a plan that Hitler didnt like) but there are plenty of times that they make stupid decisions and Hitler makes good ones, (militarily speaking)

[@Averyhappypotato335]

@@animatorofanimation128 to add to your point, Hitler a racial views and paranoia add to the no peace with usssr.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

Hitler was going east and he was for better reasons than crude racial theories. The fuel supply to Germany was a nightmare. O.k., keeping the pact with the USSR might have lead to Stalin selling him some, but it still isn't clear whether this would be sufficient for overthrowing the British.

[@supremereacter6453]

@@animatorofanimation128 to add on 4 The british we’re constantly bombing the german industry so Germany had to room to develop it and when us joined the war the german industry was bombed to catastrophic levels and to add on 5 the German commanders had thought the Russian campaign would be like the French campaign, just take the capital and you win, but hitler saw victory by taking the Russian resources in the cacausus to gain the oil needed to secure victory

[@jonathanwessner3456]

Biggest thing that would have kept Germany from losing would have been if Japan had listened and NOT attacked Pearl Harbor. That was what got us involved, fully. Also, had they not pushed into Russia/USSR. They could have taken over most of Europe, and kept it

[@LiterallyMe05]

Japan didn't have a choice with pearl Harbour really. It wasn't like they just decided to up and declare war and do Pearl Harbour with 0 reason. Japan was put into a brutally tight embargo, of mainly oil products but other things as well, which made it quite literally impossible for Japan to function as a nation, especially as a nation at war. It was completely warranted, for all the shit that Japan was doing in China, but the US essentially made it so that unless Japan pulled out, it will lose. Japan had two choices now, pull out from China, which was impossible due to Japan's philosophy, or lose in China. Pearl Harbour was a final hail Mary, because Japan absolutely couldn't pull back from China or lose there after 4 years of constant fighting, it would lose its pride, the support of the people and the military. Every single man within the Japanese highcommand knew that Pearl Harbour won't work for the long term. Their hopes with Pearl Harbour wasn't to win a total war with America, they knew they couldn't. It was to deal America such defeats within the first 6 months to a year, that anti war protests take hold and lead to America suing for peace. Even the architect of Pearl Harbour Isoroku Yamamoto, said that if they dont win within the first 6 months they wont win. (And eerily, the big turning point in the Pacific, Midway occured almost exactly 6 months after Pearl Harbour). All the while they take over the resources of South East Asia to continue their war in China. Japan, to continue their war with Major nation China, had to declare war on Major nations UK, France (maybe not a major nation in 1941) and the US. Think of this scenario, which is really what Japan was in, in 1941. You are currently in the gallows, ready to be executed, and the executioner says that the only way to escape being hung is to kill yourself. But then you see a chance to kick the executioners leg. You know it won't probably do much. But you hope that you kick his leg so hard that you can escape and run from the Gallows. If you are here in that scenario, anyone choose to kick the executioners leg, instead of accepting death. This is exactly what Japan and it's highcommand thought. They knew that pulling America into a protracted war would lead to their loss. They knew it was a bad idea, maybe the worst they've ever had. But it was their only choice, and the most probable way to win (the others had a 0% chance, while pearl Harbour had like a 0.5% chance).

[@LiterallyMe05]

Also, Germany not attacking the USSR would completely go against every thing Nazi Germany was against. If you change such a detail, you could change the very war and say that the Nazis aren't Nazis, ww2 never happens and Germany remains powerful and intact. Germany also had little choice other than to go to war at 41. Germany's economy was a conquer and plunder based one. They needed to conquer lands and take their resources for themselves to survive. By 1941, the reserves from all their conquering were running low, and so they needed to conquer some place, and conquer it fast. It's economy would have likely imploded had it not went to war with the USSR and took its resources. The Soviet economy might have been horribly mismanaged and inefficient, but it was an economy that would work in war time and in peace time. The German economy worked only in war time. Another thing to note is that most modern and contemporary estimates show that the Red Army would have surpassed the Wehrmact by 1942. The Red Army was in the middle of its massive reforms during 1941. Reforms spearheaded by Zhukov, using lessons from Finland and Khalkin Gol, that would have made the USSR into a nation using Combined Arms warfare. And considering that the USSR at the time was second only to the Germans in figuring out Combined warfare and Armoured Tactics, it is likely that the Red Army would have surpassed the Wehrmact by 1942. This is all to say that one, Germany just not invading would have made them a completely different nation from the one we know and hate, and two, if it decided to invade later it would have found its Military and Economy lacking compared to the USSR.

[@jonathanwessner3456]

@@LiterallyMe05 That was basically what the idea was. One change changes history. Invading the USSR was pretty much one of the major reasons Germany lost.

[@supremereacter6453]

Well japan attacking Pearl Harbor was inevitable due to us embargo And hitler built an economy that was reliant on war and plundering germany didn’t have a stable economy to just sit and consolidate their holdings germany needed the resources from the ussr to continue to keep their economy running or else it would of collapsed upon itself

[@goldenwarh]

both stalin and hitler know the other WILL attack eventually, the question is WHEN ? the USSR is push back in the first few years because they are unprepared, stalin did’t think hitler would open another front while the UK still there, and hitler decided to go on the first strike

[@jakethegardenrake8418]

Thing is, Italy could've done better had they known the date for the invasion, the Italians weren't militarily prepared for any kind of conflict, they were expecting a war around 1942 ish, hence why they didn't officially join until the fall of France

[@ZackStormYT]

Keep in mind Germany declared war on both Russia AND the US. When Pearl Harbor happened the US declared war on Japan not Germany. Germany than came to its ally’s aid getting the USA involved in the overall war and saving Britain. If they hadn’t done that Japan likely could have fought the US long enough for Germany to clean up the rest of the allied forces meaning it would have been just the US against the entire axis powers. Hitler also invaded Russia because he suspected likely correctly that they were going to betray him. He could have instead simply fortified his border with Russia giving him the defenders bonus and not letting the Russians have home court advantage as well as gathering more sympathy from any nation that battles happen in as they would see German soldiers defending their city’s and Russians doing war crimes as per usual likely resulting in many more soldiers from various European nations joining the German army.

[@philliplarson2155]

All they could have done at most would have extended the outcome that occurred.

[@CodaMission]

Potential History has a great video series about how Germany couldn't have won

[@brianlong2334]

He also very biased, Tik and Military history visualised are far more realistic about all aspects, and give far more detail then basic talking points.

[@CodaMission]

@@brianlong2334 Biased against what? Nazi Germany's fuel reserves?

[@Katsuragi7]

For awhile my stance has been Germany could have won WWII, but the Nazis never could. Stratogies like joining forces with countries oppressed by the Soviets or being more realistic with war goals were not possible under Nazis ideology.

[@fabioaya6320]

But Italy wasn't even ready for war, they were expecting to start when the war actually ended. It's just that Hitler's blood craze made him invade Poland prematurely, and without even informing their allies.

[@maximilianodelrio]

Short answer: no Long answer: hell nah

[@YurieSnowie]

I'm not a big history guy so feel free to correct me, but they probably could've won if they didn't declare on the US for no fucking reason, and actually went through with Operation Sea Lion Edit: No need to reply no more, thanks to the people that bothered to respond, appreciate it

[@pivotboy2062]

They couldn't do Sea Lion because they were not able to achieve air OR naval supremacy.

[@UngaBunga3]

Despite Germanys declaration of war on the US being odd, I don't feel like it was for no reason. After the US declared war on Japan, Germany would have inevitably been involved as Germany was in an axis alliance with Japan and Italy. It wouldn't have been long before Japan asked Germany for help as part of its alliance so Hitler probably thought "screw it" and declared war before they were dragged in.

[@YurieSnowie]

@@pivotboy2062 They could've done it if they did it from Norway right? I heard that the Germans had that side of the sea for a while before Barbarossa

[@YurieSnowie]

@@UngaBunga3 I mean they could've just waited, I'd reckon there's a window for them to do something to the Brits before Uncle Sam can Hilter was already losing his minds right around the time Pearl Harbor happened so it would make sense why he did that

[@titanlord9267]

I’m doubtful on this. The lend lease (the economic part, along with logistics aid, like food and boots, along with experience gained by looking at allied designs on aircraft) they declared war due to the Tripartite Pact or the Axis Pact (don’t remember which off the top of my head) but FDR was looking for a reason into the war regardless, doing risky moves with American convoys. Sealion was impossible after the Battle of Britain. First it was well for the Germans, destroying RADAR installations and RAF bases. After a small bombing raid on Berlin, they started bombing British civilians, instead of critical military infrastructure, allowing the British to repair and to fix their defenses. Even after that, the Tizard mission to the US agreed to make British planes for British use. The Germans wanted to use their same method as how they invaded Norway, with Fallschrimjager dropping, securing ports, and then battleships deploying forces (they didn’t have dedicated landing craft, nor great naval experience, Westerplatte their first battle that went alright) After the Luftwaffe was essentially destroyed Hitler cancelled the invasion, sending troops off to the Balkans and the Soviet Union

[@hhooper1776]

My great great grandfather was a soldier in germany during ww2. He never saw combat. Was part of a quard unit for scientists who he never met. He always said he never knew true evil, but he heard whispers of what went on in the warehouse. The things they were testing. During the fall of germany. His group was ordered to burn the warehouse and execute any who would surrender. They all ended up surrendering after they burnt down the warehouse. He always said he didnt do it cause he was ordered. He did it cause he was afraid of what was inside. This is just a story, its not true

[@kingcain6472]

You know whats fascinating to me? even looking at this map, Switzerland got like Englishfied (Schweiz in German) but Liechtenstein stays the same

[@liaratsoni8556]

I think something that’s commonly forgotten is that Germany *DID* win. The Continent was COMPLETELY under Axis control. The British were the last holdout, with France gone, and Spain under Nationalist Control. Even if the US joined the war against the Axis, there really was no conceivable way that Germany could lose conventionally. With a massive industry, massive military, controlling the coastlines and land, the Allies were really screwed. The death blow was when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. It was what drained the Germans and opened the doorway for the Allies to open up new fronts without getting a massive hammer dropped on them.

[@sulimanthemagnificent4893]

Yeah but no Soviet invasion and Germanys economy collapses for *alot* of reasons, but mainly food and Hitlers belief in the theory of "Shrinking Markets", meaning, by his logic (and truthfully his economic mismanagement) he had to go to war or perish.

[@liaratsoni8556]

@@Me-yq1fl Yeah…no.

[@mapleflag6518]

Germany didn’t win.

[@liaratsoni8556]

@@mapleflag6518 So congrats. You didn’t read my comment.

[@mapleflag6518]

@@liaratsoni8556 Dude, Germany never declared a victory. So they didn’t win

[@cpt4tap703]

The USSR actually offered to join the axis before the invasion happened. Hitler didnt respond at all, just imagine how different the world would be today if that happened

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

The Germans were also developing the atom bomb. There is that possibility that they could have developed it if given enough time.

[@realaurorien]

don't forget Germany started the war way earlier than Italy thought it would begin, it wasn't ready at all for a conflict, not morally, financially or militarily

[@sppiinyy]

Germany would have won ww2 if italy secured dominance in the Mediterranean by establishing blockades in south turkey, british Israel and not losing to greece. Although They were facing the us, uk and ussr so theres still a high ass chance that they’d still lose

[@Cdre_Satori]

My opinion is that Germany could have won ww1, but ww2 was stacked too much against them and Versailles treaty did enough to do that.

[@mapleflag6518]

They could have won if they didn’t send the Zimmerman telegram.

[@Da__goat]

If Germany had been able to win the war it needed three crucial things to happen. 1) Italy to have been prepared when the invasion of Poland happened. 2) For Barbarossa to have succeeded and for the capture of the Caucasus oil fields as well as Operation Orient. 3) For Japan to attack the US after the fall of the USSR. Any one of these happening tips the balance dramatically in Germany’s favor. A prepared Italy would have had a considerable fleet and armor. Their aircraft were alright but they lacked in anything other than naval power. Given more time to prepare and better arm themselves after invading Ethiopia would have likely resulted in better equipment overall. Polish invasion in 1943 would have likely seen better German equipment as well. But the false sense of security it would have given the Allies after Neville Chamberlain returned to London would have also been pretty shocking as it would guarantee that Chamberlain would have remained in power when Poland was invaded in ‘43. France would have likely increased her efforts to arm itself but now it had an armed Italy and Germany to deal with. If operation orient had succeeded, that would have folded the Allies then and there from their Middle East oil fields. Over reliance on America and then if the Soviet Union capitulated then the only supplier left would have been America and a fully armed Japan with Germany and Italy to support it would have been a fairly epic and drawn out siege of an entire continent that would have likely lasted from 1944 until 1955 with no clear victor due to the absolute quantity of weapons Americans owned at the time and own today.

[@echo2302]

The whole point of that entire ordeal was to invade Soviet Union to turn those land into new Germany esentialy. So any kind of peace with the Soviets would have never occured.

[@mapleflag6518]

Also they desperately needed the oil from the caucuses.

[@thenorwegiangamerr]

I feel like the most likely way for Germany to have actually won is if Germany continued cooperating with the Soviets and used Russian resources in order to build up a fleet and an army in order to actually invade Britain. Then once they had done that the rest of the Commonwealth wouldn’t have been able to resist and would probably sue for peace. And then, since Germany is now at peace, they can start building a proper army to fight in the winter.

[@Unofficial_Computer-legit]

I’m actually British so I can indeed say that a total loss at Dunkirk wouldn’t have changed much. The British had historically lost practically all the equipment they had at Dunkirk which left a lot of our lads without equipment until our war economy picked up and US lend lease came in. Our biggest strengths were our airforce and our navy. It should also be noted that the Nazis wouldn’t have “united” with Poland over anything, it’s a very revisionist argument and would be uncharacteristic for Hitler. He and the Nazis had a strange definition of Communism, that being every political theory they opposed as well as the Jews. For example, the entire population of Volgograd were labelled as Communists And we’re to be exterminated, The Nazis thought the same with a lot of Poland.

[@user-mf9wg6jq5f]

There are so many what if's you could argue over from WW2. To put it simply. Unlikely but not impossible.

[@codyopperman5930]

Maybe if Mr. Infantry engaging at 1200 meters would have been more than a corporal, they would have adopted the STG44 earlier. Not a war winner, but it would have held the red tide back much better than the bolt actions and sub machine guns.

[@LoafyNeverClear]

How Germany could've won 1. Dont declare war on the world's largest nation

[@FrogiMen13]

I feel like the biggest thing was how they entered and threated people of the soviet union. If they came as liberators from communism, as they did in the baltics, the history would be very different

[@runpullfourskinz6796]

"Nah, we're not gonna do anything soon so you got plenty of time to prepare. Now hurry up and sign that treaty "

[@seanmatto2258]

Operation Eisenhammer/Aktion Russland would have helped in 1942/43. And Nazi Germany also had bioweapons and even coal dust bombs. If only there technology came out earlier

[@mapleflag6518]

The British would probably have developed giant fans

[@Commonwealth-ex7ev]

The idea that Germany could've united Europe agianst the USSR after invading Poland is laughable since the two were practically working together to conquer Europe and everyone knew it, especially after the Moltov Ribbentrop Pact.

[@DragonLandlord]

This is why the alternate history people pick a specific point in the war.

[@evelynevelyn7252]

And their is also the fact that Germany didn’t make any mistakes during their invasion into the ussr one of them being the winter season where they just kept pushing on and without proper gear to withstand the cold

[@Finn_the_Cat]

You mentioned it in a different short but italy was wildly unprepared as the war started earlier than expected. If Germany had been much more upfront about it's plans saying it wanted to attack sooner rather than later to take full advantage of the allies complacency and unpreparedness and it simply couldn't wait until Italy was ready. If instead they held off on calling Italy to join until the Italians felt ready then I'm sure they could've done better. You'd need to give them what land they wanted from France though even if they hadn't done anything which might be annoying but hopefully it will keep them out and they can prepare better. Another huge mistake germany made was focusing bombing efforts to civilian targets and not airforce targets however i don't think that can be easily avoided, to my knowledge german bombers mistake a civilian target for a military one and hit it the british responded with a raid on Berlin and hitler retaliated with targeting civilian targets like london but hiter was a short tempered man and i don't think it would be possible to realistically change his actions. Some say his biggest mistake is attacking the ussr but that's not entirely true because germany vs ussr 1v1 would've seen the germans win easy, but it was being at war with half the world and the ussr at once that was their downfall. You could change the fact that germany declared war on america after the Japanese declaration but america was dragged into the allies when they were attacked by japan as they were also attacked, and since Roosevelt was already itching for a war with germany he would've likely joined the war on the allies side anyway

[@anandm4748]

Hitler MIGHT have been able to win WW2, if he had allowed army group center to rush towards moscow right after the battle of smolensk, instead of diveriting it south for the kiev encirclement as he did historically. Moscow was far less well defended in September of 1941, than it was historically in November. An earlier operation typhoon might have been able to take the city, and at this stage evacuated soviet industries were not yet fully operational. Also, at this time the germans were still seen as liberators, so an early fall of moscow could have triggered uprisings against the soviet regime all over the ussr.

[@missk1697]

"seen as liberators" Yeah, by Bandera and his buddies 🤣

[@hazzmati]

@@missk1697don’t forget the baltic peoples

[@supremereacter6453]

Hitler generals considered that plan but even if moscow fell the Soviets would of kept on fighting the Germans were seen as liberators at first until they started killing people forcing everyone in Russia to fight against them also hitler was right about not pushing to moscow to defeat Russia it wasn’t capturing moscow but the oil rich cacausus to supply Germany with their much needed oil

[@redraygaming7931]

Out of this threes warriors who want to die in a battle or war the most, spartan, Samurai, or aztec.

[@inserisciunnome]

Personally, Id Say Vikings! The Spartans and Aztecs Simply didn't fear death, with the second ones beeing fully ready to Jump into a meat grinder without thinking too hard about It if necessary, wich Is why ultra aggressive tactics using Double swords were effective, as then you could more or less CREATE A meatgrinder on the Battlefield. Spartans were more "moderate", in the sense that, beeing super Valuable troops, they didn't Just waste lives and tried to play defense with the Phalanx. Samurai are tricky, because some were drepressed and did want to die, but overall id assume most were Just soldiers doing Their Job, and Who committed seppuku Simply to protect Their own Honor, as falling captive was considered far more shamefull than dying in Battle, not because they WANTED To die. Vikings meanwhile were promised Valhalla if they died in Battle. That's a pretty good deal of you Ask me, and a promise fairly similiar to the One made to the Crusaders to make them more Ruthless in Battle.

[@redraygaming7931]

@@inserisciunnome I see your point, though I would say Samurai is more about honor than wanted to die in war/battle, to them everything is about honor and not really about the thrill to fight and die in war, like spartan and Aztec, viking is some what similar to samurai to, samurai want to die with honor or for honor, Viking want to die because of the promise of Valhalla.

[@gholland5840]

"winning" is something that needs to be defined to establish the meaning of the question. War is politics by other means, and politics often means compromises. So what is a win, what is a loss, and what is a draw? And then you have all of the what ifs that deal with how Germany could have done - for instance disavowing Japan for pearl harbor or whatever

[@williamwigley2820]

It's my belief that the bulk of Germany's problems going into the fight were resources and logistics. We can see this gets strained 3 months into Barbarosa. They ran out of fuel they ran short on food and they ran out of manpower at the front. Just to put that into perspective the following year they only attacked with army group south and the manpower shortage was so severe they had to spilt it into 2 groups one would fight on the Russian steppe and the other would go into the Caucuses effectively splitting the fighting on the only advancing front with almost no replacement troops through the end of the summer of 1942 and and fall of 1942 on the steppe in and around the Stalingrad region. Yes a large force and many resources were sent to North Africa at the time but that was a more equal shared effort with Itialy on the logistics side looking into the economics of the campaigns in that same 18-24 month period a food crisis and coal/energy crisis was brewing that was caused by the German labor unions throwing out of many guidelines for locomotive operations. Someone said in 1941 the ticking clock of Europe was in Berlin but they threw out all the conductors stopwatches years ago. Coal shipments didn't arrive on time and agricultural products spoiled on the farm from the railroads mismanagement. This is a big reason why HOI4 gives options on building rail networks and regulating them. It should have more within the German focus tree since you can trace the poor logistics back to 1933-34. I know someone will eventually argue with me about this because the Soviet gague rail is and was different but that just added to the problem, it wasn't the only problem.

[@gagetolinwrites6845]

It's funny that Italy is considered one of the Big 3 Axis powers when both Hungary and Romania did more than them, were members of the Axos for longer, and, in Romania's case, were strategically more important.

[@lucadesanctis563]

What have they done? Ah yes, they made us lost on the Eastern front (Stalingrad where Romanian armies flee and the 8th Italian army was left alone guarding the entire flank)

[@zaukonig6265]

The issue was that Hitler didn’t build enough civs early game, he jumped straight to building military factories so it’s no wonder he lost

[@laisphinto6372]

as a german i say we lost fair and square , we relied like always on big fast knockout punches really great when the opponent stays down unfortuantly the allies wanted all the 12 rounds and we were huffing and puffing in round 5

[@pixelfiend7292]

The thing is Germany could have won, many different ways actually. However all of those rely on hitler not being stupid, which means they had no way of winning.

[@hauntified9060]

Hitler was not as stupid as people make him out to be

[@mapleflag6518]

And rely on Hitler not being racist

[@nathanmalik7056]

Not merely just that but also PODs with a different and more pragmatic Fuhrer or events negatively affecting the Allies as Potential History and others don't even acknowledge.

[@pault1289]

James Holland and Al Murray cover this several times (and from different points - strategic, tactical, logistical, air, sea and land). You can listen to their podcast 'We have ways of making you talk' for their analysis - and a great listen!

[@richardsawyer5428]

I love their podcasts. James Holland has written two books on the subject and really needs to hurry up and write the third. Both men are excellent historians.

[@pandamilkshake]

*Builds a time machine* "Ferb...I know what we're gonna do today!"

[@revanamell1791]

Dialectical Materialism is really useful for nerding out on these what ifs because nothing anywhere at any time has ever existed in a vacuum.

[@welshpete12]

Would We have sued for peace if we had lost all our troops in France ? Oh no , Churchill said at the beginning of the war Hitler was not to be trusted to keep his word . On any agreement he made . Hitler lost the war for Germany though his incompetence

[@jonsimpson6240]

Biggest thing is if the US had a different president who didn't support the war against Germany from the get go and kept the soviets and the UK in materiel.