Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Germany and World War 2
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Do you guys think it was possible for Germany to win World War II? Personally, I think it was impossible but a few of my friends were saying they could have won.
2019-07-23 09:08
#1
 | 
India Indian_Streets 
Impossible
2019-07-23 09:08
#2
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Yeah I'm pretty sure they stood no chance against the 3 world powers.
2019-07-23 09:09
#5
 | 
India Indian_Streets 
+1
2019-07-23 09:12
hadn't they attacked russia, it woulda been an easy win
2019-07-23 11:28
#50
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
Wrong. They had to attack russia, but they needed to be faster.
2019-07-23 11:38
they needed to do it later...
2019-07-23 11:39
#52
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
like when exactly? When Russia gathered all their forces and armed most of them?
2019-07-23 11:40
they didn't have a chance after they meddled with russia. should've attacked them after conquering britain at least.
2019-07-23 11:43
#55
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
How on earth would they conquer britain....I arent think that this would have been possible in any case.
2019-07-23 11:44
make them surrender and then put forces in their country. :D just like in france. or a simple, old fashioned invasion like they did to us.
2019-07-23 11:45
#61
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't have worked, otherwise might have happened.
2019-07-23 12:01
#80
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
You know they needed a fleet for that?
2019-07-23 13:42
most resources were bound in the east. i think they would've found a way if they hadn't attacked russia.
2019-07-23 13:50
#86
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
the germans fleet was tiny compared to the UK's fleet and the germans couldnt keep up with the air war in the channel very well. Producing a big fleet takes a while
2019-07-23 14:08
as i said, because most german soldiers were at the east front. it's pretty much proven that only the attack on russia lost them the war.
2019-07-23 14:11
#88
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
yeah but its literally IMPOSSIBLE to attack the uk, its an island and in order to take that island you need a fleet and germanys fleet was complete GARBAGE and the uks fleet was massive you cant invade a island without a navy
2019-07-23 14:12
but u can bomb the shit out of it if you don't get distracted by russians. :D
2019-07-23 14:20
#91
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
that's what they did and it wasn't very efficient as they lost the air war over the UK
2019-07-23 14:20
and again: if the german resources had not been bound in the east, they would've had these resources (money, people) to build a bigger air force and navy.
2019-07-23 14:23
#94
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
do you know how long it takes to build a navy? it used to take years to produce a single carrier and to build up their fleet to uks level would've taken 10 years maybe
2019-07-23 14:25
you know how fast the USA build their navy and air force? they had pretty much nothing before the war. it takes a while of course, but we're talking about YEARS. you can build a lot in 3 years.
2019-07-23 14:27
#97
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
they had nothing? are you joking?
2019-07-23 14:28
rank 19. in the world of biggest armies (even after portugal and romania)
2019-07-23 14:29
i watch a lot of documentaries. and this is the truth.
2019-07-23 14:30
#106
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
still great depression
2019-07-23 15:10
that was in 1929.
2019-07-23 17:26
#154
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
Image result for great depression The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from 1929 to 1939. It began after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors really ignorant of you
2019-07-23 20:17
#105
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
Yeah they didn't have men but they did have the ships have you ever heard of the great depression? people had to start working in factorys and farms to rebuild everyone left the military and then after it was gone in ww2 they put up mandatory military for every male
2019-07-23 15:09
alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manp.. they had max. 450k people in the navy in 1918 but still had enough ships for 3.3 million in 1945? plus nothing changed during the great depression. don't make things up. prove it or i ...
2019-07-23 17:25
#158
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
they didnt need a navy in ww1 because you know why? because they didnt have to fight japan in ww1 which basically was navy based because it had owned so many islands in ww2
2019-07-23 20:16
#160
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
they still had more ships which werent used because it wasnt needed
2019-07-23 20:22
so they had enough ships for 3 million people though there were unly 250k in the navy? you should finally consider that they BUILT these ships betwenn 1942 and 1945.
2019-07-23 20:52
#197
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
they obviously built a lot of ships but most of them were old also they had a 40 million greater population during ww2 which made a lot of more manpower and also ww1 wasnt a lot about navy compared to ww2
2019-07-24 00:56
#198
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
its impossible to build so many ships that fast quora.com/How-long-did-it-take-on-averag..
2019-07-24 00:58
#199
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
also the us had the biggest industry in the world obviously they could build a lot fast
2019-07-24 00:58
first you're talking about navy then air force then navy again. i respect your opinion but i'm gonna play sekiro now. i'm tired.
2019-07-23 14:28
#104
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
Because both are crucial in water?
2019-07-23 15:08
Dude you're delusional. Germany literally stomped the UK and at some point they realized, hey we already won here lets move on russia. They got cocky. UK's surrender was a matter of time. UK knew they had no chance so they played time waiting for usa or russia to make the move. Just stop defending them already, Germany stomped everyone until they had to split forces on 2 fronts thus couldnt keep up with the force and resources distribution.
2019-07-23 19:21
#155
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
thats clearly not how it went lmao have you ever listened in history class? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
2019-07-23 20:12
well it basically went as he says. you've made up too much today already.
2019-07-23 20:47
#180
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
are you retarded? did you even bother to click the link?
2019-07-23 20:50
this was a battle they had "won". germany still bombed the shit out of london. britain later was close to capitulation. usa saved them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
2019-07-23 21:04
#196
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
please quote me where they were "close" to capitulation
2019-07-24 00:54
#157
 | 
Sweden DanzigOrWar 
do you know why hitler canceled sea lion? because he clearly didnt have the power over the channel and resources
2019-07-23 20:15
#89
 | 
Finland kasperr272 
learn more history
2019-07-23 14:12
#190
 | 
Germany KaZo04 
+1
2019-07-23 22:09
What are you talking about, this was in 1940 when Hitler wasn't even planning to attack the Soviet Union. It's true that Hitler started allocating resources months before he invaded, but not in 1940. I don't think the Luftwaffe would've stood a chance regardless of how many planes they sent because of a nice new technology Britain invested in called 'RADAR', which essentially acted as an early warning system, and as they say knowing is half the battle. If the Luftwaffe couldn't have stood a chance, then the RAF could've bombed any incoming Kriegsmarine fleet into oblivion (and that's not even considering the power of the Royal Navy, too).
2019-07-23 20:22
every historian in the world will tell you that "USA saved Great Britains ass in WW2" and now you're telling us they didn't even need saving? :D and what the hell about 1940? noone even mentioned that year.
2019-07-23 20:46
Quite the opposite, actually, USA didn't really save anyones ass in the grand scheme of things, and you definitely won't see historians argue the contrary, not even American historians. And 1940 is the year the Battle of Britain occured.
2019-07-23 22:00
#116
 | 
Portugal nakbaron 
Germany navy was like a wooden boat, even if they could invade England and made English troops retract to Scotland they wouldn't have enough manpower to defend England so no, impossible to conquer Britain.
2019-07-23 17:33
that'd what they said about landing in france on d-day. ;) and yes, the required manpower was bound in russia.
2019-07-23 17:36
#119
 | 
Portugal nakbaron 
This was a war impossible for the nazis to win.
2019-07-23 17:40
right. but only after they attacked russia.
2019-07-23 19:32
#186
 | 
Portugal nakbaron 
He had to attack russia. Hitler couldn't invade southern france nor britain (aside from having plans to, check operation sealion), the royal navy outnumbered german navy and the royal airforce was more advanced. What would he attack next? The middle east?
2019-07-23 21:28
if "not attacking anyone" was not an option, you might have a point ;D
2019-07-23 21:37
#194
 | 
Portugal nakbaron 
if he didn't attack anyone they would still be kicked out of France from the south, like Mussolini in Italy, and Hitler would've killed himself anyways
2019-07-23 22:45
impossible but at least they got rich cuz of wars
2019-07-23 09:09
#4
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
What do you mean? They were broke after the war, right?
2019-07-23 09:10
they industry was booming after the ww cuz of rebuilding germany
2019-07-23 09:17
#18
 | 
Germany Roflcopter234 
nearly every country got money
2019-07-23 09:32
#27
 | 
Finland Lutkuttaja69 
Finland broke as shit after war(((
2019-07-23 09:46
because of USA
2019-07-23 09:49
#29
 | 
Germany Roflcopter234 
yeah sure. Cause they were smart, not like france etc after ww1
2019-07-23 09:50
Yeah, I personally think France was the reason Hitler came to power. They had no brain, well their PM Clemenceu had no brain
2019-07-23 09:55
While the treaty of versailes was bad I'd say it was Britain's unwillingness to actually enforce it that allowed Hitler to come to power, France was ready to invade Germany but just not without Britain who instead wanted to appease Germany thanks to neville chamberlain.
2019-07-23 13:15
How did Britain's unwillingness to enforce it allow Hitler to come to power? It's precisely the enforcement (by the French) that arguably caused, in part that is, Hitler's rise (because of hyper-inflation which then, later, propelled Hitler into wanting to get into power a different way). Do you mean Britain's unwillingness caused WW2? Because I'd agree with that. Whilst Hitler was the warmonger, the Allies could've made WW2 a lot less costly for everyone involved. But I also understand why Neville was unwilling, they didn't call it 'The War to End All Wars' for nothing, after all.
2019-07-23 20:27
You do realise that germany was able to rebuild because of the immense amount of money the US put into rebuilding them after ww2, without that Germany would likely be nowhere near the juggernaut they're today. Also during ww1 most of the fighting took place in France, much of mainland France was devastated from constant artillery and unlike Germany they didn't get financial aid from the US who they had actually accrued quite a debt from arms sales with.
2019-07-23 13:13
#78
 | 
Germany Roflcopter234 
obviously I realize that. thats what I said?! The usa wanted to have strong democratic countries to trade with. And they realized after ww1 how important that is.
2019-07-23 13:33
Yeah I read you comment incorrectly my bad.
2019-07-23 13:58
#79
 | 
Germany Roflcopter234 
and actually france and the uk received twice as much as germany
2019-07-23 13:40
well regarding the actual ideology and targets, war in europe and russia as preparation for the big war with a possible us-invasion, i'd say there was no chance to win it in the end.
2019-07-23 09:12
#7
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Yeah I think people overestimate Germany during WWII
2019-07-23 09:13
#14
 | 
Denmark LEMonHLTV_BTW 
They would ez stop invasion in france, but hitler was pepega and it didn't happen. I mean the tanks divisions were ready to push back the allies and it was the time when allies didn't have that much of a air space to destroy those tanks because luftwaffe was still alive. But still they would lose to russia anyway.
2019-07-23 09:21
If they beat Russia = ez win
2019-07-23 09:33
they could have extended it but the end was inevitable
2019-07-23 09:14
#202
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Yeah I agree, there was no way that Germany could of beaten 3 world powers
2019-07-24 08:42
Once they would finish their bombs, they wouldve won. If only Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, America would not be joining the war. Japan had one job; attack the USSR from east and squeze it from two sides with Germany USSR wouldve lost the war if America did not help them through Lend Lease. You may trashtalk about the US and its late joining all the time, no one cares, but you have to realize and respect the impact they brought. America joined the war before 1944, btw. Not directly, but still. USSR impact overrated. America Impact underrated.
2019-07-23 09:25
name and flair checks out
2019-07-23 09:18
It does not wtf
2019-07-23 09:25
hm it kinda does
2019-07-23 09:36
Prooove it
2019-07-23 09:38
#113
 | 
Germany Chris Walker 
Too bad that Japan didn't want any territory in the east of the USSR
2019-07-23 17:26
It's not about whether they wanted the land or not, they had to help Germany defeat USSR.
2019-07-23 17:28
#115
 | 
Germany Chris Walker 
Germany and Japan were allied only on paper, they didn't do anything together military wise as they had different interest in territories.
2019-07-23 17:32
#191
 | 
Germany KaZo04 
+1 and they were struggling in china
2019-07-23 22:14
#203
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Japan didnt want conflict with Russia after their war together. War with them would of never happened.
2019-07-24 08:44
Japan impact underated
2019-07-23 20:03
What are you talking about? The vast majority of people say "America saved Europe in WW2", despite that not being true. The USSR would've won either way, go look up what they actually lend-leased to the USSR, most of it was in storage throughout the war.
2019-07-23 20:30
Ive seen interviews with ordinary people and they were starving. The american supplies is what saved them from death. Half of Ussr tanks and planes were made of american steel and aluminum, btw
2019-07-24 04:39
#204
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
+1
2019-07-24 08:44
Maybe yeah
2019-07-23 09:17
#13
 | 
France Stonis 
Impossible because of alliances but they crushed the whole europe including ofc north france wich is a good perf
2019-07-23 09:21
#35
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
I'm half French, and after reading a lot of WWII France fucked themselves bro.
2019-07-23 10:07
#102
 | 
France Stonis 
Germany distroyed France during the "Blitzkrieg" and to end this Pétain surrender (and create a fabulous meme about frenchies). After there was the resistance with Charles De Gaulle and globaly the south France against le régime de Vichy wich was the annexed area. Pétain ashamed all France and he's hated here, sometimes somebody shit on his grave. But Germany made an impressive Blitzkrieg so you're half right.
2019-07-23 14:57
#118
 | 
Portugal nakbaron 
Because of flash invasions, no one was prepared. It would also be impossible to sustain a whole army across Europe, France kept sabotaging the fuck out of the nazis, Russia would be a timed bomb, etc...
2019-07-23 17:37
their whole doctrine was based on short wars once they got into an attrition they werent able to compete with the whole industry of the world mainly USA
2019-07-23 09:29
#36
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Exactly, did you know Hitler didn't want war with England but wanted them as an alliance and the only reason that didnt happen was because of Churchill. If not for churchill Germany and England would of been on the same team. Crazy
2019-07-23 10:08
yep he realized theres no way he could invade with the Kriegsmarine current navy at the time and the RAF, england was basically a front he couldnt finish that annoyed him throught the war by bombing his factories and making him lose a little by little until they were ready for the invasion.
2019-07-23 11:06
Well, if japan actually went for russia instead they wouldnt have been nuked and maybe the ussr would have lost. Theres 2 things that stopped the nazis, their inability to fight the cold in ussr, their allies... italy and japan fucked them hard.
2019-07-23 09:32
#34
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Japan was never going to attack Russia cause they didnt want to stick their necks out for Germany and because they got raped by Russia years earlier.
2019-07-23 10:06
The Germanic-russian fight began in Spring/summer not winter
2019-07-23 13:47
he didnt say something else
2019-07-23 15:18
Impossible
2019-07-23 09:35
#33
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
I agree
2019-07-23 10:05
#23
 | 
Norway Stealthbomber 
Yes if they finished the allies before attacking Russia, then raped Russia with Japan
2019-07-23 09:39
#32
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Japan would of never helped Germany attack Russia
2019-07-23 10:04
#24
s1mple | 
Germany NatsuS 
If they didn't attack Russia they chances would increase a lot.
2019-07-23 09:39
#31
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Yeah but Hitler hated Stalin and Russia so war was inevitable
2019-07-23 10:04
#45
 | 
Germany AngiMerkel 
did you know germany initially wanted to attack russia in the russian summer? this was then delayed to winter because mosolini attacked greece and hitler had to help...
2019-07-23 11:12
#128
 | 
Germany Chris Walker 
What? Operation Barbarossa started in June.
2019-07-23 18:06
#133
 | 
Germany AngiMerkel 
2019-07-23 18:22
#135
 | 
Germany Chris Walker 
Juni is winter now?
2019-07-23 19:00
#136
 | 
Germany AngiMerkel 
read again
2019-07-23 19:02
#137
 | 
Germany AngiMerkel 
"Diese Planung wurde Makulatur, weil Hitlers engster Verbündeter Benito Mussolini einen dilettantischen Angriff aus dem besetzten Albanien nach Nordgriechenland begann. Die Griechen warfen nach kurzem Rückzug die zahlenmäßig und in der Ausstattung überlegenen Italiener bald zurück. Um eine Niederlage Mussolinis zu verhindern, die dem faschistische Regime hätte gefährlich werden können, musste Hitler intervenieren."
2019-07-23 19:02
#138
 | 
Germany AngiMerkel 
"Als deutsche Einheiten die Vororte der sowjetischen Hauptstadt erreichten, Ende November 1941, hatte bereits die herbstliche Schlammperiode begonnen. Bald folgte der eurasische Winter, auf den die Wehrmacht nicht vorbereitet war. In Erwartung eines schnellen Sieges hatte die deutsche Führung auf Winterausrüstung verzichtet."
2019-07-23 19:03
#141
 | 
Germany Chris Walker 
Yeah but the attack wasn't delayed to winter, they just didn't win as quickly as they expected?
2019-07-23 19:10
Don't invade russia at all, in 1940 the axis had(december) romania,hungary, Germany, Italy and france together with denmark norway poland and benelux conquered, also they had all of yugoslavia and greece soon, so then don't invade russia but with your superior industry(which they wouldve had controlling nearly all of continental eu) and wait for 1941/1942 dont ally with japan, let them fight on their own, but in 1941/1942 with your continental European industry, you outbuild and outproduce Britain's RAF and you invade them, sure they will have time to build up defenses but germany and the axis with aerial supremacy wont help them
2019-07-23 09:44
Hoi4 guide xDdDdddDdd
2019-07-23 09:45
#37
 | 
Germany PcPrincipal68 
If we didnt attack Russia it would have been a free win for us.
2019-07-23 10:14
#182
 | 
Brazil Karl_Tanner 
How? You needed the oil in Ukraine to keep the war going on
2019-07-23 20:54
if russia didnt go onto allies, axis would most likely win
2019-07-23 10:19
I watched a video debunking all these "If Germany would have done that,they would've won" theories so I think it's impossible
2019-07-23 10:20
If they wouldn’t have broken the alliance with ruski they could have won imo
2019-07-23 10:25
At the beginning of WW2 Hitler commanded to stop german Panzer-Division and by doing so let over 300.000 soldiers of the allies escape. It is possible that Britain would have sought for peace with Germany if he didn't do that. We have to remember that Britain population wasn't very interested in fighting in a World War again and Churchill had to convince them to do so. If Britain hadn't continued fighting, USA wouldn't have attacked Germany either. In that setting there would have been the possibility of winning but not with Britain and USA against them.
2019-07-23 10:36
#60
 | 
Germany w/e 
yeah dunkirk right?
2019-07-23 11:48
Thank god Hitler attacked Russia. They would have won the war
2019-07-23 10:49
#44
 | 
Finland metsae 
Operation barbarossa stopped 60km away from Moscow, because Hitler wanted to wait and get aid in south. Then winter came and it was too late. Maybe if they would advanced to Moscow right away, maybe it would have changed the course of war
2019-07-23 11:06
#49
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
+1
2019-07-23 11:34
doesn't matter if everything went Germany's way there is no way they could of invaded Russia
2019-07-23 11:45
#62
 | 
Finland metsae 
I think they had the chance. War torn Moscow without organized defense or proper infantry. That city was last piece to get soviet fall
2019-07-23 12:03
#63
Dosia | 
Russia Rapu 
" because Hitler wanted to wait'" Wanted to wait his own death? Excellent choice. When he decided to attack the Soviet Union - he was already dead.
2019-07-23 12:57
What would taking Moscow have achieved? I think Hitler was right (in the context of winning the war) to go south.
2019-07-23 20:04
If piłsudzki (was also a socjalist and nationalist) had lived probably they wouldnt have to leave most of their forces in poland and had better (more to the east) position to start a marching off.
2019-07-23 11:25
#48
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
I don't think so, but everybody gotta admit that Hitler was really badass for his situation. Also define what winning ww2 means? Does defeating USSR counting as a win and what would happend after that?
2019-07-23 11:32
#64
 | 
Georgia forsenHappy 
I guess USA would have defeated Germnay?
2019-07-23 12:59
#66
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
lol no fucking way
2019-07-23 13:08
#67
 | 
Georgia forsenHappy 
yes for sure.
2019-07-23 13:09
#68
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
usa would've been in total economical isolation. japanese wouldn't surrender for sure. germans would've had nukes first. no chance basically
2019-07-23 13:11
#70
 | 
Georgia forsenHappy 
Wait USA was already indeed a huge force and with rest of the eu's help, they would have defeated Germnay, even tho a lot of the EU countries were already occupied by force, it wouldn't have lasted very long.
2019-07-23 13:13
#75
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
why the fuck it wouldn't lasted for long? there was a plenty of collaborationists in europe. it would've lasted for as long as germans wanted usa was a major force but you are overestimating them. and with japanese at their back it would've been pretty hard for them. PLUS it's not like USA would have a will to lose their whole country for europeans. they would make peace with germans ASAP if there is no chance to invade europe and capture berlin by themselves. by defeating USSR germans would've had plenty resources and manpower. and as i said they would've had much more progress in nuke development. there is NO CHANCE for USA to win
2019-07-23 13:26
#77
 | 
Georgia forsenHappy 
See, i think if germnay had won war over russia, they would have been somewhat weakened, actually a lot, this would have gave USA a lot more chances, but i'm noob so whatever.
2019-07-23 13:26
You really are
2019-07-23 15:23
#53
 | 
France Huvi 
If Hitler would have invaded UK ,no camp for D Day invasion maybe he would have stood a chance to stop the russians some time,but it's unlikely that germany would have won at the end since he was also getting invaded from southern countries
2019-07-23 11:41
#177
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
He would of been crushed in Operation Sea Lion.
2019-07-23 20:41
Russia and Germany should of joined forces
2019-07-23 11:44
#176
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Hitler hated Stalin and Communism
2019-07-23 20:40
#59
 | 
Germany SL3ID3R 
We would've won but we realized, if we win now, there wont be any future wars and that's boring so we lost in purpose 😎😎😎
2019-07-23 11:47
#174
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
So will you guys start WWIII?
2019-07-23 20:40
#192
 | 
Germany SL3ID3R 
shhh its a surprise 😎
2019-07-23 22:16
#193
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Cool MENS))))
2019-07-23 22:17
#65
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
very possible if they were done with greece a bit earlier and attacked USSR in spring then they would've had more chances. not to mention that they almost got to the Moscow. another problem was medittarian sea and british dominance up there. because of that they couldn't properly support their north-african divisions. they could've dealt with british Malta the same way as with Crete but for some reason they refused to. even if winning war by total annihilation was really hard for germans they still had chances to save their regime and ended up with europe under control
2019-07-23 13:07
#173
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Obtaining Moscow means nothing, unless Stalin stayed in Moscow when Germany attacked.
2019-07-23 20:39
#189
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
it doesn't mean everything but it certainly means a lot
2019-07-23 22:05
I think it was easily possible hitler mistake was normandia and that he let his people die in russia
2019-07-23 13:12
#72
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Hitler’s biggest mistakes were: -invading Russia -declaring war on USA after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor -not allowing his troops to retreat -being a complete stubborn pepega and refuse to listen to his generals
2019-07-23 13:14
#74
 | 
Georgia forsenHappy 
+1 i would like to live in another universe were he won the war, just so curious how it would be.
2019-07-23 13:16
We did pretty well tho 🌚😎😎👍 But u know no one can beat Russian winter neither Hitler or Napoleon russkaya zima luchshiy brat 😎😎😎
2019-07-23 13:26
#81
 | 
Georgia Broozman 
It was possible for germans to win.
2019-07-23 13:44
Stalin>Hitler He killed more mens so he is better. Don't you agree?
2019-07-23 18:18
#144
 | 
Georgia Broozman 
Both are dictators, but I'm Georgian and Stalin is georgian, so ez Stalin, men )(0))0
2019-07-23 19:47
Communist detected, calling Jonathan E
2019-07-23 19:48
#146
 | 
Georgia Broozman 
"Useless blogs, threads and posts, irrelevant posts, baiting etc." xD
2019-07-23 19:50
#172
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
How?
2019-07-23 20:36
If it were not for several key events in the USSR, Germany would have won
2019-07-23 13:58
#171
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
The first major and most important blow to Germany was the battle of Britain.
2019-07-23 20:34
they lost /close
2019-07-23 14:21
If they had good allies and had not done the barbarossa operation without even setting foot in the UK, perhaps but prolly no
2019-07-23 14:27
#103
 | 
France J0riS 
If Hitler let his generals decide what to do in Russia, they'd won easily
2019-07-23 15:05
+1
2019-07-23 15:24
#170
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
-1
2019-07-23 20:32
Americans
2019-07-23 20:59
#195
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
His Generals were wrong and he was actually correct. He wanted the oil fields which was the correct call, the generals wanted Moscow which would of done nothing.
2019-07-23 23:25
LOL
2019-07-24 13:54
That's a lie, or at the very least an ingenuous statement, perpetrated by generals after the war. If you consider Hitler's strategic choices, he'a actually not half bad. Most generals wanted to go after Moscow, which wouldn't really have done all that much. Sure, they'd have control over the centre of Soviet rail infastructure, but that's it. Hitler, on the other hand, wanted to go South, to Azerbaijan and the Caucasus to get oil, and if there can be one definitive reason that Germany lost, it would be that black gold.
2019-07-23 20:01
Well, okay, it's not entirely a lie; Hitler did interfere with his generals plans who had military training and went to military schools, and had experience obviously, but I think his 'meddling' has been overstated in memoirs of generals after the war. For example, during a critical operation on the Eastern Front called Operation Citadel (also known as the Battle of Kursk, the second largest tank battle ever next to the Battle of Brody, I think), Hitler didn't interfere but said 'Whenever I think of Operation Citadel, it makes my stomach turn', and his premonition was eerily accurate, but despite the fact Hitler hated thinking about Operation Citadel, he never interfered.
2019-07-23 20:18
Definitely. Hitler’s biggest mistake was that he always rushed things. If he would’ve been a little bit slower and more methodical he would have won.
2019-07-23 15:13
#169
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Rushing was the only thing he could do.
2019-07-23 20:31
Impossible, US war production wayyyy to big. they could have won vs. Soviet russia if they hurried a bit. Maybe GB but only with great loss of life.
2019-07-23 17:44
no, imagine if germany invaded soviet union with V2 and the Luttwaffe full of ME262? they would have win in stalingrad for sure
2019-07-23 17:48
What are you talking about?
2019-07-23 17:51
I meant if they had gotten their "superweapons" earlier such as the V2 missile and the ME263 jet, the world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft, they would have probably won the war on the soviets, and then things would have been probably way different imo
2019-07-23 17:53
Why has your english improved by so much? ^^ V2 was shit ME262 never produced in high enough numbers to have a real impact. Yes a win vs SU was possible, but never would they have won vs the united states
2019-07-23 17:58
V2 was scary as fuck, ask the British lol, and who knows what would have happened if Germany won over the SU, maybe USA would have been "scared" in some way and would have wanted to make an armistice, meaning that Nazis would have been free to do whatever they wanted in Europe, as a French I wouldn't mind since Hitler respected us in some way lol
2019-07-23 18:01
V2 had no effect on the war, no matter how "scary" it was. Allied Bomber streams over germany were effective especially damaging morale and war time production. And with USA having nuclear bombs I ddoubt that they were impressed by some rockets
2019-07-23 18:10
What matters in that case is the fact that since SU would have surrendered, all the German troops (or most of them actually) would have moved to Western Europe, and would have probably tried to invade UK again, but this time with more trained soldiers, and with a better strategy idk, and I guess that UK wouldn't have last long since they had reached their limits during Battle of Britain, and If UK had surrendered or withdrawn the war, US could not have done shit in Europe since their mainland was too far away, perhaps they would have used nukes but what if their planes couldn't reach Europe (with a carrier perhaps ok but u-boats were too powerful)
2019-07-23 18:16
Sure, but they didn't have enough resources to have ME262s (at least not enough to replace the fighters in the Luftwaffe). The 'wunderwaffe' argument is pretty weak if you consider the fact that they didn't have the resources to widely implement... any of them.
2019-07-23 19:56
#122
 | 
Brazil WARHiDE 
In a perfect world ww2 would be Axis + Europe vs USSR no more communism, Korea war, Vietnam war, and a lot more in Africa
2019-07-23 17:50
#167
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Well Hitler actually loved the UK and wanted them as allies but Churchill said no.
2019-07-23 20:28
#124
 | 
Lithuania OnyxLT 
iF tHeY jUsT dIDnT aTtAcK UsSr!!!
2019-07-23 17:52
They could easily beat them, in fact they probabluy would if they attacked them a little later. They shouldnt start a war on 2 fronts (UK and ussr), at least not against military superpowers. Because of that they couldnt finish any of them when they had opportunity. Though, even if they attacked ussr after uk surrender, usa would probably join the game and save the day since Germany would be greatly weakened from casualties, both resources and men. As you see imo. they could never win that war. At least not with such distribution of forces on both sides.
2019-07-23 19:13
The time they attacked was the absolutely *latest* time they could've attacked in regards to oil supply. Any later and they would've run out of oil in the middle of their campaign, like not to the level of rationing, but to the level of simply running out, and simple infantry cannot take the entirety of the Soviet Union But I agree that they could've never won.
2019-07-23 19:54
Dude they'd stomp russia in a year. They almost got to moscow fighting on 2 fronts lul Plus keep in mind in this scenario they'd probably take UK's oil after their surrender. But USA joins and beats weakened Germany and steals all the glory...still probably wouldnt win the war but German army was superior to Russians in that period of time imo.
2019-07-23 20:08
Ummm... what is your point exactly? That if they invaded earlier they would've won? Maybe, but the Soviet spring is nearly as bad as the winter, and the Battle for Greece was still going on. In the book 'The Second World War', Antony Beever makes the argument (and says most historians agree) that the postponement of Operation Barbarossa made little difference in the eventual outcome of the invasion, but we'll never know, we can only speculate.
2019-07-23 20:14
Maybe if Italy was less aids and if they secured a good friendship with the Soviet Union and were able to trade something for their oil. It could have happened, otherwise fuck no.
2019-07-23 18:18
#165
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
War with Russia was inevitable because Hitler hated Stalin and Communism.
2019-07-23 20:26
Quite possible. They had to take Siberian hunters seriously and convince smaller states like Tr, Balkans, Mexico to join them so they wouldnt waste time and convince Japan to attack Ussr on the east.
2019-07-23 18:23
Pretty sure they weren't convincing Japan to attack the USSR at all, at least not after 1941.
2019-07-23 19:52
#164
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
+1 Japan was to scared
2019-07-23 20:24
#163
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
Mexico would never of attacked the US.
2019-07-23 20:24
Impossible. The only thing that kept them going was their significantly superior general army tactics. Weaponry/tactic/engineering etc. German army was level above everyone else at the time in terms of the general idea of war. But thats not enough to win against basically whole world at the same time lul.
2019-07-23 19:06
#162
 | 
United States CarsonRR00 
I don't think they had superior general tactics cause a lot of stuff they did was wrong and dumb. But they had really good arsenal of weapons at their disposal.
2019-07-23 20:23
Absolutely. Hitler is like a real life IBuyPower.
2019-07-23 20:40
#185
NEO | 
Indonesia mrowkpio 
They could win if they would dday on england and then attack ussr
2019-07-23 21:03
I'd say so, if Japan didn't bomb pearl harbor and get America into the war. It would still be completely possible for the USSR to beat Germany without America, but for example the amount of trucks the Americans gave to the soviets is ridiculous. Without those trucks, each Soviet offensive from 1943 to 1945 would have come to a halt after a shallower penetration, allowing the Germans time to reconstruct their defense and forcing the soviets to mount yet another deliberate breakthrough. Of course the D-day landings helped as well, but the main thing that helped the soviets was the lend lease. Other scenarios would include Germany managing to take and hold the Caucasus oil fields and Ukraine. Without oil and the land providing the most food in the USSR (Ukraine) The soviets would have ran out of fuel and food, and would be forced to surrender.
2019-07-24 01:24
Rating-o-meter
NEXT MATCH
0.77
Help GTR perform and have a chance to win a package for your team
Boost his rating with
Runtime Nutrition
20% on everything at
Click here to have a chance to win
BOOST
BOOST
BOOST
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.