Without saying

Without saying
>listen to his generals
or
>dont start wars
name a single action Hitler could've taken to win world war 2

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Listened to his generals and not started any wars

...

Left the Russians alone.

not attack the Soviet Union

Not fucking with goring's jet fighter programme

not fucked with russia

Not bother Russia

Came to post this
They would have had them years earlier if Hitler didnt interfere

Not spending tons of money on useless artic reasersh. Build the nuke?

Invading the Soviet Union is what doomed him. He could have theoretically forced Britain to agree to a truce before the US got involved otherwise.

But dude what if losing was part of his master plan? What is like... he was playing 16 DD chess? What if Nazis sekretly won?

Instead of pissing off all the countries in eastern europe, rally them as a bulwark against the Soviet threat since the western powers were too busy beings cunts

Hitler
A) always wanted to crush Russia to get Lebensraum and eliminate a major enemy in the East, where he wanted his Lebensraum
B) at that point Britain stayed in the war because it was waiting on America and Russia to bail it out, if Russia was defeated America wouldn't touch it and Britain would sign a peace treaty
C) COULD have won the war against Russia if he didn't delay the attack and had an unfavourably early winter
D) Russia was rapidly arming itself and already started to doublecross Germany

Russia would've been attacked.

Got a couple of Jews out of the camps to work on their nuclear program. I mean, my God, heavy water...LoL.

Had his army use diesel instead of petrol.

>Build the nuke?

Not possible. Germany's top nuclear scientist, who ran the program, honestly believed that there wasn't enough nuclear material in the world to build a nuke. And most importantly, Germany simply lacked the resources to pull off their own Manhattan Project in the middle of a war. The US was the only country that could have done while simultaneously fighting a war, because of its ridiculous economic/industrial capacity and the fact that it was completely safe throughout the conflict. Even if the German scientists were replaced by new scientists who knew what they were doing, Germany would have had to basically bring a significant chunk of production of weapons/tanks/planes/ships to a halt to make any serious progress at all towards a nuclear weapon. It was never going to happen.

>dont start wars

It is hard to criticize him on the Poland one because Germans where getting massacred.

You kind of underestimate how much effort the US put into its nuclear program.
Scientists weren't really the problem, it was the need for a massive amount of people working on getting the right kind of uranium that made it a tough hill to master.

The US put like 300 000 civilians on that task

He should have never redirected the attack from Moscow to Stalingrad

the oil fields of the south were very important, but without the established central hub of communication the Soviet Union would have fallen apart.

I think he didn't want to repeat history and be like Napoleon, but Moscow was far more important in 1943 than it was in 1812

take a harsher stance on the countries which would eventually be on the other side of the conflict.

Try harder to propagandize in America to get a more friendly government.

He should have left the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in place with the Soviets and not fuck with France, Belgium, or any other country it did in WWI. He could have gotten away with acquiring lebensraum in Poland. Prussia would still exist today, and Germany would have more land. So I guess to answer your question, left it at the Poland invasion with the Soviets.

Does anyone have an explanation as to what the fuck happened to Hitler? 1930s Nazi Germany seemed prosperous, but he went insane or some shit.

Better communication and coordination with Japan honestly
If Japan had agreed to hold off on attacking the US and instead make a move on Russian Siberia Russia would not be able to focus on the Western front so much
Japan allowed reserves from the East to go defend Moscow and definitively brought the US into the war with a retarded strategy

>Russia would've been attacked.

Or Russia would have attacked Germany. Stalin wasn't an idiot, he knew that Hitler was a serious threat. Eventually he would have gone to war. If you believe Suvorov's theory, Stalin was actually planning to do it in 1941 (I don't buy it, personally, but with the Soviet buildup in Eastern Europe he was probably going to do it eventually).

Not to mention the materials and funding needed to build it. Germany just didn't have them, or at the very least it didn't have enough to run a nuclear program and fight a war simultaneously.

Many of his generals didn't think they were ready to invade Poland & France. France fell in what, 6 weeks? Soon after he started making poor decisions, but I completely understand why he trusted his own judgement over his generals.

never go to war with russia

Ignore Stalingrad, instead focus his troops on Moscow
>gg

>If Japan had agreed to hold off on attacking the US and instead make a move on Russian Siberia Russia would not be able to focus on the Western front so much

If Japan had agreed to do that, its war effort in China would have ground to a halt. The whole reason they declared war on the US in the first place was because the US had cut off oil and rubber sales to Japan, and they needed to find a new source in order to keep their Chinese campaign going. That source was the Dutch East Indies, they knew the US would go to war over that, so they just went ahead and preemptively attacked the US.

Created a better, more streamlined organizational hierarchy for his military, not interfering with research, and focusing on transferring to a wartime economy sooner.

Using concentration camps for slave labor rather than murder

*Also, Japan agreeing to attack the Soviet Union instead of the US would have meant that Japan was putting Germany's interests ahead of its own, which would make no sense.

Source?

what's with the masses of people that still believe in the
>he shouldnt have attacked russia
meme?
Do they even know what the war was about? Jesus......

On their turf. They suck as a fighting force outside their own borders.

I think everyone understands why he attacked the Soviets, we're just saying that it was doomed to fail. Kind of like Japan attacking the US.

Lol, tell that to the Red Army that marched to Berlin. Or the Russian Army under Tsar Alexander that paraded in Paris.

Not attack Crete

How about instead of sparing the Brits at Dunkirk, he just fucking rolls his army in there to destroy them? 400,000 dead and captured Brits would have made a mainland invasion of Britain a thousand times more feasible. He also could have prevented Italy from invading Greece, as that delayed Barbarossa by a month and diverted over a million troops to Greece and the Balkans.

Exactly.

Everyone who says that if he listened to his generals he would've won the war doesn't realise that if he listened to his generals he wouldn't even have gotten France out of occupying the Rhine area, never would've annexed Austria without firing a shot, the Sudetencrisis would've ended with Germany not even gaining the Sudetenland itself, etc

Hitler was masterful at global politics, the army had plans to overthrow Hitler for every major undertaking he did early on, but they all proved out literally perfect for Germany.
He wasn't masterful at directing the armies to the places and the generals would've been better there, but that doesn't mean much if no war would've happened in the first place under them.

German could of beaten the soviet union easily, they just messed up the timing and some silly errors, they beat soviets in so many battles despite the soviets having triple their numbers, the soviets were tactically incompetent and untrained.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

I'll give you a single word.
Dünkirchen.

>would have made a mainland invasion of Britain a thousand times more feasible

Yeah....Operation Sea Lion involved floating river barges across the English Channel. A thousand times 0 is still 0.

They really couldn't have, the fact that the Germans managed to do as well as they did in 1941 was borderline miraculous. Almost makes you understand why Sup Forums is constantly sucking the Wehrmacht's collective dick.

You seem to be implying that Molotov-Ribbentrop was a genuine peace treaty rather than a way for both sides to build up their armies before the other invaded

>I think everyone understands why he attacked the Soviets, we're just saying that it was doomed to fail. Kind of like Japan attacking the US.

It wasn't doomed to fail at all.
Not starting the little campaign in Yugoslavia would've meant 6 weeks more time before winter set, which could've been so decisive that Hitler could've won WW2 right there.
Then there's a myriad of tiny decisions that add up, but were they taken right he could've still won even after the 6 week delay.

It was not doomed from the start at all.
He should've taken out Britain first in a North Africa campaign and taken the Middle Eastern oil, but he could've done it the other way too.

>1930s Nazi Germany seemed prosperous, but he went insane or some shit.

1930s Germany was not prosperous. It was desperately short on hard currency and in serious financial trouble, there's a very credible theory out there that Hitler's options in 1938 were either expand/plunder or collapse.

Get rid of Himmler and Goering

Not letting the brits escape at Dunkirk.

So starting a war with Britain and the United States was the better option?
The second they were cut off they weren't getting US supply back, but the attack guaranteed all those resources would be brought against them
It wasnt even China that got them cut off it was being retards who invaded everything they could beyond that
The simple point is if the bothered to at least pose a threat to Russia Moscow could have been taken
Instead they pursued the strategy that got them nuked

no meth.

Well yeah, that was kind of the entire ideology of Germany at the time.
Lebensraum im Osten

>So starting a war with Britain and the United States was the better option?

No, withdrawing from China was the better option.

The Russians could've never marched on Berlin until the U.S. put boots on the ground in Europe.

Molotov Ribbentrop was the consequence of Stalin recognizing that France and Britain were fattening up Hitler to sic him on the USSR. He wanted fuck all to do with invading Europe.

This is literally a meme

Russia was going to attack Germany as a """"liberator""""" and set up socialist countries all across Western Europe once the German war machine was tired out. Hitler simply did a good, solid preemptive strike.

Russian resistance was just too stronk for the Germans and messed up Hitler's plans

Operation sea lion at all costs. Remove england as the worlds largest aircraft carrier. And no two fronts

And where were they to get their oil and gas to ship the thousands of troops, tanks, aircraft, and transport to the newly opened Russian front? The American embargo cut off 90% of Japan's oil supply, and Japan took the only possible course of action by invading Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies. That would have inevitably brought in the US in the first place, so if they wanted to win, they were going to have to manage to both and take hold Hawaii instead of just bombing it. That would have made the closest American naval port be in San Diego, and all they'd have to is move a fuck ton of troops to occupied Hawaii and manage to fend off any American attempt there, because any American invasion of any islands past Hawaii simply wouldn't have been feasible without Pearl Harbor.

Germany put Japans interest first by declaring war on the US
Its pretty simple that certain powers needed to be eliminated and Russia was historically hostile to Japan
Not a single part of Japanese strategy actually guaranteed them the resources they needed
There military was quite honestly just full of faction based retards

It says that took place after the invasion.

>build a proper long range bomber.
>convince Japan to not attack the US. Or at least make them wait until Europe is under control.
>Bomb the shit out of Britain and play more with the IRA to create a spate of domestic terrorism.
>Conquer Britain.
>Convinve America that the true enemy is communism and then fuck up the soviets as a team.

It's not so much about actions he could have taken as much as other things that could have happened for him to win the war.

For instance
>Britain turning fascist
>Stalin dying resulting in a civil war
>Churchill's government throwing a coup or an impeachment to surrender after France's defeat
>India going into a civil war
>The middle east effectively turning fascist
>Maoist China winning the civil war easily causing it to be an American irrelevance

All could have caused a win condition for Germany, for him as an individual, there wasn't much that could be done in his position that isn't

>Listen to generals
>Don't start wars

It was doomed to fail. The incredible German luck of 1941 could very well have changed with any one of those tiny "right" decisions. And even assuming that the Germans did everything absolutely right, and literally everything went their way, and they manage to take out the Soviets (early 1942, if we're being really generous), what then? They have to successfully occupy the entire USSR (hell, basically all of Europe), presumably while trying to carry out Generalplan Ost and dealing with partisans, while simultaneously winning a war against the British Empire and the US, who can churn out more ships/tanks/planes/bullets in a month than the Germans can in a year.

In the long run, the only thing that changes is that a lot more Soviets die and mushroom clouds rise over Berlin.

Polished off the teafags at Dunkirk. If he was brutal in dealing with the western powers at the beginning of the war as they would be with Germany, it was completely possible.

Actually make a holocaust.

The second great blunder.

Dont start shit with Russia until you have a fully mechanized military and a long range bomber.

The industrial migration the Soviets did ultimately won the war.
Personally Hitler fucked everything, I think anybody who really delves into History understands that if anybody else got the power after WW1 it would really be Germany on the moon.

Maybe it was for the best. Who knows.

quicker anexation of britain
use less ressources on the holocaust, men, gas, bullets whatever that could be used elsewhere.
push the attack on russia to a year later

Win? Probably Impossible. If he'd done more to secure oil supplies, taken out the British radar stations, and somehow eliminated the entire Royal Navy, he could have taken the UK. That would stop US interference in the Western Front, but they would likely still ship fuckloads of equipment to russia, perhaps along with troops, and even if moscow fell, the russians had moved all their industry back behind the urals, ready to keep fighting. Basically, he could have done better, but he was never going to win, given the substantial disadvantages in population and economy Germany faced between the American hammer and the Russian anvil.

>a surprise attack that yielded vast free victories for a period of time still ended up not being enough to overcome the allied faction because the axis is 1/5th the size
>the only alternative is wait to be attacked which would mean having to fight without those free initial victories granted by a surprise attack

It wasn't * doomed to fail * because there wasn't an alternative.

Russians already pushed Germany back and were comfortably rolling them before D Day.

Allied boots on the ground would have been a factor against the Nazis in 1942. When D-Day happened it was about not letting the Soviets single handedly defeat the Nazis and assume control over Europe.

>Germany put Japans interest first by declaring war on the US

Not exactly. The US was openly supporting Britain for some time before that, we were "neutral" in name only (very similar to the situation in 1917, in the months before Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare). Germany declaring war on the US just formalized the situation. The way Hitler saw things, the US would have declared war on Germany anyway.

>Not a single part of Japanese strategy actually guaranteed them the resources they needed

Except for invading the Dutch East Indies.....

>There military was quite honestly just full of faction based retards

Definitely. Not sure if "retards" is the right word though, more like brainwashed.

Continuing to concentrate German strategic bombing on British airfields, instead of targeting London in retaliation for the raid on berlin. Most strategists estimate the RAF was two weeks from collapse when Hitler ordered London targeted. This change in targeting priority gave the RAF time to rebuild their air fields.

This change would have crippled British air forces, weakening their defenses and preventing them from mounting further raids into Germany. Operation sealion, the Invasion of Great Britain, would have gone ahead on schedule. That would have forced a British surrender before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and before the U.S. got pulled into the war.

The Reich would have been able to focus on a one front war against the Soviets and not had to deal with bombing raids on their industrial heartland during the rest of the war. Germany victory would have been a walk from that point.

1. Not declared war on the United States when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour (he wasn't required to by the terms of the Tripartite pact)

2. Paused after the invasion of Poland and invaded the USSR as soon as weather allowed in 1940 instead of invading the West.

3. Liberated the parts of the USSR they conquered rather than enslaving them (they could be enslaved after USSR and the West had fallen)

4. Headed directly for Moscow and Stalingrad rather than bearing South to the oil fields. The target should have been Stalin and the Politburo. Cut the head off the beast and it will fucking die. Only after the USSR capitulates in 1940 / 1941 do you worry about the West. They won't do shit because they want the USSR gone as much as anybody.

5. Once the USSR has fallen, declare an armistice and peace terms with the West on the basis that you will get lebensraum in the conquered East.

6. After moving necessary troops back into West Germany and rearming, assault the West in May 1942. Pound the British RAF airfields into dust and do not stop until they have no airforce to speak of. Then surround with wolf packs and starve them to surrender.

7. Declare "Peace in Europe" while you develop the atomic bomb. Drop on Washington and New York. USA capitulates.

This

There are 4 ways I can think of that would've single handedly won the war

>1) Given rommel the supplies he needed to take advantage of his massive gains and strategic advantage in Africa. If he could have taken the suiez canal, he would have full control of oil from the middle east supplying Britain. He would've starved the Allies of supplies and their armies wouldn't be able to move, nor their planes. Rommel was a tactical genius and constantly won decisive battles, but couldn't push and make gains since ne was never resupplied. If only a small fraction of what was sent to Barbarosa was redirected to him, he would've had control of the middle east in a matter of months.

2) Started Barbarosa a few months earlier. The harsh winter stopped the operation dead in its tracks, allowing the Russians time to rebuild, regroup, and encircle Hitler's armies. If he set out a few months earlier, he would've been able to take Stalingrad, securing victor in the East by cutting off Russian oil supplies.

3) Put more effort into the ejt fighter programme. This programme was finished months before the end of the war and they had working fighters, but at that point the war was lost. One allied pilot recounted his experience with a German jet as "something flew right past us, so fast we didn't even know what it was, we couldn't track it at all and before we knew it, it was gone." With that technology Germany would easily have air superiority, stopped any bombing of Germany and would in the logn run, prevent the USA from being able to drop nukes on Germany.

4) Focused their V2 strikes on European positions, instead of British cities. In WW2 they fired something like 20,000 V2s at Britain's population centres. As we now know, all of this was a waste of resources. If instead these V2 missles were bombing Allied positions in Europe, they would'vbe had a much more impactful effect/

They did not need to open a serious front
They just needed it to be a possibility to allow Russia to be over spread
If you believe the Japanese did not have the logistics to do that then you sure as hell have know they did not have the ability to pose a serious threat to Hawaii beyond opportunistic bombing

True, Germany was fucked one way or another. Attack the Soviets, practically no chance of success. Don't attack the Soviets, get invaded within a year or two by an organized juggernaut.

>annexation of Britain

Fucking kek, where does this meme keep coming from? Sea Lion was never going to work. Napoleon's wacky invasion plans pre-Trafalgar had a higher chance of success.

he couldnt. He was a shit tier leader and only autistic faggots worship him out of bitterness to piss off normies

Not tried to compromise and negotiate with Allies/Soviets. Not show compassion at Dunkirk. More ruthless against international financiers.

>Without saying ''4'', name me a single answer to ''2+2=?''

Still, I'll play:

Given the fact that success in Barbarossa was very near, one might assume that victory in the west (peace with Britain or full surrender) could very well have led to the demise of the Soviet Union. We can assume that victory over the Soviet Union would have freed an insane amount of military equipment and personell (millions of Germans fought on the eastern front, way more men than in w.-Europe and much better trained and equipped too), as well as making accessible a large amount of resources, including oil and iron ore. Thus, every action that could have secured peace with the Bongs could have led to a succesful Barbarossa and thus to final victory. So, any one of the single actions below:

>Not let the British army escape at Dunkirk
This would have severely hampered the British morale and war effort, possibly causing the already wavering Britain to petition for peace

>Focus Luwtwaffe bombing campaigns on strategic locations like factories, RADAR installations and RAF airfields
This would have destroyed the British ability to fight and to sustain their military, plus it would have made future terror bombings way less costly in terms of Luftwaffe losses, further lowering British morale and industrial capacity

>Increase the size and power of the Kriegsmarine, particularly regarding aircraft carriers
This would have made Seelöwe possible, obviously ending Britain (the British land defense was terrible)

All these three actions, when succesful, would also have destroyed the ability of the USA to gain a foothold in Europe, so they too would have had to petition for peace or continue a futile Sitzkrieg-style war

The correct answer is Dunkirk. If Hitler wanted to roll the Brits there would be absolutely nothing they could do to stop him. UK would have been completely out of the equation and he could have taken his sweet ass time with the Battle of Britain.

Pretty much all Russia scenarios assume that Russians would have surrended after fall of Moscow when they'd have just kept on trolling.

It depends really. Many factors here. Securing the continental European conquest defensively... who knows, I think the Germans would develop an atomic weapon before the russians.


If WW1 was disasters, second conflict was the final nail for Europe.

Thanks Germany.

Created a slavic 5th column by not making slavs untermensch while prosecuting the war.

Yeah the Manhattan Project is a really underestimated event that really isn't explained very well. The average person thinks it was like a dozen super smart scientists and a lab underground.

Good post

1) Agree, the failing in North Africa is probably the single biggest blunder. That would've ended Britain and the US would've never bothered. Could've used the advantages of the German army, gained a lot of resources and at the same time take Britain out of the game but keeping the British empire alive, which is exactly what Hitler wanted

2) He planned it a month and a half earlier, because of the whole Yugoslavia deal. That was his second biggest mistake. Third probably was Dunkirk,

3) Agree

4) At that point it really was prolonging the inevitable, not sure if that would've mattered

>Louis XV
>Disaster-tier for France
If anything, Louis XIV is the one that sealed the fate of France, since neither Louis XV or XVI could even come close to his image, and what he did for France at that time.
Louis XV held the country how he could, but Louis XVI who shouldn't even have been King is the one who made the disastrous decisions.

Ultimately screwed no matter what he does, if "not start wars" isn't an option. The only question is whether Germans raped/shot get by Soviets, get nuked into oblivion by Americans, or worst of all, hit with that incredibly nasty strain of anthrax the British had developed*. Germany was a great power trying to compete with superpowers, even if nobody fully realized it at the time.

*Which is so dangerous that their 1947 testing site on a tiny Scottish island was uninhabitable until 1990

Göring was the one who fucked up the jet fighter program

Not declared war on america, would have probably helped.

Told the Luftwaffe to invest in everything necessary to properly carry out long bombing campaigns.

Yes but why bother making the situation simple in any case
In each case it forces the situation which doesnt offer an advantage
The Dutch East Indies could be attacked or seized but while it probably results in war with Britain and the US it doesnt gurantee it
The main problem is they were in a race against time in many situations but they guaranteed that time factor to not matter by taking actions that ensured a disastrous war instantly

>>Without saying ''4'', name me a single answer to ''2+2=?''

The point was they're too easy, without naming specifics.
Everything in here probably was suggested by at least one general, so technically it'd be listening to his generals.

Listen to his generals and don't start wars.

3-Yeah, the jet fighter would've turned the war around if he hadn't insisted on it being a bomber.

>GIVE KARL DONITZ ALL RESOURCES HE NEEDS FOR ALL OUT UNRESTRICED U-BOAT WAR ON THE ATLANTIC, FUCK THE USELESS BATTLESHIPS
>dont tell your troops to halt when they are literally few km away from dunkirk and complete annihilation of the BEF
>during battle of britain dont just switch from bombing airfields to bombing cities, better yet dont even start the pointless air campaign that achieved nothing in the long un
>tell mussolini to BTFO from his roman empire pipedream and dont trust the italians with anything

The US was already bombing German subs.
War with the US was inevitable, both sides agreed on that, Hitler just wanted the propaganda value of declaring war first.

Which leaves less manpower and resources available for other tasks and programs. This is the problem with the "why didn't he just invest in x?" line of thinking. Germany in WWII was not the US in WWII, it didn't have a borderline infinite amount of money, manpower, and resources to throw at every aspect of the war.

...

...

>for smashing the Boer regime

Guess they're skipping the part where they threw children in concentration camps to starve...

>Not including Joop den Uyl and Willem Drees foe the Netherlands

Still, rate my options

The Finn speaks truth

It was also his obligation due to the alliance with Japan

>the sheer level of bluepill being pushed.