If Hitler had done one of the following, Germany could have won WW2?

>Built up a navy that could take on England and allow for operation Sea Lion to take place.
Doing this would first require Axis winning the war on the continent then a multi decade build-up

Attached: 1291180332297.jpg (400x375, 25K)

There was no way that could've realistically happened. The logistics would have been impossible for japan.

I’ve heard that if Barbarossa wasn’t delayed they would have likely won on the Eastern Front

Not if they stayed out of China in '37

>Personally I don't think Stalin would have attacked Germany first as Hitler claimed.

Read Surov, you're wrong

>Built up a navy that could take on England and allow for operation Sea Lion to take place
At the time the British navy was the largest and most powerful navy on the face of the Earth. Combine that with America's unlimited capacity for manufacturing (back then) and there was no hope of having a surface fleet to match. Hitler made the mistake of going with Raeder's Plan Z before the war broke out, switching to Dönitz's U-Boot focus after the war had started. This wasted crucial submarine production time that could have made enough U-Boots to scare Churchill into signing a treaty after Dunkirk

>It is estimated Germany spent 25%-50% the amount it took the usa to get the atomic bomb on the v2/4 rocket programs.
Yes the wunderwaffe programs were a waste, but yielded some wonderful results. Stg43, XXI Elektroboot, Me262, etc. More important to the Germans in research was die Glocke over the nuke.

>Not allied with Italy or not helped them in north africa.
No, not enough committed to Rommel and too late. If another panzer division and infantry division had been committed to Rommel and immediately after the fall of France they could have pushed the British past Cairo, where there would be nothing standing between Rommel and unlimited oil in Iraq. Also would have secured Iran as an ally fucking Stalin in the Caucasus
I will agree with you that Italians are useless in war

>Not declared war on the USA after Pearl harbor
It was a formality at that point. US had already fired on German ships and is supplying all of Germany's enemies. Classic burger govt behavior. The US is the equivalent of the younger brother in the back of the car who waves his finger an inch from your face for 20 minutes saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". Then when he gets punched is the first to cry "he started it!"

>Not declared war on the USA after Pearl harbor.
There is no need for pearl harbor, japan should stay out of china and build up industry while biding their time

How about not fucking invading Poland to begin with. Typical fascist authoritarian retard move.

Ah a true American education post
>1
Stalin was 100% going to attack, he just needed to wait for England/America to split fronts and needed new command after the purges because he killed so many. May have been in 5 years, maybe 10 but it was basically inevitable.
>2
Basically impossible, british navy was so fucking far ahead
>3
Literally kill yourself for typing that. Read any book and come back
>4
This one is true, though Germany needed both rockets and nukes to win. With only one or the other not possible. Also idk if they had the raw materials to process uranium and such. I know they had heavy water plants destroyed during the war, and they lost the primo nuclear scientists such as Einstein before the war.
>5
To be fair it’s hard to predict that an ally would lose the war for you, and Germany needed all the allies it could get. On Rommel, yes he probably should have abandoned as soon as America joined the war, because as soon as that happened they weren’t gaining control over the British by cutting off supplies because America was now openly supplying them
>6
Should have negotiated with Japan beforehand to let them know he wouldn’t have supported it. Reneging on a treaty is pretty fucking sketchy and a great way to make other allied countries try to jump ship.

>How about not fucking invading Poland to begin with. Typical fascist authoritarian retard move.
Unironically best joke of the day

Hitler would've never ever entered Poland had Stalin not agreed not to attack him thus ensuring neither of them are in risk of ending up in war with the another while being at war with third parties

No molotov-ribbentrop == no WW2 in europe

Attached: Ribbentrop-Molotov_no_legend.svg.png (2000x1864, 655K)

The whole point of the war with the west was to allow for the invasion of the soviet union. There was never a need to invade England and realistically was never going to happen in any meaningful sense. They only needed to be kept out of the war until the end of '41 which was the only real shot Germany had at winning ww2. Poland was breathing room and a staging area for Barbarossa, stopping with dividing up Poland was literally never going to happen. The idea was the longer the war with the soviets was delayed, the stronger they would become until eventually a win would be impossible. The war with the soviet union necessarily had to be a very quick war so equipment and plans were made with that in mind. Aircraft take huge amounts of resources which Germany didn't have and are most effective in either supporting assaults, or disrupting infrastructure in long range bombing roles in an attrition war which was not possible for Germany. Anything after the end of '41 doesn't make a difference as the failure to capture any of the objectives of Barbarossa while taking more losses in men and machines than expected meant the fate of the war was sealed.

Make sure Japan doesn't attack pearl harbour and instead attack East of Russia to tiedown troops so Germany could continue streamrolling st Petersburg

Japan cost Germany the win

He did. Yugoslavia surrendered, the king fled. Communist resistance didn't begin in full force until after the attact against the USSR.

the sec the german stepped to the anglo it was already a matter of time till they lost

the game was won 100s of years prior,if germany cucked the uk and stopped us colonizing america and creating america then america couldnt of existed to join in ww2

we won the war cause we created america 100s of years prior

it was set in stone for them to lose the second hitler came to power

Skip Moscow.

They would have had nearly zero resources by 41 if they had tried that.

>british navy was so fucking far ahead
so far they couldn't keep a shipping container above water before 42.

Nope, US would've kept trading oil and steel

Moscow main logistics chokepoint of whole european USSR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)
Read this book.

Greece wasn't pointless. Had to be taken to protect right flank and yes, Italy turned out to be one shitty unreliable ally. But Greece had to be taken.

This isn't a game, no need to take greece

UK to weak to mount anything

fuck japan, what absolutely useless fucking "allies"

They did take Singapore and Philippines from western powers and made the US start building dozens of aircraft carriers

Yup. But you don't really need the city. Turn those bombers away from England, you're losing them there anyway...

Except it leaves your right flank in the air any future counter attack could steamroll through the balkins threatening germany rear and cutting them off from romania's oil. Sorry, but Greece had to be taken. There was no alliance with Bulgaria and turkey like the last war.

>But you don't really need the city.
You do if you are at war with 1940s USSR, you capture it and you prevent flow of supplies and troops effectively while taking control of most effective means of logistics inside the said god forsaken land mass of a country

Hitler didn't do anything wrong, retard.

>any future counter attack could steamroll through the balkins
by who lol? UK too weak to mount anything, France is government-in-exile, USSR sure as hell isn't going to mount amphibious assault through Balkans and US won't be in the war until USSR is already dead if you capture Moscow

History will remember him as a monster but not a failure. His military crushed what was considered to be the strongest land power on Earth in the 40s within weeks (France), ground Britain down to the point that they were essentially neutralized until 1944, pounded the shit out of the Soviet Union 1 YEAR after conquering all of western continental Europe, and resisted the armies of 2 of the most powerful nations in the history of mankind (U.S. and USSR) for 4 years while simultaneously propping up Italy. Germany essentially had the entire developed world allied against it and it still took 6 years to force their capitulation, this despite them being massively outnumbered, seriously lacking in critical resources, and hamstrung by a political ideology that prioritized doctrinal loyalty over quality of leadership. In a true 1v1, Germany would have slaughtered any nation in Europe during that time period and the one nation on the planet that possessed the tech, manpower, industrial might, and wealth to defeat them straight-up was separated from their country by an ocean.

I'm by no means a Wehraboo "le perfect land army" guy, but you'd have to be an unending retard to call WW2 Germany a straight failure when they were fighting pretty much the entire developed world alone.

He did plenty of things wrong, like not letting Jewish WWI veterans with Iron Crosses serve the fatherland and he alienated the eastern europeans who greeted the Germans as liberators and who could've been drafted by the million and armed with captured USSR equipment

There are lots of what ifs, but I think 2 main things would have helped.
* Italy not being incompetent Spaghetti Niggers and launching an ego driven invasion of Greece and losing badly. The few weeks and resources Germany wasted on a pointless invasion of Greece to bail out their ally could have been the difference between getting to Moscow before winter set in or not. If Mussolini absolutely had to march on Greece, he should have coordinated with Hitler and did it at the right time.
* Hitler had an unstoppable army force in France. Once he took France, he needed to call Spain and say "We're going to march on Gibraltar and secure the entire mediterranean from the British. You can either be our favored ally and take Gibraltar and other prized European and African territory as prizes, or become our enemy. Did you just see how we steamrolled France?". Hitler sealing off the Mediterranean would have freed up countless military resources, allowed more resources to go to Africa easier, enabled easier military adventures to get oil in Middle East with no interference, and protected their weak Italian ally.

> expecting Hitler to just sit there while the Poles stage indefinite raids killing Germans non-stop
Even in the end, he tried going with a peaceful solution twice. Like the Brits, the Poles wouldn't have it.

>raids killing Germans
German officers in captured uniforms and dead prisoners in German uniforms

Attached: 1559764068861.jpg (820x1024, 246K)

>Built a navy
It takes an incredible amount of time and resources, and they were already operating at oh...maybe a 250 ship disadvantage in terms of total surface fleet vs. the British. Prior to the war they were bound by treaties to not build anything larger than a certain tonnage and it would have been significantly more difficult to hide that aspect of their rearmament than with regular army production and the luftwaffe. Even if they had built a surface fleet capable of maintaining naval superiority in the channel and launching an invasion by 1940, there is no way in hell they would have built up enough raw supplies for that actual number of soldiers which would have been necessary to invade Britain, and if they didn't capture British ports intact (they wouldn't have), they would have been fucked unless they had an early version of a mulberry (simply unfeasible by 1940). Basically this was never possible even if they had committed to it as Raeder would have wanted to. If you extend the timeline to say 1941, 42, 43, 44 circumstances were unlikely to change. The British would have gained more and more materiel from the US and their dockyards would certainly not have closed down. The window of opportunity needed to be immediately after the fall of France or far enough in the future that the Germans could have a much larger technological advantage in all facets of combat (air, land, sea) and we're talking the 50s at that point.

>focus on planes and not tigers/panthers, etc.
It's a bit of a misnomer to say that the German army was wasting a large amount of their production capacity on Tigers and Panthers. In reality they were wasting an enormous amount on the StuG, which next to the 251 halftrack was the most produced German vehicle of the war. A focus on the Luftwaffe would certainly have been extremely beneficial, but this all depends on what you end up doing. If you invade the Soviet Union your needs compete too heavily with armor and infantry equipment, supplies, infrastructure support, logistics, etc. If you don't invade the Soviet Union then sure, it might help you bomb the British a bit better, but German industry didn't fully mobilize for war like the allied nations until 1944-1945 if arguably at all. Simply upping production on all fronts much earlier and not assuming a short conflict would have likely been sufficient to increase production numbers to a decent level, however the major limiting factor for the Germans in the Luftwaffe wasn't necessarily whether or not they had enough planes, but whether or not they had enough oil and rubber to continue making so many planes and keeping them running.

Sure Romania and Ploesti helped fuel the wehrmacht, but it was not enough to maintain a military ready for a two front war along with all of the occupation forces Hitler tied down in France, Norway, the low countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, etc. and there was simply no way that the German production capability would have outweighed the inevitable increased lend-lease from the US to Britain and the Soviets, so production was less of a factor than speed/time for Hitler.

>focus on atomic theory instead of V2 rockets
The amount of resources that the US was about to devote to the manhattan project was simply unfeasible for any other country on the face of the earth at the time. Could the Germans have cracked the Atom and then had enough to make a meaningful number of bombs to wield in their war effort? It's very unclear, but what is certainly clear is again, not by 1944. So the time factor would have bit them in the ass no matter what. The US had enough people enriching uranium to create the trinity test and the two atomic bombs. It was months before the US even had another atomic bomb in its arsenal. Also, when Japan capitulated, it's navy and air force had been completely decimated, all major cities and production centers were burning, and invasion from the US was imminent - they knew they couldn't stop it, and it was only a question of how many Americans they could take with them to the bitter end. Germany might have been able to make one, maybe two bombs, and it would have been an incredible lag time between 3, 4, 5, etc. chances are low that without crossing the channel simply bombing London into oblivion would have cause the British to yield and stop sailing their untouched navy, untouched air force, and capitulate their untouched home guard. In order to force submission by atomic bombs you need to basically be able to obliterate their entire nation if they resist. This would not have been realistic, I doubt going for an early atomic bomb would have saved the Germans in any way.

>not ally with Italy
North Africa was actually the best place for the Germans to focus after the fall of France. Cutting off Suez and seizing Iraq down to Kuwait would have completely isolated Britain from the Raj and various S.E. Asian colonies/bases. It would have strengthened their grip on the Mediterranean and potentially allowed for the Italian Navy to defeat the more or less trapped British forces while the Germans could have attempted an earnest seizure of Gibraltar. The Italians were not geared for war production at any point in the war, they had incompetent leadership at the highest level which did things such as de-mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops right before launching an all out invasion of Greece, and their hearts were not really in it. They would have been a "helpful" ally in the geographic sense if Hitler had prioritized essentially winning their fronts for them, but he made the mistake of being fooled by Mussolini into thinking they were much stronger and more prepared than they were. Ultimately having Italy as an ally was a better position than not, especially given their record as flip-floppers who could open a front on the southern side of the continent at any moment.

>not declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor
Yes, this was a gigantic strategic blunder. Hitler assumed once again that his allies were much more useful than they actually are. This was his own fault however. If he had been paying attention to the shitty Red Army blowing the Japs right the fuck out in Khalkin Gol as well as their lethargic advances into the interior of China, he would have realized they weren't helping him one fucking bit with the Soviets.

My personal belief is that the war was lost in the weeks following the fall of France. Hitler did not quickly move to take North Africa and secure the Mediterranean, which would have bought him extremely valuable time and resources vs. the British, and perhaps could have even prevented the British seizure/destruction of the Vichy French fleet in Algeria. He could have gained valuable positions to lure Turkey and Iran (both of whom distrusted and hated the Soviets) into the Axis in exchange for a launching point for invasions into the Soviet Union, allowing him to threaten Baku in 1941, cut off Soviet oil, and tackle the bear together.

Based TiK BTFOing Wehraboo and Tankie scum

As one of his Patreon supporters, I definitely recommend him.

Attached: 1563693932956.jpg (3500x2400, 830K)

>Not declared war on the Soviets
Possibly, hard to say. It's possible the US could have beaten them anyways, and it's also possible the Soviets would have allied with the US and Britain against Germany anyways, especially after the Winter war ended.

>Built up a navy
Probably not possible, they were already pretty much producing as much navy as was humanly possible for them, they just didn't have the naval know-how or the pre-existing resources to match England.

>Focused less on tanks and more on planes
Not sure, but I'm tempted to think they probably would have lost to the Red army even faster if they'd done this.

>Focused on atomic theory
Yes, if they'd developed nukes first, they could have won obviously. That was not even remotely obvious at the time, and in fact was never really a huge priority for the US either. The US basically won the war without nukes.

>Not allied with Italy
Nah, if they hadn't allied with Italy they might have had them as an enemy, and even if they didn't I can't see how that would have stopped the allies from attacking them.

>Not declared war on the US
No. The US establishment was looking for an excuse to enter the war from the get-go, so it was almost inevitable they would eventually. Pearl Harbor was indirectly engineered by the Roosevelt administration by putting Japan in a position where they would run out of fuel if they didn't attempt to militarily occupy allied territories. The US already had lend-lease with Britain, embargos on Germany and Japan, and sent volunteers to fight with the British army. If anything, Hitler wasn't nearly cautious enough with the US, he should have seen them as an enemy right from the beginning.

thanks for all the good replies brah.
OP here ima read em all thx frend

If he had advised Japan not to attack the US in any way and to just focus on their conquest in Asia. Things would've gone a lot better.

np, I majored in history and now I do software development so I don't get to ramble about shit all the time, and this is a more interesting discussion than the rest of the shitty threads on this board right now.

He should have incited a revolt in Danzig or had Josef Beck assassinated in 1938

Actually Italy did with their botched invasion of Greece. It delayed Barbarossa by precious weeks so the Germans couldn't achieve their strategic objectives before winter set in

>Not declared war on the Soviets and just defended occupied Poland if attacked.
The general consensus is that Stalin was amassing a huge mobile offensive paratrooper army in preparation for an invasion of Germany in July of 1941. The reason that Germany initially performed so well was that Stalin had dismantled his defensive fortifications as part of his no-retreat doctrine, and all of the newly issued Soviet artillery maps were of German territory. Had the Soviet Union invaded, Germany would have been quickly overrun and most of the world would have fallen under totalitarian communism.

Basically Germany was a small divided country trying to remain independent and self sufficient in the face of 4 global empires controlled by Jewish finance. Germany fought a desperate struggle against impossible odds but they managed to delay the total Jewish takeover of the world by 3 generations, buying us enough time to develop sufficient communications technology to at least understand what is happening to us.

Listen to this podcast to learn more about the Soviet invasion plans:
myth20c.wordpress.com/2019/07/03/icebreaker-who-started-the-second-world-war/

this.

Attached: World_1936_empires_colonies_territory.png (1527x624, 44K)

The Germans did some strategic bombing of Britain in WWI with Zeppelins, but the two sides learned opposite lessons. The Germans felt it was too much effort for too little gain, and so didn't get into long-range bombers in WWII, preferring shorter-range medium and light bombers to support ground. But it freaked out the British, who then developed big four-engine bombers. With heavy bombers, they might have defeated the USSR.

Hitler famously demanded that the ME-262 be made into a dive bomber, for which it was totally unsuited. That delayed its use as a fighter against the Allied bombers.

The Nazis also put way too much effort into heavy tanks and other cutting-edge weapons, which were expensive and often unreliable. US tanks were relatively poor, but having a lot of them made a difference.

Hitler was also an idiot to declare war on the US on December 11, 1941. The fool had enough on his plate already with England and Russia.

Thanks for America and all, but fuck your island for destroying our entire civilization to save its dying empire.

Literally the only thing Hitler could have done is not declare war at all, wait for the USSR to invade eastern europe, then drag the rest of europe into the conflict through diplomacy

This. That's why he let them retreat at Dunkirk.

Attached: 1565114229299.jpg (467x488, 43K)