Was it ever possible for the Axis to win WWII:

Was it ever possible for the Axis to win WWII:

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE
m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVi865H3IJc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Maybe if they defeated the Russians and took malta years before.

How Germany could have won the WW2
>Had operation Barbarossa started on time instead of 2 week delay because of Italian fail in balkans
>Had Hitler listen to his Generals
>Had Japan attacked SU from flank instead of being pussies and just pillaging poor villages and civilians in pacific
>Not oppress Ukrainians who already hated communists
>start War production UP from start like in the end days of war when you started losing

Capturing moscow would be the end.

operation Barbarossa was a mistake

not really, they didnt have the manpower to fight the soviet union, britain would never have surrendered no matter how many convoys got sunk, and the usa had a basically untouchable industrial capacity to supply everyone

maybe if they followed the z plan, but its widely known that the soviets were going to invade before then

No

Cool Alien Space Bats hypothesis.

Yes if Italy was actually doing something and not only making it worse.

And what are your credentials ? Did napoleon defeat russia when they took moscow ?

Hitler did listen to his generals
youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE

Yes. In 1941 they should have put all resources into the conquest of North Africa with the Italians and the conquest of the Middle East through Turkey.

Turkey was a backward shithole with a dire army at this time. Nowhere near modernised. They should have overrun them and captured Iraq's oilfields as well as the ones on other Middle Eastern countries.

This would've been perfect because not only would it have secured the much prized oil for the Reich, but it would have given them another border with Russia, one right beside the oilfields of Baku. Only then should they have invaded Russia, captured the oilfields in Baku instantly, while also going for Moscow from Europe proper.

It was different time not Napoleon this time. Moscow at time was major population and economic centre this time SU would surrender in days after Moscow would be taken

they won, they had a much better k/d ratio

There are a few possibilities that could increase the likelihood, but it isn't certain.
1. Hitler doesn't bitch out and stall at Dunkirk, stupidly thinking that if he lets the British go politely, they'll be more willing to surrender. Should've kept going and wiped them out when he had momentum on his side.
2. Don't call off Barbarossa for a month just to invade Yugoslavia for slighting you. The invasion was purely for vengeance and should've been put off for the future. If they had that extra month, they would've probably been able to march into Moscow.
3. For the love of God, go straight to Moscow instead of focusing on stupid symbolic victories like Leningrad and the Ukraine. Stalingrad was another campaign built around the symbolism of taking down the core of communism itself, but it is a little justified because of the oil it opened the doors to. Still, if Hitler was more preoccupied with taking Russia, he should've went straight for the government.

Future conquerors, realize that these three issues could've been done away with if Hitler wasn't obsessed with symbolism and being taken over by megalomania. Don't ever think a sworn enemy is going to surrender to you just because you let them off easy. Don't take your eye off the main prize by going after some small piece of land just because they overthrew a government sympathetic to you. Don't count on the people of Russia to just lay down their guns and stop fighting after a few symbolic wins.

Wrong. Majority of the industry was shipped off to the Ural.
Germany could never win the war and hold all the vast territory.
USSR would not surrender if Moscow was taken, in fact Germany COULDN'T TAKE Moscow because the Far Eastern divisions reached Moscow just in time. If Germany would somehow advance faster, Stalin would sent those divisions faster back.

This is another crucial mistake by Hitler, not sending more reinforcements to Rommel and taking his campaign as seriously as he should've. Defeating the British in the Middle East would not only get him even more oil, but deliver a major blow to a major adversary. Britain wouldn't have a foothold in the ME anymore, the Mediterranean would be rendered Lake Axis, and it would allow them to travel all of the way up to Russia through the Caucuses and Black Sea.

Point number 1 is based on fan-fiction and nothing in reality, try again.

>if you let your enemies go, you win

Point two and be agreed upon.

Point three totally disregards strategic importance of Leningrad and the fact that they needed to go through Ukraine to grt to Moscow. Ukraine was pack loaded with grain fields and Nationalists willing to foght against the Communists.

Symbolic victories like Leningrad and Ukraine? They had to pass Ukraine to get to the Caucusus.., Leningrad = KV-1 tank factory, those tanks were stronger than any German tank on start of the war. Stalingrad was to be a defensive stronghold for the Caucusus offensive.

Yugoslavia was invaded because Hitler didn't trust them and feared of a possible attack in the future.

Dunkerque wasn't Hitler's decision but von Rundsted's because the line was too stretched and they suffered heavy casualties.
Then Hitler issued the Halt Order to bomb and shell them and later on launched an offensive that was repelled by mostly French who launched minor counter-attacks all the time even when outnumbered 1:20.

Hitler did nothing wrong

Not according to his generals, not to mention the famous Adolf quote "they should all come back to Germany leaving the army in my hands"

>muh Siberians saved Moscow
They only had 8 divisions with two of them barely being equipped. They didn't do the work everyone claims they did.

They should have more time to prepare to the Barbarossa and have better allies than Italian fagots. While preparing they could kill more polish subhumans...

Maybe if Hitler had waited to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia

>The invasion was purely vengeance.
Uh no, Prince Paul was overthrown in a British and Soviet backed coup. Documents found by the Germans in Belgrade prove this (Much like documents found in Warsaw prove that the US was secretly applying pressure to Poland not to find any diplomatic solution with Hitler) Yugoslavia then joined the allies, now there was an allied country on Germany's border, it had no choice but to invade.
>Leave the Ukraine
The reason the Ukraine was taken was because there were over 650,000 men that were presenting a real danger to Germany's flank. Many historians agree that the decision to take the Kiev and secure Germany's flank was unavoidable and the right one to make.
>Stalingrad
Stalingrad was a major juncture along the Volga River for transports in and out of the Caucuses. If one takes Stalingrad then theoretically, one has a free hand to pivot to the Caucuses facing little opposition. That being said, the symbolic nature cannot be denied as well.
All in all, Hitler's endeavor in the USSR was mostly due to bad information. The Abwehr had informed Hitler that there was only something akin to 50 or so divisions in the entire USSR and they misplaced their positions. They also greatly underestimated the military and economic potential of the USSR in wartime. Hitler found just that many divisions on the Russo-German border in the Bialystok region! Hitler admits this much when he discusses the operation with the Finnish leader Mannerheim in a secretly recorded conversation (The only time you'll ever hear Hitler speak normally - he had a very deep voice in fact)

NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI NEEKERI

>Alien space bats
Go back to alternativehistory.com and suck off CalBear's dick.

In all seriousness, they severely underrated Russia. They might be able to squeak out a bloody win with them if they can somehow get the Japanese to hold off on the US and attack Russia with them, but that was never going to happen under the time table Hitler wanted them to. So you'd have to tell Mussolini to eat a dick, not sperg out at Yugoslavia just yet, and make a beeline straight to Moscow and take out the government while simultaneously taking the oil that lay beyond Stalingrad. Russia would never win the war without that oil, and Hitler knew it and that's why he went for Stalingrad in the first place. This may have been plausible if he didn't waste so much time in the Ukraine and taking Kiev for symbolism. You also have to remember, Hitler wasn't just for taking the cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad, he wanted to raise them to the floor. It likely would've had to have happened, regardless, because the Russians were never going to give up the fight for their homeland, even if the Soviet government was taken out of the picture. Hitler wanted to let the Russians and other Slavs starve to death while he took all of the food and supplies for Germany. It was going to be a bloody fight until the end, and I just don't see Germany holding on.

8?
It were 32 Divisions from the Far East and Siberia. They threw back the Germans from Moscow. That's what I said and I don't care about your strawman "everyone claims they did"

Had the harsh and unexpected winter not set in the USSR would've fallen.

It was definitely doable, given the discipline and technological superiority of the German units and their tactical advantage in terms of mobility when fighting over a large terrain.

Hitler's boner for Stalingrad was a problem, since it had no strategic advantage, and holding it nullified all of the German tactical strengths and turned fighting into a war of attrition, which benefited the slavic subhuman hordes.

Which only 8 of them participated on the Western Front and the Battle for Moscow. Siberians are the ultimate WWII meme.

The Abwehr was heavily infiltrated by the Soviets.

I don't go there, I only use the term.
So what is your point?

It were 18 that were active during the offensive. Not 8.

He didn't invade the rest. Czechoslovakia was crumbling internally as the Slovaks declared their independence and the Poles and Hungarians took their ethnic lands as well as Germany. In 1939 Emil Hacha (Leader of Czechoslovakia) was summoned to Berlin to discuss the chaos in Bohemia. Hitler was concerned that a state in its weakened form would be easier to subvert by communists (As Germany had been in 1919 during the Spartacus and other various Communist uprisings throughout the country) Not to mention the Czechs had already shown their willingness to cooperate with the Soviets as shown by the 1935 mutual defense pact between Czechoslovakia, France and the USSR. To this effect, the USSR had been building airfields in Czechoslovakia right next to the German border posing a direct threat to the German heartland and its industry. Hitler realized he had to act now or someone else would, most likely the communists. Hacha came to Berlin stating that he was 'putting the fate of his country into the hands of the Fuhrer'. Hacha's political aide wrote in his memoirs that despite Hacha having two heart attacks twice (He was a very old man with a weak heart remember) there was no coercion or threat of force on the Germans part. The next morning German soldiers entered Prague and Hitler declared the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The Germans actually then helped the Czechs sending food and clothing and restocking their shops to aid their economy (Which like other countries was still suffering from the Great Depression) Chamberlain privately agreed that Hitler made the right decision but public opinion in Britain would never allow him to state that openly.

well yeah. Most generals were from respected or well known prussian familes. They don't want to taint their names and reputation. o it's easier to just blame everything on Hitler.

Inavsion of france, had hitler listened to the bulk of his generals. Perhaps they wouldn't even had captured france. So he went with guderians plan. One of his Generals.

And even as late as 1944 Hitler listened to Walter Model. And the result was catastrophic.

33:00 min into the video you can hear about this example
youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE

Yes, if we didnt go towards Hitkmlers rush and gamble to eternal glory and instead waited 18 years for greater population we could have won.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVi865H3IJc

18-30 divisions were sent West, only 8 participated directly at Moscow, two being ill-equipped calvary units from central Asia.

Hitler hadnto do what he could as he had absolute control for the nation before he died so its understandable he would havw been adssasinated by counter revolutionaries and the reoch eould never have eben gott3n a chance but it got one to establish and crush all enemies.

But since the russian industry was so mobile. I don't think capturing moscow would have won the war. Even if it was a big hub in the 40's. All the major people would have already fled the city, and most of the industry would have moved east. So they would have been stuck trying to defend just the city in the middle of the winter. But we can't really know. It could even have shortened the war because of all the casualities germany would have taken. Or perhaps russia actually would have surrendered. But I don't think it's likely

>The Abwehr was heavily infiltrated by the Soviets.
This. The collaborated greatly with the Red Orchestra. Canaris himself was involved in the July Assassination attempt.

Withoit moscow soviet union has no control or centralization.

34 were sent to the West.
18 participated directly in the counter-offensive at Moscow.

No, once the City of London and New York City backed the Bolsheviks it was impossible. Germany was doomed before Hitler was even appointed Chancellor.

That's correct. If one looks at Hitler ambitious ideas, the preferred position the German army would have to take for Hitler to consider Operation Barbarossa a success is the A-A Line from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan.

Honestly if Hitler hadn't invaded France and waited till the 50's like he promised Mussolini, he'd have had France, rebuilt Italy, Portugal and Spain on his side withought shooting a bullet

France invaded Hitler dummy.

Not to mention if he supported the KMT in China rather than the Japs he would have had a massive second front against the USSR...

Maybe 18 divisions would have participated by the end of December to January, but during October and November in the autumn months the Soviets literally only had 8 divisions of Siberians in and around the city. An extra 80,000 troops is indeed useful, but the Russians had more han that nesr y reserves.

The Siberians didn't save Moscow, they helped at least. The real savior was Zhukov if anything.

My point is, no matter what you do, there was no way he could win this war completely. Which I am in agreement with you over.

>Yugoslavia was invaded because Hitler didn't trust them and feared of a possible attack in the future.
What threat would Yugoslavia pose to Hitler if they invaded him? Of course you don't want random invasions happening during your main conquest, but then why not postpone Barbarossa until the Spring if it is such a big deal? You have a very short timetable of defeating Russia, and taking a full month out to route Yugoslavia isn't going to help matters.

>Dunkerque wasn't Hitler's decision but von Rundsted's because the line was too stretched and they suffered heavy casualties.
Yes, Rundsted and Hitler agreed upon issuing the stop until more reserves and supplies could be brought in. However, in the account I am reading from General Halder, it seems that Goring played a part in getting Hitler to allow him to go at it along while the army stood still. The General Staff was not happy about this, and it seems like most of them felt they could have continued on, especially after the Luftwaffe failed at their objective.

>Uh no, Prince Paul was overthrown in a British and Soviet backed coup. Documents found by the Germans in Belgrade prove this (Much like documents found in Warsaw prove that the US was secretly applying pressure to Poland not to find any diplomatic solution with Hitler) Yugoslavia then joined the allies, now there was an allied country on Germany's border, it had no choice but to invade.
British scholars seem to go against the notion that the British had been a player in planing and orchestrating the coup. They may have supported it, as did the communists, but they did not play a part in it.

>Hadn't invaded France. Britain and France declared war on Germany simultaneously on 3rd September 1939. Germany's military strategy relied on lightning battles of rapid conquest. With Germany's incredibly limited resources she could not afford to wait for months on end in a stalemate like Britain and France could. They could play the long game because they had the control of the seas and the empires to supply them with all the materials they need to wage war. The longer Hitler waited, the longer the French and British stockpiled their supplies and gained the advantage. It's why Hitler wanted to strike as soon as possible (Remembering again that a state of war already existed between France and Germany, in fact France had invaded the Ruhr while Germany was preoccupied in Poland but abandoned that plan in favor of taking defensive positions)
>Spain
Spain had just come out earlier that year from the grips of a devastating civil war. No way is Franco putting his country through another war unless he explicitly believed Germany would win. Portugal probably wouldn't act without Spain and possible wouldn't turn on an old ally like Britain.

I was talking about the offensive which happened 5th of December.

>What threat would Yugoslavia pose to Hitler if they invaded him?

Exposed flank.

> it seems that Goring played a part in getting Hitler to allow him to go at it along while the army stood still

That's true because he was the one that assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could demolish them without losing too much men that were needed further in the offensive.

>All in all, Hitler's endeavor in the USSR was mostly due to bad information. The Abwehr had informed Hitler that there was only something akin to 50 or so divisions in the entire USSR and they misplaced their positions. They also greatly underestimated the military and economic potential of the USSR in wartime. Hitler found just that many divisions on the Russo-German border in the Bialystok region! Hitler admits this much when he discusses the operation with the Finnish leader Mannerheim in a secretly recorded conversation (The only time you'll ever hear Hitler speak normally - he had a very deep voice in fact)
This I can easily agree with, and I've listened to the conversation and found his voice to be surprising. But yes, they severely underestimated not just the Soviets' equipment and numbers, but their will to fight to the very end in a bloody war as well.

Yeah and it still doesn't make the difference you think it does when you take into account there were already 5 entire armies comprised of dozens of divisions, all reserve troops.

Again, you're not understanding of the 18 divisions sent to Moscow only 6 of them were well equipped to fight. The argument I'm making is they were helpful in a combined effort, they didn't singlehandedly save Moscow like you're trying to push.

>British scholars seem to go against the notion that the British had been a player in planing and orchestrating the coup. They may have supported it, as did the communists, but they did not play a part in it.
British intelligence played a huge part in allowing the opposition to overthrow the government. The Soviets also played a role as well. Theses documents were discovered in Belgrade by the Germans and I assume they were published in the German White Book (If the Germans continued with that practice after 1940)

Stop reading wikipedia, Hitler promised Mussolini he wouldn't go to war prior to 1950 or so and France and Britain weren't ready to attack Germoney even after the declaration of war, France was headed towards a nationalist revolution and Hitler killed it in the egg.

>Again, you're not understanding of the 18 divisions sent to Moscow only 6 of them were well equipped to fight *and actually took park in the counter-attack

If they didn't become infamous for breaking treaties they could have created a peace plan and controlled upto the french border and poland.

Instead Hitler embraced his inner Jew and wanted everything. He destroyed Europe and handed it over to Russia and the USA to play with.

Bravo Eternal Kraut.

>launching a land invasion of Russia without nukes
WHOOPS

No, they lacked the industry, population, or navy to win.

>France heading to nationalist revolution
If we are talking about revolutions, the only foreseeable revolution I could possibly deduct coming from France at that time (Unless you have proof otherwise) is a communist revolution.
> France and Britain weren't ready to attack Germany even after the declaration of war
That's the point though. They declared war on Germany and either Germany struck first or allow them build the resources on the continent and face a WWI situation all over again. Germany simply struck first, which was well within her right to do since France and Germany were already at war.
>Promised Mussolini he wouldn't go to war prior to 1950
Things don't always go according to plan do they? Hitler believed that the allies wouldn't go to war over Poland but they did. Now Hitler was forced into war much earlier than he expected and extremely under prepared for the magnitude of war he was faced with (World War that is) He didn't demand Italy to join the war. Mussolini merely saw an opportunity and tried to seize it.

Kek, France didn't know if it wanted to be Communist or if it wanted to be Nationalist, get outta here.

>MUH MOSCOW
You say symbolic victories are the problem but that is the ultimate symbolic victory. You think capturing that city would have won the war? Especially if leningrad and ukraine are in soviet hands? You fucking retards are why napoleon lost, another huge MUH MOSCOW faggot. Hitler was right, you had to economically destroy the soviets. Stalingrad is where the oil came up from baku through the volga, taking Stalingrad was almost as good as taking Baku. Taking ukraine wiped their food, kiev wiped their factories, leningrad wiped their naval port. Everything had a good reason

Britain dindu nuffin. We just went to war over a country we knew we couldn't defend and then rejected all peace offers from Germany because muh Churchill needs to pay off his debts. Wasn't there a new Muslim sex ring discovered in England this week? You should really get on to that but don't state your opposition too loudly old boy, we wouldn't you being arrested for hate speech now would we.

>Especially if leningrad and ukraine are in soviet hands?
I don't think a cities under siege really count as being in Soviet hands.

meant for

>Deflecting historical fact to modern news

Really makes you think. Bravo Naziboo you sure showed me.

...

*RAFFS IN MONGRORIAN*

stop fucking around in stalingrad and decapitate their actual political leadership.
stop dicking around avoiding malta.

sue for peace giving up half of captured territory before the US got involved, OR turn on japan and say they dindu nuffin against the US instead of declaring war against them.

It's a crap shoot really. Stalin would have invaded the Reich in 42 or 43 anyways so I don't fault Hitler for Barbarossa. After Fall Blau failed any chance of totally defeating the Soviet Union evaporated. One can argue that invading the Soviet Union in late May instead of late June would have bought 4 more weeks of campaign weather and possibly lend itself to the fall of Moscow. After reading a great deal on Stalin, I doubt he would have capitulated, but the fall of Moscow would have made supplying Leningrad difficult. Also if Moscow fell in say mid to late November of 41, it would have mitigated the ensuing Soviet winter offensive due to the fact the Moscow would have been easier for the Reich to defend, and it was the staging are for the Soviet reserve forces used in the counter offensive. Since the U.S. was already luke warm on sending lend-lease aid to the Soviets, with Moscow and Leningrad in German hands, I doubt any lend-lease aid would have sent to Stalin. With out lend-lease early in the war I suspect Stalin would have sued for peace. Without the east front to contend with, I suspect clearing the Reich out of North Africa would have been difficult and France impossible.
2nd possibly isn't total victory, but a scenario that lets the Reich survive. Hitler abides by Mansteins theory, and after the disaster at Stalingrad, commit to a mobile defense in dept doctrine and attempt to bleed the Soviets out. If the Dneiper offensive failed in 1943, there may have been a negotiated peace giving the Germans just enough time to bolster their defenses in France and hold the winter line in Italy.

Yes, Germany should've pushed straight for Moscow and St. Petersburg and prepare for shitty weather and infrastructure. If Germany would've concentrated those thousands of tanks on Moscow, he would've been done in no time

You don't know shit about French history or pre war politics, the socialist and communist movements were crippled and only recovered during the collavoration and the nationalist ones had massive momentum thanks to the 6 February 1934, not to mention the pacifists and the fascists who were gaining ground thanks to the spotless Italian regime ans the French endorsment of Franco...

>Yes, Germany should've pushed straight for Moscow and St. Petersburg
They did.

Easy there tiger, wipe the foam your mouth next time. I'm sorry, but the capital city is a little more than a symbolic victory, you know being the place where the government and central communications system is located. Get rid of the Soviet government, and obviously all of the Russians wouldn't just quit and let themselves die, but it would create so much chaos that Hitler and his army might have a chance of taking the whole damn country. It's absolutely retarded to think that taking out the entire highly centralized government of the USSR would be a bad or zero-sum move. I wasn't even saying Stalingrad was a bad idea, because even though his plan of complete utter decimation in order to kill communism as an ideology was a large part of his reasoning, the vast oil fields that it led to would decide the winner of the war. It would be a lot easier to fight that battle if the, once again highly centralized, government was taken out. They got to the outskirts of Moscow and could even see the Kremlin in eye sight before the icy cold winter made them stop and then backtrack once Zhukov started his attack in early December.

How come Switzerland was never invaded by Germany?

The Germans would have a 250 mile exposed southern flank had they not cleared out the Kiev pocket. Hitler screwed the pouch come 1942, but in 1941 they did extraordinary with the resources at hand. Basically with the Soviet Union the Reich bit off more then it can chew

>It's a crap shoot really. Stalin would have invaded the Reich in 42 or 43 anyways so I don't fault Hitler for Barbarossa.
This is a thing I always have trouble with. Were the Soviets definitely going to invade in the near future? I remember reading in Kissinger's Diplomacy that they had no clue what Stalin was thinking at the time, or at least conflicting evidence, and that time and the release of records would tell us if he truly did intend on striking first at some point.

I saw someone on here claim a while ago that Hitler should have directed all his forces at Leningrad and Stalingrad so as to take these two cities first, rather than splitting his forces into three as he did. I have no understanding of military strategy so can someone tell me if this is completely retarded or not?

>Invade Sweden for the minerals
>Earlier Barbadossa in March/April
>Alliance with Turkey

These could have done it

>Invade Sweden for the minerals
For what reason? They were already getting their metals from Sweden anyway.

They encircled Leningrad. They halted the advance on Moscow and never committed to taking the city. This was actually done because two of the leading military thinkers of the time, Jodl and Brauchitsch, wrestled with the idea of taking everything else and allowing the remaining Soviets to funnel into Moscow, using it as a death trap. The plan didn't work since they couldn't cut them off in the Caucasus by seizing Stalingrad.

>I'm sorry, but the capital city is a little more than a symbolic victory, you know being the place where the government and central communications system is located. Get rid of the Soviet government, and obviously all of the Russians wouldn't just quit and let themselves die, but it would create so much chaos that Hitler and his army might have a chance of taking the whole damn country. It's absolutely retarded to think that taking out the entire highly centralized government of the USSR would be a bad or zero-sum move.

THANK YOU

>How come Switzerland was never invaded by Germany?

He had all his divisions split

Nipe, Hitler, once again, fucked up, Stalin was the Bismarck of slavs, he wanted pan-slavism but hitler went full muh commies when his israeli handlers chimped out.

no, the ONLY lose condition in the United States Playbook, aka the ONLY world scenario where the United States is at serious risk of capitulation, is a world where someone unites Russian resources with Germany Industry. The absolute be-all end-all goal of U.S. foreign policy is that this condition never be created. The United States would have gotten much more involved much faster if the Soviets had Fallen.

no. hitler should have stopped at austria and czechoslovakia.

>Frog swimming lessons

they held the gold in neutral territory.
there was very little benefit to taking the territory
they literally loaded every single mountain pass with foxholes and explosives as to make them impenetrable or absurdly costly to take, able to be completely collapsed under the mountains, and then clean up for usage.

Capturing iraq or mideast oil does nothing for germany

They still have to get it back to europe. Britain controls the seas.

All of the meaty well equipped Soviet div's were in the central sector. According to Hoth in Panzer Operations, the main motorized units were all in the central sector. It would've been a mistake not to tackle every sector. The only area they could have delivered less punch and conserved resources is in the north, where the Soviets did the worst. General Winter takes no sides, for some reason westerners forget that.

As much as I don't have qualms with Ludendorvian and early Hitlerian theory, 1940 and onward were just a series of mistakes for Hitler.

>implying the Soviets or the Western Puppets would allow Germany to survive, making pacifism the easier route to Germany's destruction

Did you know that Croatia was officially the last country that stopped being Nazi?

Did Hitler have plans for Africa?

Faggots should have knocked out Malta and stomped the Allies out of North Africa before even considering invading the Soviets.

nobody gave a fuck until he invaded poland.

Everyone was appeasing Germoney until the final escalation.

Thanks.

The plans were to send the Afrika Korps to help the Italians in their pitiful fighting. They could have went straight to Egypt if they were sensible.

I don't think Africa was an important goal for the Germans considering how little they put into it.

man, that's the greatest webm.

wtf is up with that hold out in ethiopia staying axis for like 2 years while the rest was taken?

Think of Stalin as little finger from GOT. Stalin waited a week after the Reich did invading Poland. He insured that Britain and France declared war on Germany hence freeing him if blame. However, he severely misjudged the capabilities of the Wermacht. Stalin figured that the French, Germans, and British would have fought themselves into mutual civil and economic exhaustion. At the oppertune time, he would have moved into Europe with little opposition. When France fell quickly, he quit the purges and rapidly increased the size of the Red army and reorganized it into an "Offensive" force. The reason why the initial stages of Barbarossa were so successful was due to the Red Army arrayed in an Offensive posture.

Of course it was. I've done it plenty of times in HoI3, maybe they were just retarded back in the day.