"How Germany Can Win WW2" - According to Twitter

[@Ethnogoblin]

Dont siege Leningrad take it -ah yes why didn't the ottomans just take constantiople instead of sieging it

[@thenamesianna]

"Why don't you just get healthier instead of taking medications ? The former is much quicket and better than the latter."

[@Yognaughto]

Fools! When I click in HOI4 my units enter the city immediately, must have been a skill issue.

[@lordedmundblackadder9321]

Just take Vienna. Why did they wait for the Poles to arrive?

[@mi38029]

@@Yognaughto These dumb germans, Leningrad has a port, they can't siege it down! The soviets will resupply by sending convoys from Vladivostok

[@Unchained_Alice]

They needed to learn how to use cheat engine

[@Bryzerse]

"Invade everything, lose nothing" great strategy why didn't they try this irl???

[@L_LGBTQ]

Who tf is you

[@Bryzerse]

@@L_LGBTQ idk some guy? who are you???

[@kushaliyersharma9688]

@@L_LGBTQ are*

[@jumbledflame4726]

​@@kushaliyersharma9688average American flag every teen has above their beds in the USA

[@jimdeTDS]

@@kushaliyersharma9688”who is you” is an expression or a term, the whole novelty is that it is incorrectly spelt

[@KFP_Prophet]

Germany would've won if I lead them instead of Hitler, I have 1000+ hours on Hearts of Iron IV to Hitler's big fat zero.

[@theirishgamer10]

☠️

[@afraz3203]

Hi

[@humanfrommars882]

Rookie numbers, I have 2.4k

[@mohammadazharmohuiddinx1532]

Noobs, I have 2k, my tutor is @humanfrommars882

[@calibvr]

can we touch

[@hafor2846]

"Don't siege something, just take it". Genius. Why fight over something if you can just win?

[@RyGuyMaster]

Nah, I’d win

[@wildfire9280]

@@RyGuyMaster Napoleon before Waterloo:

[@mi38029]

Because painter man supposedly wanted to destroy the city, not take it. Timothy Snyder, "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hootler and Stealing". (Can't spell their real names, my comments get deleted) I am not convinced of this argument myself because I see no strategic value in sending thousands of men to die taking the city, but I am not a historian so trust who you want. Snyder's book is a good and wholesome read.

[@theprancingprussian]

I don't think many outside the vauge history study circle realise what a siege is Where a siege is necessary it is close to impossible to take it by assault Eg an army cannot just walk up to a castle and hit it til it breaks, unless they spend time preparing ways in they physically cannot enter As with Leningrad the obscene losses would be greater if they walked at it ( shooty weapon go bang )

[@MyVanir]

@@mi38029 I feel like this is one thing that twitter's favorite Austrian artist would try to do - and also one order that the field generals would "on accident" fail to follow if they could "just take it".

[@standardised8260]

"mussolini stop being so bad" "damn my bad hitler ill get right to it"

[@Vestyyy887]

This made me giggle so hard

[@luawyf9037]

GOTTVERDAMMT MUSSOLINI STOP THROWING

[@pitnorman]

"LOCK TF INNN"

[@Ikahhikah]

LMAOOO​@@pitnorman

[@scientificallyaccuratespino]

This is literally what happened

[@thezenit228]

> Ally with the slavs. > Take Leningrad instead of sieging it. On same level as "decline declaration of war from Allies".

[@leonfa259]

Why? Tons of Slavic people hated the communists, especially after the Holodomor. If the Germans would have been better to them it is quite plausible that instead of being a man power sink due to partisans they could have been a major manpower resource that is adapted to the local conditions.

[@TheThing274]

@@leonfa259 The Holodomor was in modern-day Ukraine and didn't really affect the Slavs elsewhere (at least outside of the USSR). Besides, there were a considerable amount of ideological obstacles to an alliance with "the Slavs", since the Germans considered them a race far inferior to their own. Even the alliance to Bulgaria which they actually had was shaky, to say the least.

[@leonfa259]

@@TheThing274 The Holodomor was less than 10 years before Barbarossa, and many slavic people had a negative opinion of Russians and the USSR, if leveraged he might have been able to get to peace negotiations with Stalin. Honestly Germany's biggest mistake was to tread so many groups so badly, imaging Einstein would have stayed. Jews represented 50% of German docs and were mostly loyal to the state before. Himmler had excellent connections to the US and UK, he managed to save a large part of the German wealth, industry throughout the defeat.

[@thezenit228]

@@leonfa259 You are forgetting what even trough huge ass amount of people died, in imperial times it was even worse. So most of people was pro-soviet. And even if they weren't, Marxism-Leninism state is certainly better to live for a Slav than Nazi state.

[@smalltime0]

@@leonfa259 You do have collaborationists in the war and they were hanged for it (Azov Battalion). The people hanging them were random peasants, and partisans not soldiers. Hitler literally wrote the book saying "it's not a crime against humanity if they're sub-human"

[@S.1.L]

> "ignore africa" does bro think this is hoi4 😭😭

[@ASlickNamedPimpback]

Why didn’t Hitler not call in the reichkomissariats so the allies couldn’t invade through them? Is he stupid?

[@justsomeguy6240]

lol probably

[@helix5441]

“Ignore Africa” funny how losing Africa exposed italy and lost them southern europe

[@altacc0604]

Ignoring africa means the allies are free to land in italy or attempt a dday

[@user-bc3ri8ez9c]

He probably doesn't even play hoi4 lmao because if he does he knows damn well italy is gonna be naval invaded a fuck ton

[@6rat80]

“Don’t stop the offensive in Russia, take it immediately”

[@KerErt-pk3uz]

Just auto plan bro😂😂😂

[@TheBestDog]

Just 50 million more NPCs and Russia is ours. 🤨

[@wander67]

"I need more bullets! Bigger weapon!"-Germans in stalingrad. ​@@TheBestDog

[@peterl3417]

At any given moment Germany never had enough fuel for more than 3 months of operations on the Eastern Front. This is combined with the fact that they ALREADY used massive numbers of horses to transport material from the trains to the divisions.

[@ДмитрийОсипов-м9д]

​@@peterl3417 yeah, the beliefs about a supposedly mechanized monstrosity that was the German army is actual, authentic Nazi propaganda

[@Mcree114]

"But these tactics work in HOI4 when I save scum over a dozen times till I get the results I want! I'm a military expert and genius!!!"

[@hb8323]

-I used simulations that showed that sending paratroopers into our enemies major cities would win us the war almost instantly" +... Mein Führer, in this "simulations", did the enemy soldiers have their helmets pop up from their heads into the sky after being killed? -Yes, I do believe I saw many a soldier suffer that exact same fate

[@LanternOfLiberty]

​@@hb8323 😂👍

[@abdimalikelmi729]

@@hb8323awesome reference

[@hb8323]

@@abdimalikelmi729 very Aladeen, yes

[@linuschan1901]

​@@hb8323I am now 100% sure you are playing hoi4, mein führer

[@Imulti]

The person who made that tweet is 100% a hoi4 player

[@misterbasileo]

​@@TheOnesWhoLostIt seems like reality is more realistic than a game. Unexpected

[@Pulstar232]

As a HoI4 player, we do not own that man. Or Grisha, for that matter. Like, HoI4 can get you to understand quite a few things about warfare(the importance of Oil for example) and how logistics is VERY important in warfare but if you really want to learn more, pick up some books and start reading them. Art of War IMO is a good starter, it's quite short and is applicable in a lot of fields and disciplines(is that the right word?).

[@henrycrystal9740]

the thing i hate most about hoi4 is either the economy (nonexistent) or politics and events (instead of everything being a gradual process with a bunch of events leading to them, stuff just happens instantly and is oversimplified, but then again that is hard to replicate in a game without being boring) and ESPECIALLY diplomacy. the diplomacy and politics of hoi4 i find utterly braindead, its closer to a board game than a realistic experience about ww2, cant believe people take that seriously. its like applying for a job as a general with a resume of having played 50 games of chess

[@KrypandeNej1]

"Ignore Africa" Yeah, he is

[@smalltime0]

@@henrycrystal9740 HoI4 lacks any good occupation mechanic, imo all the paradox games do. If you write a book about despising a people, you might find that they don't like cooperating with you that much. Likewise you might find that those people take kindly to your enemies entering their homelands.

[@DeffoSpaniel]

>”how they can win” plan >plan actually makes them lose earlier

[@TheMaztercom]

Lmao

[@nathanpierce7681]

god-tier trolling, just print this plan out and time travel mail it to 1938 germany and watch the fireworks

[@imposteramogus2167]

When the twitter user said “they” they meant the world

[@tupe444]

ok but what if they just built more waffle houses to make more wonder waffles?

[@lindaperes112]

genius

[@concept5631]

You genius!

[@roseandsword.]

They just made waffles SS instead.

[@gruenpelz]

🔥🔥🔥✍️✍️✍️🔥🔥🔥

[@TheReaper1557]

Like the video game eureka!!!

[@gamergodeighty1686]

possible history when he uploads impossible history

[@thespectre5403]

🤯

[@Goldenroses930]

It’s someone else’s post

[@tylermacdonald8924]

😈Evil possible history be like 😈

[@iamasalad9080]

​@@tylermacdonald8924Evil possible history be like: I'm gonna upload realistic scenarios that make sense

[@davvidns]

rage bait​@@iamasalad9080

[@Denkr488]

”Ingore africa” Bro follows the same strategy I have in hoi4 lol

[@CEO-of-money]

Africa? What's that? Some kind of focus?

[@Kushagra-ee9qz]

true

[@Gabowsk]

Africa? Like the research tree?

[@thomasd1652]

Africa? Asia? What's that?

[@CrimsonGeoEdiz]

Reallll

[@husky0098]

They didn't even have the classic "don't fight a war on two fronts". They just don't make WWII conspiracy theorists like they used to.

[@_____Skywalker_____]

Yeah, he didnt even mentioned the war in two fronts, i mean, it helps, but would not be enough for the germans too

[@schwingedeshaehers]

unpopular opinion, but two fronts can be easier than one front, if and (i think) only if the supply (transport) is the problem. because than both fronts impact the other one minimally, but could help, if they achieve something.

[@xx_novumplayzyt_xx1439]

@@schwingedeshaehershaving a war on two fronts is simply more costly than one. Two is a bigger number than one.

[@schwingedeshaehers]

@@xx_novumplayzyt_xx1439 yeah, but it depends on the situation. if you have the resources, but not the transport capacity, there is no problem with it. but that not the normal case

[@xx_novumplayzyt_xx1439]

@@schwingedeshaehers there most certainly is a problem if you don’t have transport capacity. Good logistics are essential to warfare, and the flaws of not having adequate supply lines would quickly become apparent if you had to fight on two fronts, which is exactly what happened with the Germans

[@Ethnogoblin]

Germany chould have won if they had dark magic to fuel their tanks

[@Coalislandmutt]

They didn't use dark magic?

[@Gabowsk]

​@@Coalislandmuttskill issue

[@wrjtung3456]

⁠It’s dark magic not aryan magic that’s why they lost

[@schizophrenia6413]

No way we got dark elixir troops helping Hitler

[@ChainsawChuck13]

Knowing them, they probably tried it. Didn't help much.

[@dellch1channel12]

"Don't siege Leningrad. Just take it" At this point. Just take Moscow and Stalingrad is that too hard?

[@smalltime0]

why bother even fighting, just ask nicely?

[@Jackspladt]

Honestly I don’t know why Hitler didn’t just use the fill color tool on the world map, easy, everything’s German now

[@KlayBumpson]

Why didnt hitler just maybe annex all? Is he stupid?

[@comradeLucienne]

Why didn't Hitler just open the console and type "annex all"? Was he stupid?

[@alisinanucer]

0:24 who made this list bro “Ally with the Slavs” Hitler thought that the Slavs were barbarians “Mussolini should not be a retard to the balkans” Hitler saying this will collapse Italian and German relations “Don’t siege Leningrad take it immediately “ There is a reason they didn’t it’s cuz they cannot breach the defenses

[@cyclesaviorn2700]

Im more of the "dont invade the soviets until Britain falls" kind of guy. Big problem with that is adolf was firmly convinced stalin would invade him, or back some major communist uprising against him. Other chance was actually dedicating MORE resources to africa early on and delaying the invasion until spring, potentially having rommel on the soviets doorstep in the caucuses while also having some oil available from the middle east

[@somehistorynerd]

@@cyclesaviorn2700Slight problem, Britain wasn’t gonna fall after the Africa campaign. Britain owns the Mediterranean, and North Sea.

[@lt2660]

​@@cyclesaviorn2700 I don't think britain can fall though. If it could, how long would that take? If it takes too long then the soviets will get to build up strength even longer thanks to the german reliance on their resources. The rommel idea is essentially fantasy, how would he even make it up to the caucuses? Not only does this assume more resources would mean bigger wins for rommel (which is not necessarily true due to the logistics of north africa), but he'd have to invade through turkey or iran which would be hellish. Even if Rommel performs miracles, secures middle eastern oil and caucus oil, germany still wouldn't be able to access it. It would take years to build the infrastructure to actually dig up and move the resources to german equipment. The most it does is deprive the allies and soviets of resources, not actually obtain anything for the germans.

[@IanFromSmoshReal]

@@cyclesaviorn2700 Wasn't just Adolf, but the entire high command as well, The Soviets were doing enough dodgy shit on the Border that it legitimately made the German High command assume that a Soviet Invasion was going to occur (Which, it could've been considering the large amounts of troops and the railroads having their gauge being converted to the European one.) Honestly the best way Germany could've won was by having Britain accept the numerous peace offers, But of course, that would require Points of Divergence Like Churchill not being in charge. (Edit: Another thing with the Slavs, it was a widely discussed thing with the NSDAP's Leadership, Hitler had a disliking of them, Himmler thought the Russians were filth but i'm pretty sure he didn't feel that way for Ukranians, as i'm 90% sure he visited the front and saw the consequences of the Holodomor, which only furthered his opinion of them. Rosenberg did convince Hitler to open up the Slavs to an extent. Hence the Russian Liberation Army and it's Waffen-SS predecessor, the RONA.)

[@johnroach9026]

@@cyclesaviorn2700 Genuinely, the window of opportunity for Germany achieving an advantageous peace with Britain was incredibly slim - they'd need an almost prophetic foresight to undermine trust in the Churchill government such that the appeasers could take charge again and sue for peace. However, Churchill had an incredible boost to his popular approval through popular myths which began to write themselves shortly into his premiership, myths such as the great success of the Dunkirk evacuation (in reality, a military shitshow which basically condemned France to death). I'd say the Germans have maybe a month after Churchill takes power to usurp him. After that, Britain is dead set on war, with the only way to peace from there being outright capitulation. Germany isn't doing that anytime soon

[@imlivinginyourceiling]

"ally with the slavs" fantastic, just don't be nazis

[@a1m..]

LOL, Twitter masterclass

[@DominionSorcerer]

Over a million Slavs from the Sovet Union still fought or otherwise aided the Axis Powers, it still would never be enough.

[@anonymussicarius8899]

That is not "don´t be Nazis", it's "don´t be DUMB Nazis", cause who in their right mind would tun a populace against them that is welcoming the Wehrmacht as liberators? Even if you expect the war to en within the next two years with your victory, you still don´t have to make things harder for you while it lasts. My great-uncle was as a translator on the eastern front since he spoke russian. Once the front he was showing signs of breaking, he deserted with his friend and went by foot all the way back home in southern Austria. He reported, that from what he experienced initially the populace was welcoming the Wehrmacht as liberators, but once High Command started enacting their anti-slavs policies, the situation changed. So no, "allying with the slavs" is not as braindead as you make it sound like.

[@nothingineternityterms]

​@anonymussicarius8899 the point is that Nazi ideology was inherently anti-Slav

[@DominionSorcerer]

@@anonymussicarius8899 "who in their right mind would turn a populace against them that is welcoming the Wehrmacht as liberators?" The Nazis, that's who. If you demand Nazis not be _dumb_ Nazis and turn the Slavic populations of Europe against them that requires the anti-Slavic beliefs of Nazism to be gone, and thus they are no longer Nazis. Even in the OTL around a million Slavs from the Soviet Union alone worked for Germany in one way or another, it still wasn't enough to turn the tides. Actually being the liberators the populace of the east thought the Wehrmacht was probably wouldn't help either, Germany wouldn't have the means to arm massive numbers of Slavs given that they could barely arm their own soldiers.

[@Tnpt_studios]

I love how comical the points were. Its clear whoever made them was either doing it satirically or has no actual knowledge of WW2 or war in general 😂

[@arrrchdukemax8192]

I'll drink for the second part. And German high command after reading this twit just like that redhead villain guy Scorpio from Simpsons who was Homer's boss: Of course...

[@jellypetertheeel6360]

Prob first one just for the trolling

[@latviabol]

no, someone who played hoi4 as germany for too many times

[@jellypetertheeel6360]

@@latviabol not even hoi 4 u will just get ur planes and troops from sea lion clapped Ps: I hate radars

[@latviabol]

@@jellypetertheeel6360 no? if you make a powerful navy and airforce, everything is possible

[@TaraWert1]

The problem with the "how Germany could have won" crowd is they act like one or two changes are enough. So much would have to be changed for Germany to win that it verges on an alternate universe.

[@horatiuscocles8052]

Isn't that the point tho? An interesting scenario as well would be if Germany won WW1 and still went Nazi, it would be interesting how that would play out.

[@MrEdioss]

They use the power of foresight but still fail.

[@ChatGPT_ChatbotTest]

​@@MrEdioss hindsight

[@tutentyp6934]

I disagree. Italy underperforming in Greece is one of those single events that were decisive. The subsequent invasion of Yugoslavia sucking up important men and supplies during and after the invasion and the catastrophic crete operation which killed paratroopers which would've otherwise been more effective against the Soviets and taking away later missing aerial logistics probably prevented Germany from taking and holding Moscow. If Moscow with it's important symbolic value and logistics system falls the Soviets will have an absolutely hard time defending the Caucasus. The region was the Soviets Achilles Heel. Without it the country starves and has significantly less petrolium which likely means defeat somewhere down the line.

[@PersonOfEarth117]

⁠​⁠@@tutentyp6934the Germans barely lost anything significant in the Balkan campaign except Crete, and the invasion of the Soviet Union was already planned at June 22 for weather reasons, the whole thing about Yugoslavia and Greece delaying the invasion is a myth too so it wouldn’t really change much

[@wwobbles]

"Don't Siege something, just take it" Someone who has never heard of "no plan survives first contact with the enemy"

[@NickAndriadze]

Just like how the Georgian saying goes, ''everybody's wise in someone else's war.''

[@atruepanda1782]

Point 1: Employ an impractical and ineffectual strategy Point 2: Tell someone else to just be better/do what you want Point 3: Just be better Point 4: Just be better Point 5: Decent advice, but only in hindsight Point 6: Isolate your allies, give your enemies new resources and a new front. This will definitely work.

[@owenjames8575]

I feel like "don't be nazis" is underrated advice

[@jimmcneal5292]

Point 4 is not "just be better", it's a completely different approach, author of the video doesn't know ww2 history(at least regarding eastern front operations)

[@michaelthomas5433]

Germany should have successfully summoned the Norse gods to fight on their side. They also should have spent more resources on acquiring the Spear of Longinus. Refute that.

[@Qspjsgpuwthpvjsvpu]

Indiana jones ahh scenario

[@michaelthomas5433]

@@Qspjsgpuwthpvjsvpu They really did try to summon the Norse gods though. And tried various other occult efforts. The problem was they didn't BELIEVE.

[@ImbuedHunter]

The most likely scenario resulting from Germany successfully summoning Norse gods as described in the myths would result in the honor and bravery-favoring Norse gods siding with the Allies, imo

[@michaelthomas5433]

@@ImbuedHunter I didn't say it was well thought out. ?;- )

[@ImbuedHunter]

@@michaelthomas5433 True, it did follow the pattern for Axis high command decisions in that regard

[@epg96]

France could've won WW II if they deployed Miraculous kids aged 12-14 with their kwamis such as Plagg, Tikki, Sass, Trixx, Wayyz, Pollen, Barkk, Nooroo, Duusuu, etc

[@DaYoshiGD]

This made me laugh way more than it should have 🤣

[@hafor2846]

They could have won if they plugged an Ardennes sized hole in their lines.

[@DragonTheOneDZA]

I don't get the joke but I'm guessing it's either a reference or something dirty

[@kulanshkhurana7432]

@@DragonTheOneDZAit’s a reference to a French tv show

[@ProfTricky3168]

⁠​⁠@@hafor2846honestly I would love a video of what if the Ardennes offensive failed.

[@CCCPRusRus]

"Don't siege Leningrad just take it" Don't be homeless, just get a house! Don't take medicine, just get healthier!" Don't be blind, just see!

[@The_Libationist]

Armchair historians be like “Just win bro, it’s not that hard”

[@transporter76motovlog28]

Armchair historian mf’s not knowing diplomacy and logistics:

[@imalyve]

Hitler caught still deploying 7-2s after the No Step Back expansion

[@DavidNaval]

asked to leave germany

[@kylezdancewicz7346]

Breaking news, after what can only be described as a skill issue after the initial victory in North Africa the Italian African safari has turned into a massive failure as the entire African army got captured while losing all of Africa

[@joki1937]

Bro I still make 7-2s, what's the new template? 😭😭😭

[@azza3525]

@@joki1937 9-1

[@comradeLucienne]

@@joki1937 space marines, 7-2s but with tank support

[@orinj5574]

I feel like the guy who posted this beat the allies as Germany once in hoi4 then made up his mind that it was possible irl

[@DavidNaval]

most definitely what happened

[@Aaron067]

1000% because since then the "take leningrad and not siege it" And "zerg rush caucasus oil" Points match up, because in zerg rushing caucasus they might have encircled and killed a lot of soviets, leaving leningrad ungarrisoned letting then 'take' it. Also hoi4 cannot simulate sieges of cities so... Yr

[@NotAdachiPeople]

I mean, it was probably possible, the question is *how* and the answer is “I don’t know”

[@jimmcneal5292]

it was possible to beat the soviets

[@dougthedonkey1805]

Can’t believe “make Japan not bomb America” isn’t on there. That’s like the single most common pop-WWII idea in my perception

[@eizenbrook6777]

Right? And people forget Hitler was thrilled the Japanese bombed pearl harbor

[@spikem5950]

Make Japan not bomb America. Don't invade Russia, ally them. What's that, Japan and Russia were a ticking timebomb to go to war with each other? Just make them not!

[@stevenbobbybills]

Europe is the only continent in existence according to this plan.

[@jayiyengar9136]

I know right, even if Germany SOMEHOW succeeds at every single point on this tweet, the instant the US actually turns its eyes on Germany the war is over full stop. There is actually zero way the Nazis could even begin to compete with American logistics. And even then, if Germany somehow managed to get every major industrial center in Europe working for them at a high capacity without the slave labor making over half their munitions duds and their vehicles broken pieces of crap, and actually represented a threat to the US, the US instantly ends the war with nuclear weapons. Alternate history people don't bring up the US because there is literally no way you can explain your way around Germany winning at that point.

[@KapitanKaos]

​@@stevenbobbybillsand Africa which exist especificaly to be ignored

[@rewriting-history]

Allying the Slavs could also mean Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, which totally makes the Germans win WW2, trust me!

[@guriflash3603]

first time i find a famous youtuber without like 500000 likes

[@xxkb6]

@@guriflash3603 dude got thrown at the back of the bus.

[@rewriting-history]

@@guriflash3603 no way i am a "famous youtuber" lets go

[@yazovgaming]

Abandon your ideology you had build up from the start! and turn 180 degrees on your views! VERY REALISTIC! 👍

[@simonstaysnclr]

Didnt they actually do that? Yugoslavia couped itself because it didnt want to work with Germany, so theres nothing more they could have done diplomatically

[@cioplasmmajic8327]

Step 1: Hitler unlocks all the latent psychic powers of his generals and soldiers so they can predict the enemy moves. Step 2: utilize instant transmission to infiltrate the talks of the allies and turn them against each other with the ol' whoopie cushon trick. Step 3: augment your military with a few legions of summoned demons. Step 4: use time travel to give Germany enough time to develop their wonder-weapons. Step 5: don't lose. Step 6: portray them as the soyjack and Hitler as the chad.

[@4ndr00med4]

Wrong universe, that's Stellaris endgame, can't do that in HoI 4 yet

[@marley7868]

hey I've seen this before this is what they do in wolfenstein and it doesn't work there either when they can do that

[@Jekyllstein_Gray]

Here's how I imagine Hitler trying to convince Mussolini not to invade the Balkans. Hitler: "Don't invade the Balkans." Mussolini: "How 'bout I do, anyway?"

[@SamFromItalia]

Austrian painter- "what's the point of Invading a bunch of mountainous poor countries that offer little tactile value and have intensely Nationalistic populations when we have the Brits and Reds right on our border!?" Benito- "Gib me land"

[@capncake8837]

“How else will I be the next Caesar, Adi?”

[@comradeLucienne]

@@capncake8837 did he actually call hitler adi?

[@thenamesianna]

This is how it's gonna play out if Germany really ignores its ally as much as the tweet suggested: Italy: "Oh nice, you conquered France ! I will join up with you, but in exchange can I get the land I want from France" Germany: "Nein" Italy: "Shit man the Greek campaign is harder than expected, can you help me a bit ?" Germany: "Nein" Italy: "OMG PLEASE THE BRITS ARE IN LIBYA, IF WE LOSE THIS WE ARE BOTH DONE FOR, PLEASE HELP" Germany: "Nein" Italy: "Fine" * surrenders to the allies and joins in with them * Germany: "You traitor ! You can't do this to me !"

[@EbenBransome]

A lot of Italians did wonder why they were not on the side of their old ally England.

[@chombus2602]

​@@EbenBransome because the Ethiopia thing

[@FuntimeByzantium]

To be fair, Italy switched sides anyways....

[@francescoquerze6434]

They surrendered, they never switched sides, they surrendered and then germany invaded the north​@@FuntimeByzantium

[@FuntimeByzantium]

@@francescoquerze6434 I guess, if you want to be technical...

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Suggestion: What if everything went perfectly For Napoleón III

[@ultrabeargames314]

No

[@adamelghalmi9771]

perfection? he gambles all of france, and loses. easy win for the true greatest country

[@Byzantium.]

YES

[@neeleshpradhan944]

​@@ultrabeargames314 Yes

[@herbertschulz4313]

What if Napoleon got his dying wish, and gad been born in Germany instead of French Corsica?

[@stargazer-elite]

Suggestion: What if the good relations of the USA and Russian empire turned into a full on alliance after the sale of Alaska?

[@ashes4ashes174]

bump

[@sircatangry5864]

It was an alliance. USA helped the whites, and joined same side as Russia in ww1. Then commies came, and refused to pay debts, so here we have the divergence point.

[@DragonTheOneDZA]

Good suggestion? Impossible

[@gamera5160]

Could the USA and Russia be allies in the wake of the Soviet collapse if literally anyone but Boris Yeltsin had been in charge?

[@ahmedbabiker6562]

​@DragonTheOneDZA it's possible they didn't have bad relationships after all and both had positive view before that

[@AntonSlavik]

Am I the idiot or is this question just stupid to begin with? War isn't like a strategy game where you conquer someone's territory and suddenly their manpower and industrial base belongs to you and functions perfectly. Germany overextended itself drastically. Even if the remaining Allies vanished into thin air, they weren't holding onto the territory they occupied.

[@user-um1np8fx3j]

they killed all those people in the places they conquered, and if they didn't have all of their armies mostly focused on fighting a war abroad, then they'd have all those soldiers at home keeping the conquered nations in line. If you are referring to the territory they occupied meaning places like France, Poland, etc. They could 100% have just killed any dissenters until people stopped resisting, since they can now focus all their military on doing that instead of having to expend so much on external activity. It would by no means be smooth like a strategy game, as you say. But a gun will still leave little room for argument, especially if the person you are arguing with does not have guns.

[@MyUsersDark]

@@user-um1np8fx3j *Some* resistance movements had guns, but your point obviously still stands because the Germans have way more.

[@conker690]

How Germany could have won the war: - don’t become an international pariah - have unlimited logistics and military production - pray Britain just stops

[@winterbliss4459]

it’s legit just hoi4 brain

[@ruihund]

About the ally the Slavs point, the German army and people kind of needed to exploit the occupied Slavic lands to feed themselves. It would be going against hitlers doctrine, and kind of defeats the point of his invasion anyway. And it’s not like the Germans didn’t make use of the collaborationists, having created many foreign units that fought alongside the German army

[@TheMaztercom]

Not only that, the military goverment was imposed cuz germany was getting the railways and infraestructure sabotaged

[@Phshteve]

I agree that they wouldn’t have done it, since it is just asking them not to be Nazis, and if that was the case there wouldn’t have been a war. However, they certainly didn’t make use of collaborationists (at least not as much as pragmatically possible), since their racism and flagrant war crimes led to otherwise potentially sympathetic slavs turning against them. All the “why didn’t they just not be racist” questions fail to understand that if the Nazis weren’t racist, they wouldn’t be Nazis.

[@MyUsersDark]

@@Phshteve Couldn't have said it better myself.

[@Methus3lah]

When are these Twitter people going to realize that the Nazis just had an incurable skill issue

[@furinick]

Adolf couldn't micro the broad side of a barn

[@disgoop]

when they stop being nazis too

[@bestaround3323]

Listen, the Nazi's could have won if they just weren't Nazis.

[@leifkhas7425]

At 0:13 the term is "Zerg" Rush Stalingrad. It comes from a real time strategy game called Statcraft. One of the races is Zerg which focuses on mass causality attacks to win.

[@PNmonarch]

Me showing up to the WW2 alt history discussion and presenting a scenario where Germany loses even harder:

[@TheMaztercom]

Bro 😦

[@generalgrievous2202]

Hell yeah

[@herobrinesblog]

16:19 I JUST NOTICED SOMETHING HOLY SHIT If germany just tries to hardline into stalingrad... all the factories that the russians had to relocated to the urals, most..WOULD BE INTACT! Basically, in this scenario, germany doesnt even try to capture moscou or most of the surrounding region, which had vital factories that were destroyed or captured, aka: THEY'D FIGHT AN EVEN STRONGER USSR!

[@comradeLucienne]

the soviets also wouldn't have to burn anything in the lands not captured, making them more powerful post-war

[@TheMaztercom]

What if they hardline into the caucasus? Soviets would sabotage the oil fields like they did, and so they would have many tanks and planes that cant move, if we dont take in account the lend lease. PD: russia started to relocate factories even before germany reached vital points, because they didnt know what germany was planning, yes, mindblowingm

[@jimmcneal5292]

Em no. First stage of Barbarossa would have gone the same, the differences would start only in September 1941(not to mention that maybe author of the post meant concentrating more on Caucasus rather than Stalingrad during 1942 offensive)

[@fgvcosmic6752]

I'm no historian but "Dont do the thing that made you lose" is usually a pretty strong idea, _after_ you've lost.

[@Enigmaticshidda]

Most of the time when someone poses a possible explanation for how Germany could win WW2 it literally boils down to "Lets make the Nazi, not a Nazi"

[@peterl3417]

Basically yeah lol it can win as a secondary power or in a multi-national alliance

[@jimmcneal5292]

why they should act exactly the way you want them to?

[@amanatansari1451]

Possible history when Impossible history walks in:

[@lolitzdefaltboy5063]

I want to clear up the suggestion of "zurge rush Stalingrad" • What he meant was during fall Blau, the Germans split army group South into Army Groups A and B. • Army group A was tasked with going to the Caucuses, while Army group B was tasked in capturing Stalingrad. • Splitting Army group South ensured that neither army groups could succeed in their objective because they had diverted the strength necessary to take either objectives. • The suggestion was to use all of Army group South towards Stalingrad first then advance towards the Caucuses.

[@duckling3615]

Which was a shit plan that was impossible to implement which is why the Germans abandoned it. The railway line going to Stalingrad couldn't just supply the whole of Army Group South and this would leave the Germans threatened of being encircled. And not just the 6th army, but the entire army group. Honestly just the traffic jam of this operation would probably make it just as ineffective as only sending g half the army. Paulus wouldn't even get the benefit of Hoth defending his Southern flank.

[@luckisluck]

@@duckling3615 not even the soviets would expect such a gamble, which is why it might work

[@rain19151]

@@luckisluck the soviets wouldn't expect it because it's stupid, when they realized what was happening they would make mass maneuvers to encircle stalingrad

[@luckisluck]

@@rain19151 realistically they would still have to wait until winter to even have the strength necessary to pull it off by then they could have captured and even put defenses on the volga and the city itself,

[@noinfo1018]

@luckisluck yeah, but it’s not like they could hold that. The German war effort was based off of swift victories against their enemies. They weren’t prepared to dig in, especially not against what would have been a massive Soviet counter-attack

[@MahamudaAkhter-og9ku]

The truth is that Germany was never determined to win the war, the just got insanely lucky to get that far

[@comradeLucienne]

Oh they were pretty determined alright, that's why they fought on until '45. Substituting that word for "smart enough" would work though...

[@linming5610]

Hitler thought he could go in a win streak after winning poland, denmark, norway, the lowlands, france, yugoslavia, and greece in rapid succession. And for the other guy, hitler hoped for a 7 years war reversal with Roosevelt dying and the successor changing sides or give lenient terms and helped them fight against ussr because its clear ussr and communism is a greater threat for europe but he forgot he committed so much atrocities they would never do that.

[@iatrue6487]

The allies were just hesitant

[@guntguardian3771]

​@@comradeLucienne I think what they meant by determined was "able". I'll add the slight caveat that Germany could have won, but the only real possibility was if the UK capitulated following the fall of France. Their hyper aggressive foreign policy, and lack of a coherent strategy meant they were going to be beaten by a coalition of great powers eventually.

[@comradeLucienne]

@@guntguardian3771 I think that would have prolonged the war, but Germany would eventually still lose. I get the feeling that the British public would eventually want to attack Germany once news of Auschwitz reaches them... Besides, like you said knowing Germany they'd pick a fight with the USA, USSR or maybe even Italy too simultaneously. The most interesting thought here is: What if only the USA and USSR win the war together? Without the British isles, no D-day. The US would focus a lot more on lend-lease, maybe even send troops to the eastern front. I wonder if that alliance would persist after the war...

[@Alguien644]

"Dont siege, inmediatly take it" is like saying "Why didnt the Eastern Roman Empire just reconquer the old empire? Are they stupid?" Also fun fact: They tried to, they couldnt

[@Roby_G]

“Germany would have won if they did th-“ Honest 6th of August 1945 reaction:

[@stormjet814]

The commander of hitlers poopenfarten wunderfaffle 5000000000 anti-continent sigma-heavy tank seeing the atomic bomb fall on his head (Shouldve had more roof armor)

[@MoonatikYT]

i actually think the original post has some value. if we develop time travel we should send these twitter users back to the 1920s and have them advise the nazis on everything for the next 20 years. the nazi movement would be so ineffective it wouldnt leave the beer hall.

[@Romapolitan]

The main problem when people come up with these ideas, is that for some reason they don't think they would have any opposition. Which is strange because it's a war.

[@andreasl_fr2666]

There's 3 types of axis victory scenarios. 1. What if Hitler wasn't Hitler. 2. What if Germany wasn't Germany. 3. What if WW2 wasn't WW2.

[@Jaxson-q3d]

Or if the Nazis weren’t anti semtic or racist towards Jewish people and Eastern Europeans such as Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Latvians.

[@zupnanazwa]

​@@Jaxson-q3d Thats the first scenario lmao.

[@granienasniadanie8322]

4. Magic or ancient tech (wolfenstein)

[@sniperjared]

@@Jaxson-q3d that wouldnt really change much regarding the war out come though

[@CultReport]

4. What if Poland was the only other country.

[@NathanLucas5]

"Demand Mussolini not to be a *slur* with Balkans* I like to think that whoever wrote this abomination of a post thinks the Italians were just sitting around smoking and eating olives in northern Greece, and that Oxi day simply refers to them say no to more ouzo. They would've won if the germans had just sent them a strongly worded letter

[@theblackmailguy875]

what if the ottomans won the battle of vienna. Never seen a video on a remotely similar topic

[@petersheeran5099]

oh yeah all the alternate history videos are always against the ottomans

[@theblackmailguy875]

lets go

[@user-bigchungus1984]

Becouse usualy they have the Ottomans have a phyrric victory anyways, so they're unable to ,,overrun" Austria like they planned. Still I am not sure just how coherent the Empire would have been without its Capital, certainly a morale loss but it was already de facto run from outside becoue the Emperor fled before the siege began

[@fot6771]

@@petersheeran5099 Probably because all the structural things that made the west powerful, the Ottomans were famous for falling behind in. Kind of like asking what if the Qing won the opium wars. It would just push back the date of their collapse a while because at the end of the day Europe is still the one with nation states, factories and world class military innovation. For Ottoman alternate history to be interesting there would have needed to be a point where the Ottomans tried to westernise whilst they still had a large empire but that didn't happen until after WW1

[@sircatangry5864]

​@@fot6771I mean, the ottomans weren't as bad as China. Yes they were behind, but not this much. They were like Russia. Hiring western specialists and officers to modernize army, fortresses, and generally be better at war. But they were under constant pressure from so many sides. They weren't given needed breathing room. If in some scenario Russia or Austria get obliterated, so latter on ottomans wouldn't need to fight 2 fronts at the same time, then we might end up with something interesting.

[@plasmakitten4261]

The "Ally with the Slavs" point actually isn't too terrible, but it basically just amounts to "don't be genocidal fascists", and honestly that really is the only thing Germany could have done to actually improve their chances.

[@spikem5950]

Germany could've won the war, but the Nazis couldn't.

[@zakkuth7447]

It is a terrible point because the idea of dominating the "untermensch" via colonization and exploitation is the crux of nazism as an ideology. And guess what, that included the Slavs! If Hitler and his peers considered more "races" to be more or less equal to the "Aryans", then what would his reasoning for starting the war would even be? Purging the juden? That's anything but not being genocidal maniacs. Establishing a "better" government? Uh, everyone is always doing that. Idunno, I feel like too many variables would have to be different in order to make Germany an appealing ally. And that means that the point can't be condensed to a single sentence. However, they did kinda backpedal in that regard. Collaborationist forces consisting of Slavs or various kinds existed, some, like the infamous Ukrainian "УПА", were even promised an authonomy in the future (that was major bs since most party politicians were against this idea).

[@GoblinFromOblivion]

Imagine telling Adolf Hitler, the man who brought forth the history's biggest preaching of ethnic purity, nationalism, racism, xenophobia and who's actions invented the word 'genocide' to simply just stop hating Slavic people to win the war. Lmao

[@TheMaztercom]

Nah, germany used many slavs soldiers and still lose, having slavs puppets would just delayed german defeat by 1 year

[@spikem5950]

@TheMaztercom Yeah but let's be honest, the manpower they could've gained from more viable friendships in Europe by not being genocidal fascists could have made a difference.

[@LGigaIce]

The person who wrote that original list is a testament to how Paradox map games ruined an entire generation's understanding of history.

[@NoshGilligan23]

I love how 2/3 of what the tweet said the Germans were basically trying to do, while the other 1/3 is basically impossible with the given parameters.

[@JakubWojciechowski933]

"Take into account things that didn't happen yet and you couldn't know of them" is the best military strategy ever

[@LitoMike]

“omfg Italy you're the worst teammate ive ever had just go away and let me cook” “ok”

[@moonshinei]

Yet another Possible History banger

[@artbook-loves-sheep]

6:39 No they were completing their Daily challenges

[@NearQuasar]

“Take leningrad immediately” Urban combat is something militaries try to avoid at all costs for a reason; just look at how bloody stalingrad was.

[@IrishCarney]

Yeah but you never know which cities will be a Stalingrad like endless hell and which won't. Smolensk, Minsk, and Kiev are major cities and didn't fall immediately, but they weren't endless meat grinders either. Kharkov changed hands several times, but that was spread out over years; each time it changed hands it happened relatively quickly.

[@NearQuasar]

@@IrishCarney All three were fully encircled which gave the Germany a huge advantage while both Stalingrad and Leningrad still had supply lines, which was insufficient in the latter case, but helped the city survive.

[@CultReport]

i refuse to believe the person who made that tweet is over the age of 17

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Awesome! Love your content possible history! Thanks For this

[@BN_GamesYT]

“Ignore Africa” yeah, just lose control of the Suez Canal, the whole Mediterranean, and allow Britain to do whatever the hell they want to Italy. Germany’s southern flank would be open once Italy got curb stomped in Africa. The war would have been over by 1943 if germany ignored Africa

[@jimmcneal5292]

Axis never had a control of Suez canal

[@Gia1911Logous]

"Ally with slavs" is the same as "develop nukes" for me It's fundamentally against Nazi ideology

[@jimmcneal5292]

both statements are incorrect as far as I know

[@Gia1911Logous]

@@jimmcneal5292 wdym Hitler thought lowly of slavs Hitler thought of nukes as jewish science there is no way they would ally with slavs or develop nukes

[@weswolverine]

What? They were trying to make nukes, and they could've if it lasted longer

[@Gia1911Logous]

@@weswolverine THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO MAKE NUKES WHAT TF IS THIS SHITTY ASS CONSPIRACY It'd be easier to believe the earth is flat rather than believe the nazis were trying to make a nuke that shit makes so little sense It's literally saying the nazis weren't actually nazis

[@tuluppampam]

​@@weswolverinethey gave up on nukes because they weren't developing fast enough, and so they pushed nuke development aside in favour of missiles and rockets.

[@MACTheory]

6:41 grind army xp got my lonley ass laughing

[@Gia1911Logous]

"Zurg rush stalingrad and cut off all the oil" Ah yes, why didn't Carthage think to settle in spain to get all the silver to pay back Rome? Why didn't Charlemagne crown himself the Emperor of the Romans? WHY DIDN'T THE US INTERVENE IN VIETNAM????? Crazy questions The course of history would've been severely altered if these things had happened

[@jimmcneal5292]

Yes, that's the whole point of such theories

[@Tzoga-gn3ci]

Video starts at 0:01

[@PapayaFruit-wo3dk]

Woah, really?

[@BigRedHeadPhones]

Oh thanks

[@andrewgutierrez4841]

Thanks, bud 👍

[@taderdinedillon2509]

Thank you, SOO much

[@Browniera_]

0:00*

[@gameoveror7970]

I feel like a lot of people forget this but WW2 wasn’t a clash between global superpowers it was a clash between superpowers against major or medium powers

[@nade5557]

Which countries are which?

[@gameoveror7970]

@@nade5557 US UK and Soviets were superpowers well Germany and Japan were major powers and Italy was a medium power

[@nade5557]

@@gameoveror7970 thank you

[@jimmcneal5292]

Yes, but US took long to start participating, and soviets were very bad at warfare(as all communists)

[@jimmcneal5292]

@@gameoveror7970 UK had lower military production than Germany

[@Apfeldorf]

Personally, I think you should do an alternate history on what if Alfred the Great was slain at Chippenham, or potentially what if Harald Godwinson won against the Normans. I haven’t seen any large videos touching on those topics, and there are some interesting ideas at play. For example, had Alfred the Great died, the central figure for the unification of England is single-handedly wiped out, and we get a Danish England earlier than the North Sea Empire. A ‘What if Harald Godwinson Won’ would also be interesting, as it removes the primary driving motivator for the Hundred Year’s War. It would bring light to a very niche topic, as well as spark conversation about two extremely important events for the unification of England and the idea of a British identity as a whole that is often forgotten and overlooked in favour of the later Norman conquest and Hundred Year’s War.

[@platinumm4730]

trying to make a realistic scenario where Godwinson wins is tricky though, from what little i know fo Hastings. Godwinson had just marched his entire army down the english coast in a number of weeks, shortly after winning a brutal battle against Hardrada, and his tired, battered army engaged the norman army, that was relatively well rested. You can't really have Godwinson take more time with going to engage the normans, as htey were plundering many southern villages and generally causing chaos. Maybe have Hardrada die, or give up his claim, leaving William to fight Godwinson alone, maybe?

[@angusellingsen5531]

⁠@@platinumm4730I don’t know that much about it either of course, but from what I know Hastings wasn’t a one-sided slaughter. William already supposedly had his horse killed under him more than once during the fighting, it doesn’t seem like a big stretch to have him die instead, which would probably break the Normans. Again though, I don’t know much about it so I might be wrong.

[@platinumm4730]

@@angusellingsen5531 It definitely wasnt a slaughter, but i dont know if you're from the UK or not, but here we're taught fairly well about hastings specifically, and our school told us various factors as to why Harold lost. Yeah, it probably wouldnt be a massive stretch now that I think about it, you could do something as small as have William De Normandie die early or any number of events that would probably foil his plans. But I do like to think that possible history would b e more creative than "William died in battle"

[@lyricusthelame9395]

I really liked how these essentially completely random changes affected the war, I'd be happy to see something like this again.

[@Unchained_Alice]

When I saw "Don't siege Leningrad" I wasn't expecting the second part to say "Just take it". That they used that word which is offensive tells me enough about them.

[@gottalivehappy]

What are you talking about

[@miriamweller812]

Problem is, it's not a video game. You can't just choose between map A and B and if you win one you got the next step. And it's not like when you attack A that B will just ignore you, because different map. You can't just ignore your flanks and alike, even less when your logistics is already the 7th circle of hell.

[@TheMaztercom]

"Offensive" omg a redditor user

[@MyVanir]

The last few minutes sound like a description of how events go in Youjo Senki.

[@sdagoth3037]

Damn I didn't realize that but yes it is actually pretty similar.

[@robertharrington703]

The mileage from this one tweet the internet has gotten is pretty impressive

[@MyVanir]

Twitter is a good source of memes now that laughing at people who are actually mentally impaired is a faux pas.

[@enderkatze6129]

How germany could've won WW2 - Don't do 95% of the shit they did

[@peterl3417]

Yeah, don’t start the war, and be happy Austria even joined lol

[@Jackspladt]

“Guys I finally figured out how germany wins ww2! Okay step one: nazis and Hitler aren’t Nazis and Hitler”

[@enderkatze6129]

@@Jackspladt yup. Exactly.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@Jackspladtpretty much

[@spikem5950]

​@@JackspladtSo that's why my HoI 4 runs overthrowing Hitler for either the kaiser or democracy work out so much better.

[@standard-carrier-wo-chan]

All of these summed up: "Germany could've won if they had more of the good things they had and less of the bad things they did."

[@jimmcneal5292]

well, yes

[@garrettherman405]

Another thing about the first point: Churchill had actually ordered the RAF to spread their planes out in fields and other random open areas they could take off from, so if one hangar or airbase got obliterated they wouldn't lose a ton of planes, which saved a lot of resources and people

[@cedarvickery4119]

Great video! I think Germany avoiding terror bombing in the battle of Britain might have interesting indirect consequences beyond losing more of their air force, like less people would be motivated to enlist for the British if their homes weren’t being destroyed, it’d be a major propaganda loss. Also it might prevent the allies from doing their own terror bombing campaign as then it would be the allies initiating the terror bombing instead of Germany which might cripple domestic support for the war. Maybe even nuclear programs delayed with a reduction in conventional terror bombing. Also I would imagine without terror bombing, recovery after the war would be faster which could also have many interesting implications for the cold war, such as maybe no Marshall plan.

[@zanel4195]

10:13 This is a very unnuanced take ngl. There was immense support for the CPSU and the USSR in the western Soviet Union. The Germans would have found virtually no more support than they had found IRL.

[@AstinCrow]

After the holomodor that occured in the previous years and the actual attempts at autonomy to the Belarusian and Ukrainian regions that the USSR fought militarily, I am not so sure about there being 'immense support' for the USSR. IRL they simply didn't fight for the Nazis because they Nazis were being Nazis and killing them.

[@artyruch7028]

there was support for cpsu but in the beginning there were more support for independent ukraine and making autonomous ukraine by germans ukrainians would take this deal

[@pigpig252]

“Don’t siege Leningrad, take it immediately” is a line that keeps me up at night

[@lolloblue9646]

Wehrbs try not to blame Germany's allies challenge: impossible

[@seamusfinnegan1164]

Honestly I hate how overlooked the importance of Dunkirk is for alot of 'how Germany might win' stuff given how many knock off impacts it had.

[@babynuggetplays2688]

If the Germans took Dunkirk and killed/captured all 300,000 British troops there, and Britain consequently dropped out of the war, you just end up with a Soviet Europe or Britain joining back in again in '44/45 as the Soviets approach Berlin. I question, however, if Germany even had the capability to take Dunkirk; they had so far avoided pitched battles with Britain and France and it's difficult to say how they would perform, though given the atrocious quality of their tanks in 1940 they might not do as well as one would expect.

[@seamusfinnegan1164]

@@babynuggetplays2688 Its actually WAY more than that which would be affected but ill possibly go into that at a later point as this is the kind of topic even to go over in cursory would take awhile to talk over and provide context.

[@charliebasar9068]

The issue with Dunkirk is that the Germans can't win, and even if they do we have no reason to assume it kicks the British out of the war. The Germans stopped advancing on Dunkirk because their forces were pushed to total exhaustion, and their supply lines had to be secured. Counterattacks by the allies on the thin perimeter were only barely held from total success by the Luftwaffe, and that is only because the attacks were small in scale. Germany simply cannot force a victory in Dunkirk, and if they try it leaves their forces in a state of continuous exhaustion and undersupply, allowing allied attacks to break the pocket out to have a very large chance of succeeding and shattering the German army in 1940. Even if, by some miracle, they do succeed in breaking Dunkirk without being annihilated, the loss of men isn't guaranteed to knock the British out of the war. The men aren't combat ready anyways, they had lost nearly all of their heavy equipment. The manpower losses can be made up for by the Commonwealth, and eventually the US.

[@seamusfinnegan1164]

@@charliebasar9068 I am gonna assume you don't know much about the situation for Dunkirk as your comment is largely incorrect by a wide margin regarding the state of the German forces and their military readiness at Dunkirk I will go into why at a later point however. My original comment also was not talking even about 'kicking the UK out of the war' while there is an assumption that might be made there and one useful for hypothetical scenarios I would personally actually lean towards it being insufficient to kick the UK out of the conflict although such being successful would be rather impactful.

[@lukemale2010]

@@seamusfinnegan1164I mean Dunkirk’s original evacuation plan called for getting 30k men out the government where accepting losing most of there troops and Churchill and his cabinet were completely unwilling for surrender because despite the public talks of a imminent struggle the high command knew Germany had no way of forcing Britain out of the war and put simply the British empire can handle losing 300k troops quite easily and dosent really affect overall war outcomes

[@i.theworstguys298]

> how germany could have won the second world war > display name ‘hitlers strongest soldier 🇲🇽’ on xitter > many such cases

[@AzumarillConGafasBv]

Siempre son los más prietos 😭

[@i.theworstguys298]

@@AzumarillConGafasBv claro que si ahaha solo naturales

[@y.r._]

"Ally with the Slavs against the commies" is literally the only thing out of this list that you need to decisively win WW2 as Germany. Literally, Arkhangelsk by 1943. Sadly, this is impossible if the Nazis rule Germany. So basically: The only way for Germany to win WW2 is if it's not ruled by the Nazis.

[@BellUH-1IroquoisBell]

since 1940 some ss developed paneuropean nationalistic ideals (Leon Degrelle to make an example), so if the leadership was more like that it could have been done, idk how much that could help tho

[@babynuggetplays2688]

This is what I always say; Germany could have won the war, but the Nazis never came close to it.

[@Then00bhunt3r]

Many people in nations that were occupied by the soviets prior to 1941 sided with Germany. The Latvian division of the SS for example had 100,000 volunteers. The problem was that mass recruitment of slavs in the east didn't begin until 1943.

[@MyVanir]

@@Then00bhunt3r The problem is that the nazis were very open about their view of everything to their east as Lebensraum and the people living there as temporary occupants. Germans colonizing eastwards is basically their entire history since they turned christian.

[@y.r._]

@@MyVanir That is untrue. German settlement to the east was basically just a resettlement, as these lands had been germanic since before the birth of christ. They were occupied by the slavs (actually, large parts of their population were still ethnically germanic, only ruled by a slavic ruling caste) for a brief window of a few hundred years, and then retaken by christian settlers.

[@martinmnagell2894]

4:53 Don't like how this implies Italy was planning to invade Spain. Spain was a fascist dictatorship at the time and allied with Italy and Germany. They provided Fanco aid during the Spanish Civil War. They didn't directly participate in WWII due to the fear of being invaded from every front but did send a group of volunteers to fight with Germany against the russians.

[@Avghistorian77]

He didn’t say invade, more so expand influence, which Mussolini did plan to do by forming a Latin league in which Italy would lead.

[@zedbags]

"Germany could have won if Hitler just-" Berlin would be leveled if they were still kicking in 1945

[@Kozkayn]

“Don’t siege Leningrad, just take it.” My guy, what do you think a siege is for?

[@oliverp3545]

So many WW2 what ifs would be solved if people would both accept 1) that the Germans didn't act irrationally to every situation and instead sometimes just did their best 2) that just because they started out with the strongest army did not negate the advantages that other nations already had in coping with such a fact.

[@Otzar987]

Reminder this guy had a channel called impossible history

[@marcosgonzalez4207]

"Just take Leningrad" He definitely do not played World Conqueror to know that is not possible

[@treyebillups8602]

I'm so happy that you did a video on the zurge rush stalingrad tweet

[@shaneg9081]

Heres how they win: dont play. They had already greatly increased their territory without war against great powers. Just stop at the Polish boarder and think "wouldnt that be nice" then turn back and go home.

[@borovick6068]

People here joking about "Leningrad should not have been besieged", but they completely forget that the command of the German ground forces forbade receiving any signals about the capitulation from Leningrad.

[@d00gz_]

I hate the line of thinking of “This military failed/lost in this military venture, clearly they were stupid idiots and I could’ve done better” while failing to understand the circumstances and background surrounding the events. These people’s entire understanding of military strategy comes from HOI4 and Netflix documentaries. “France surrendered to the Germans” is probably the best example of these misconceptions. These are extremely complex multilayered situations with thousands even millions of lives in the balance, where one slight oversight or act of ego can have irreversible consequences, yet people still view them within the most simple perspectives.

[@rmartinson19]

The first point might be half-right. Instead of focusing on the RAF, focus on staying defensive in Europe and going after British colonial possessions, not Britain itself. The British public at the time was already war weary and had little patience for continuing the war when France was already defeated and Germany was seen as mainly a threat to the Imperial holdings overseas that many Britons questioned the utility of keeping, rather than putting those resources to better use at home to fix domestic problems. Some historians have posited that so long as Hitler kept the fight away from Britain itself, growing anger and unrest among the general population would have eventually forced the Churchill government to consider suing for peace. Instead, the Blitz hardened British resolve, and galvanized the British public into backing the war effort much more firmly. You're correct that the Luftwaffe couldn't force Britain to bow out of the war, but they may not have had to in the first place with the right approach. How realistic is that scenario? I don't really know for sure, but it seems halfways plausible given how things looked at the time to the average Briton. When the war is framed as your brothers, husbands and sons being sent off to die halfway around the world so His Majesty can keep control of far off places like Egypt or Singapore. supporting the war effort loses a lot of its appeal. But when you terror-bomb the population, you make it personal, and you bring the war home for people who otherwise didn't want it and didn't support it when it was happening in some far-flung land they had no connection to.

[@d15c0rd7]

Exact same thing happened with Japan and America too. US leadership knew that even if Japan invaded the Philippines there wouldn't be anywhere near the public support required to wage a real war. Yet Japan thought that America would get directly involved just for it invading European colonies in the region. From that they thought "Well if we're going to be fighting America anyways we may as well strike them directly to give ourselves the best initial footing." But big shock to no one except the Japanese, launching a surprise attack and killing thousands of Americans just galvanized the Americans into supporting full on war.

[@comradeLucienne]

@@d15c0rd7 A video called "What if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbour?" would be pretty interesting...

[@jimmcneal5292]

I don't think UK would have signed peace, but most likely would have less active in africa and most importantly, Germany wouldn't have lost so many planes if there was no battle for Britain

[@Snake0901]

I feel like ppl REALLY underestimate Britain's military power during WW2

[@jimmcneal5292]

Britain was strong but it could not solo Germany on land. Even together with USSR it wouldn't have won if Germany made less mistakes

[@az-kalaak6215]

@@jimmcneal5292 germany still had a three front situation (england, eastern front, northern africa). germany had to synthetize its fuel which was a costly process (that's why taking stalingrad was so important, it could've meant accessing huge fuel reserves). Germany doctrine was also not supply-line friendly, they deployed extremely heavy vehicules that were hungry bois in ussr, which stretched even more this front. ussr on the other hand, had more people to throw into the grinder, more resources, and most importantly, an industry capable of pouring thousands of low-tech vehicules on the battlefield. If germany wanted to have a better outcome, they could've helpef italy sooner (especially in the balkan campain), and negociated a peace treaty with england as early as possible. if accepted, this would've ensured germany could consolidate what it had conquered, establishing stronger lines to the frontiers, and focusing on building a stronger luftwaffe (and possibly kriegsmarine) to take down the UK. from my point of view, operation barbarossa was a huge mistake, as at the time japan could not intervine in the region due to a treaty signed a few years earlier. with no operation barbarossa + a stronger italy and a peace treaty with the UK, perhaps they could've even helpes japan kill off any USA military possibility (which I do not believe possible, as ussr would've betrayed the pact on its own anyway).

[@JackThane]

6:30 But adolf ordered his troops not to conquer Leningrad. He litterally told them to level it first bc it was the birthplace of ussr and he hated it

[@ElectroFeel]

Yeah. While, at the first year it might seems that the blockade has a military goals, after that it was just became a genocide. Leningrad's defence forces were starving and too weak to resist