What would you have done differently pol?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/Lx0Dz3sK
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The timing.

He couldn't have invaded in better timing. Germany had every advantage to begin the war and still lost.

Why didn't Hitler San go instantly zerg rush and take Moscow instead of prioritisng Stalingrad?

thats not where stalingrad is

The Wehrmacht wasn't going to beat the Red Army. The USSR was just way stronger than anyone had expected.

But we btfoed the Russians before. We did it, so why couldn't they?

There is no right timing. He was stuck with the brits because he wanted to weaken them so that they won't attack meanwhile.

Because the Luftwaffe lost the battle of Britain.
Because they had to invade Britain.
Because the brits didn't want to make peace.
Because 100,000 of their soldiers survived at Dunkirk.
Because yet again the Luftwaffe failed at decimating them on the beach.
Because they couldn't have the panzer divisions focus on Dunkirk.
Because they wanted to conquer France rapidly.

It was a failure from the start, but meanwhile countless jews were killed and that... that is priceless

Rules of War

>1. Never invade Russia from the west in winter

Because they failed to take Moscow after the first winter. Hitler realised the war was going to be tougher than he expected and needed to go after economic targets (IE. Oil industry) which was in the south. We suspect he overcommitted to Stalingrad to keep pressure off his armies still in the north. At best it was that, at worst he was baited by the Red army to believe he had almost won the war and should just stay the course.

tell japan not to attack pearl harbor

The Red army changed a lot since then. The Wehrmacht expected the Red army to fight like how they fought the Japs and Finn's but they had improved a lot. Also the Wehrmacht was actually shit and had terrible logistics. They never had the capability to supply the army after 500 miles

Not declare war on the united states.

Tell Gamelin to actually push in 1939.

>2. Know your enemy like your best friend

Because Germany didn't have it's own oil supplies, meanwhile Stalingrad is the gateway to the Caucus, which is where a shitload of Russia's oil is.

Mongols actually invaded in winter because the frozen rivers acted like highways for their horses and snow meant unlimited water. Europeans just aren't culturally adapted to fight in Russian winter while steppe people are.

>3. Learn from the mistakes of past occupations

Russia's geography allows for true defence in depth, so the best way to beat them is to destabilise them.

>4. Never commit an ambush on the USA

Don't bail out Mussolini in Africa.

Have the Afrika Corps act as another Panzer division for Army Group North, and Leningrad can be taken in the initial push.

Beyond that, don't launch Typhoon in '41, and dig in for the winter. Go for broke against Moscow in '42.

Not do it? Concentrate on completely subduing Britain and British held colonies in north Africa and ME before even thinking about moving on Russia. At least by that time, the atomic bomb should have been developed

>5. Never invade China from the northwest

Isn't that how the Song empire was invaded by the Mongols? From the north and northwest?

This is a fucking shit map, OP! FUCKING NUHISTORYFAGS REEEEEEEEEEE

just wait for finished jet bomber research then drop bombs directly on stalin from space

You can't beat the Russians by land invasion and even if you bombard them they are going to zerg rush you because there's too many of them.
It was a dumb move, even taking Moscow wouldn't have changed anything. (Napoleon did just that and still lost all of his army and barely got away himself)
They have too much space to fall back/regroup and it's part of their military doctrine.
Stalin didn't plan to invade so Hitler picked a stupid fight which guaranteed his failure.
Without this fight the US would have never entered as they wouldn't have been ready sacrifice millions of soldiers to beat the Nazis and someone would have to do it if the Russians didn't.

hah, that's clever

Build a nuke faster.

You btfoed the Russians in a minor war in the Far East which is to this day very, very rural with low population.
Big conquest, now try and conquer Moscow and then we'll speak.
As far as I know your emperor was ready to capitulate immediately when he saw how quickly the Soviets took Manchuria and some of the smaller Japanese Islands.
He knew it was either the Soviets or the US taking Japan. Lucky for you, your emperor picked the US.
One can only imagine what the Soviets would have done to your people.

Majority USSR losses were civillians. 13.7 millions in area occupied by Germany. For people of USSR it wasn't the war for communism, their leader or whatever. It was the war for survival and people were ready to fight to the very end.
You hear a lot that in Ukraine people accepted Germans as liberators. And it's true, but only in the beginning. Later even those people who didn't side with Soviets, were fighthing both of them. Like Bandera and UPA.
Maybe just maybe if Germans didn't treat the people like subhumans, it would've gone a little different. And don't start with "they dindu nuffin" bullshit. We all have grandparents and great grandparents who lived through it. There's nothing good they can tell about Germans and the way they treated them. Even the difference how Soviet POWs were treated in comparison to Western POWs...

>there's too many of them
You do understand that Germany had like 80 million people back then? Add Italy (42 million), Hungary (10 million), Romania (15 million) and Slovakia (2 or 3 million).
USSR lost Ukraine (30 million), Belarus (10 million), Baltic States (not sure, few million) and large parts of Russia early on, from a population of 170 million.
Manpower potential was roughly favoring Axis. Let's not forget USSR kept a lot of forces in Far East even after they knew Japanese won't invade.
So fuck off with muh zerg rush idiocy you learned from video games. Soviets won because they were better at using their potential. That's it.

Sorry, Ukraine had 40 million people.

The nuke isn't going to win the war, especially at the numbers that could be produced at the time.
Operation Unthinkable (dropping 100 nukes on Russia) was not executed because according to US military planners the Soviets would still win this war and only use it as an excuse to take all of Europe.
And what then? Soviets are gonna create nukes themselves and then at some point justifiably start exterminating Anglos? Idiocy.

Bullshit. The Germans would have rolled the commies if they weren't forced to fight on 2 fronts.

Nothing was going on on the Western front. The US only entered the war when it was clear that the Soviets are going to conquer Germany.
They didn't have the will to fight themselves and lose millions of soldiers.

Then it turns to naval warfare. RN wins. You have no idea how superior was RN to all it's opponents. Meanwhile, German economy crashes and their POL supplies are wasted away.

Stay the fuck of out the Baltics. Damned commies (on both sides) always dragging us into their retarded wars, and we get to pay for it.

Another one believing like Hitler that he'd be greeted in Ukraine and other Soviet parts as a liberator.
Everyone who is willing to pick up a book knows that is false and that it was a big surprise to Hitler.
They couldn't even keep their supply lines, German soldiers simply starved to death because of all the support they received from locals.
The number of EE fighting on Germanys side was very small, so small in fact that even the largest among them, the Romanian army (100k soldiers) was destroyed in a single day

There was no Western Front until late 1944.
Moscow was in 1941.
Stalingrad in 1942.
Kursk in 1943.
Bagration was few weeks after Normandy landings.
Soviets won because they were better at fighting war. War is more than infantry tactics or weapons as you people imagine.

>But we btfoed the Russians before. We did it, so why couldn't they?
Because the Americans had armed the Russinas during the 30's preparing for the war. They built tank factories way back at the urals to avoid bombing.

I would have waited until England and France were more fully subdued before opening warfare on two fronts.

Don't chimp out in 1939 and start a war
Renegotiate Versailles a couple of years later
Keep your extensive clay
Avoid the death and rape of millions of Germans
Be remembered as a successful leader

wow that was hard, what a dumb fuck

This. Hitler would have won if my grandpa and his buddies never landed at Normandy

I don't believe that. I'm saying Soviets lost majority of that manpower early on while Axis advanced. Thus by late 1941 they had less manpower than Axis.
Furthermore, Germans used slave labor and took resources left and right. Soviets didn't have that option.
Sorry, myth of WW2 German efficiency and what not is a total bullshit. Nazi Germany was neither efficient nor particularly succesful once you see the big picture.
Imperial Germany had far less potential, yet they held their own for 4 years against three great powers in a two front war. Nazis were practically doomed in late 1941.
Nazis were utter failure in every sense and there was literally no realistic way of achieveing anything with such retarded leadership. Surviving German qualities can only take you so far when the leadership and system is awful.

Hitler should have taken prisoners and he should have just bombed Moscow and Stalingrad instead of engaging in urban warfare which is basically a war of attrition.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, they conquered all of Europe so they probably though they could do Russia too. He got Napoleon'd all over again.

LOL idiot, the US forces committed to Normandy were like a flee compared to what the Soviets sent and to the millions of Germans they had killed before this "invasion" even took place.
The US would never have entered the war without that happening. That they entered Europe in 1944, in the last weeks before the fall of Nazi Germany and when most of their armies have already been destroyed says it all.
The US could have never been able to beat Germany back then, not even together with UK.
They didn't have the ability to project that much power so far away.
Germany would have won hands down without the unnecessary invasion of the Soviet Union.

could you go a bit further into how they were inefficient and had poor leadership. how could they have won the war? also how were the soviets more efficient?

just lurking the thread but i'd be curious to read more about these things.

invaded england

Take Moscow fgt

You can't protect ships from the Luftwaffe, user. Had Germany focus all efforts on completely defeating Britain, it would have won. No Britain, no U.S staging on the island, means no invasion of Normandy, means no 2-sided war for Germany. Once Germany developed nuclear weapons, Russia would have been completely subdued in a much more successful operation Barbarossa, and almost complete control of ME oil fields. The U.S was not prepared enough for war at the time. Pearl Harbor happened in 1941, Barbarossa happned that same year. We didn't invade Normandy for 3 more years. I believe Britain would have fallen before the Normandy invasion could have taken place had Barbarossa waited.

Soviet military doctrine back then and even today is to let the enemy enter and attack the supply lines, then overwhelm them.
They did exactly that, burned everything down in the Western parts, moved all factories far back into the East and planned to give up Moscow and take it back later when they've sufficiently starved the Germans with Guerilla tactics.
But the German forces and their supply lines weren't even strong enough to be able to force them to do that.
They couldn't even defend their own territory from Soviet invasion, let alone invade the Soviets.
Invading the Soviet Union was a move that ended Nazi Germany. Not what the UK or US did, for they were to weak to take on the Soviets.

Should have just chilled and used all those Nazi scientists to build jets and nukes before getting America involved.

>Not what the UK or US did, for they were to weak to take on the Soviets.
I meant, they were to weak to take on the Germans, as proven by the fact that the US only dared enter Europe in the last weeks of WWII, when Soviets were already in the process of conquering Europe.

>half of romania occupied by russia

1) not diverted tanks from leningrad's initial assault, probably could have taken it off the march

2) not done the final assault on moscow, prepared defensive lines even a tactical retreat perhaps

3) after battle of kiev more of AG south shouldve gone north, rostov in 1941 was unnecessary and too ambitious

Overall Barbarossa shouldve been a 2 year plan from the onset, the distances involved are just too much to achieve reliably in one 2 season campaign. Though the German situation in december 1941 was still pretty strong considering the massive encirclements they achieved, it couldve been alot more stable with better defensive lines, particularly in the north and center. Also couldve started the invasion a few weeks earlier i believe.

1942 onwards is where the real strategic fuckups pile up. Blau and Citadel had so much wrong with their planning and execution i dont even want to get started

Secure oil fields in middle east first , if we have to kick in ussr's door then get the caucas fields and dont waste everyone trying to take moscow and stalingrad

But of course hindsight is 20/20

Actually carried out the holocaust

You were on point, user.

Give Erich Von Manstein control over the whole operation and let the OKH do their job.


"The main body of the latter would be on the road to Moscow which was the focal point of Soviet Power... whose loss of the regime dare not risk. There were three reasons for this. In contrast to 1812 Moscow was the political center of Russia. Loss of armaments(factories) around and east of Moscow would inflict extensive damage on the Soviet war economy. Moscow was the nodal point of Europeans Russia's traffic network. Its loss would split the Russian defenses in two and prevent the soviet command from ever mounting a single, co-ordinated operation."

It's a long story and I'm too arsed to write everything.
But short examples, arms contracts were given not on the basis of price and efficiency, but rather political reasons.
Industry wasn't put on war footing from the start.
Creation of SS, purely political decision and desire of Himmler to replace Wehrmacht and break the power of their officers.
Politicians (Hitler) making idiotic decisions and trying to micromanage fighting. While Hitler wasn't as retarded about warfare as many presume, he wasn't on the front and he wasn't a trained officer with experience.
Just look at his decision to send 300,000 men to Tunisia. Catastrophic mistake.
Much of German equipment was too costly to make compared to it's performance. Quality is good, but quality at the expense of efficiency is not.
V programs, cost a huge amount yet didn't achieve anything. Some estimate V programs cost as much as Manhattan Project.
Corruption of Nazi leadership, especially Gauleiters who were like dukes of feudal period or something.
Thank God British didn't have their own air forces and naval air forces.
Dude, UK was a superpower at that age, and had the most powerful navy in the world. Germans couldn't do shit.
Soviet military doctrine in 1941 was one of forward defense m8. Stalin dropped the concept of deep battle, and that's not deep battle in any case, surrendering territory was improvisation, not doctrine. That's exactly why they were raped so hard, among other things.

Moscow would just be 1941 Stalingrad if they attacked. Reaching Moscow is one thing, seizing it was another.

War was a mistake. I would just strengthen my shit economically and destroy other countries with my greatness. But then again, Germany was in economical crisis, so I don't know how easy/hard it would be.

>thank god British didn't have their own air forces and naval forces
What is war of attrition, user. Brits only had so much. Like I said before, had Germany focused completely on taking Britain, they would have won.

If Hitler listened to Manstein there wouldn't have been a Stalingrad.

>he doesn't know

Cuz the Imperial Russian Navy

1: was a bunch of coal-powered ironclads
2: had to sail literally 30,000 miles from the Baltics to Africa to Thailand to Japan to fight you guys

Attacking the USSR was Hitler's only option. I wouldn't have pushed so hard into Stalingrad and got my best troops surrounded. They killed a hell of a lot of Soviets in that conflict but they basically had unlimited men and that's when it all went downhill.

I know, you idiot. I don't have the same goals as Shitler had.

>hold back, build massive defensive fortifications
>focus on securing western front and a ceasefire at the least with western powers
>when ready bait Russians into attack
>grind them down with full Wehrmacht able to fight a defensive war rather than losing half the army at Stalingrad
>coordinate with Japan to launch a huge invasion in the Far East at the same time as launching the counterattack when the Russian attack finally stalls
>immediately target industry and oil fields rather than Moscow and Stalingrad

>Attacking the USSR was hitler's only option
No it wasn't... Stalin himself didn't believe Germany to be a threat, nor believed Hitler would be dumb enough to open a 2-front war. It's the reason Hitler's military was able to get to Moscow in the first place, USSR relaxed far too much, and Hitler could have used that to his advantage had he just focused on taking the last Bastian of the western alliance in Britain and waited till germany's scientists finished creating the atom bomb.

thanks. and what about the soviets, what did they do that you would say is right? besides i assume the lower cost of equipment?

>Don't make a secret alliance with USSR
>Don't invade Poland
>Improve relationships with UK/France
>Continue to be apposed to Jews
>Train SAS/SF before the SAS/SF is a thing
>Assassinate leading Jews around the World
>When/if Stalin invades Poland ally with UK/France and crush Russia
>Fascism is now cool and ok
>No super kikes
>Hitler remembered as ok guy
Hitler tried fighting Jews with brute force

>They have too much space to fall back/regroup and it's part of their military doctrine.

Their military doctrine in 1941 was entirely based on attack. They made practically no provision for defense or retreat.

ally with china instead of japan.

>aim on moscow
>start the operation earlier to avoid death by weather
>hand over the job to the generals

>You do understand that Germany had like 80 million people back then? Add Italy (42 million), Hungary (10 million), Romania (15 million) and Slovakia (2 or 3 million).
>USSR lost Ukraine (30 million), Belarus (10 million), Baltic States (not sure, few million) and large parts of Russia early on, from a population of 170 million.
>Manpower potential was roughly favoring Axis. Let's not forget USSR kept a lot of forces in Far East even after they knew Japanese won't invade.
>So fuck off with muh zerg rush idiocy you learned from video games. Soviets won because they were better at using their potential. That's it.

The Germans also had to commit troops to other theaters as well. Italy was entirely committed to Africa, Greece and their own defense. The Germans had to hold Norway, the Low countries, France and fight in Yugoslavia as well as Africa.

The Soviets had the British and Americans as allies. There is no way that the Soviets were behind in manpower. The areas they lost required further German manpower to secure from partisans.

Maybe the german higher-up saw the chinese as backwards good for nothing warlords and expected the japanese to win,also ideology wise the chinese weren't really on the same track with germany.
I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning

>Nothing was going on on the Western front.

Norway alone took 400,000 men to secure from the threat of British invasion.

>There was no Western Front until late 1944.
>Moscow was in 1941.
>Stalingrad in 1942.
>Kursk in 1943.
>Bagration was few weeks after Normandy landings.
>Soviets won because they were better at fighting war.

The Germans still had to secure Norway, the low countries and France. They were fighting in Africa and Yugoslavia. They fought the British in Greece. In 1943 they were fighting the Allies in Italy. They had to defend Germany itself from air raids. Out of Germany's 7 luftflottes, only three of them could be committed to the East because the rest were needed elsewhere.

It should be mentioned that anything that wasn't a german soldier couldn't be considered reliable.
By that i mean at the end of the day, 1 million romanian soldiers are still romanian,they will prioritize romanian objectives
Italians covered the South and in the end they got fucked by the americans.

>what is the EU

vaclav

Because in Russo-Japanese war, Americans financed your side. And in WW2 they financed the soviets.
And you won because the war was in Russian far east, not very favorable position for Russia.

pastebin.com/Lx0Dz3sK

china would have been the better choice.

>By that i mean at the end of the day, 1 million romanian soldiers are still romanian,they will prioritize romanian objectives

The main problem was that the Romanian army was a WWI style force without the proper weaponry to fight a modern war at the time.

serious question. wouldn't a less technically advanced force have been alright for urban combat?

*technologically

>Improve relationships with UK/France
>Continue to be apposed to Jews
Mutually exclusive.

Step 1: Isolate the USSR to Russian border, then create a defensive line.

Step 2: Use defensive line to hold the Red Army back and bide time, make sure that southern Ukrainian defence is the most successful

Step 3: Use biding time to dismantle the British Empire acquire allies, starting with the British and French Resistant forces in the mediterranean

Step 4: Invade Fertile Crescent, use oilfields and prisoners of war to support the defensive line against Red Army.

Step 5: Invade or Iran, and capture Iranian Azerbaijan and launch a subsequent joint invasion of the Caucasus via land and the black sea (Bulgaria, Romania).

Step 6: Caucasus and launch a two pronged attack against Stalingrad from Georgia and the Black Sea (and also south Ukraine).

Step 7: Assuming the Red Army has approached the German border in the North, direct invasion force back towards the invading Red Army.

Step 8: Lure USSR forces to attack from the east in the guise of two front war

Step 9: Retreat Southwards, luring the now larger force either south towards the axis invasive army or west towards Germany.

Step 10: If Red Army chases after invasive force, blitzkrieg towards Moscow or Leningrad with the defensive force. If Red Army continues with offence, Blitzkrieg towards Moscow with invasive force. If Red Army partitions Army, both axis forces target the westbound invasion force and then unite for the final Putsch towards Russia.

Easy Peasy

The front was shared with Germans and Romanians. They did get to Odessa from what i remember,the equipment was indeed shit,Germans did provide Equipment and training.
Romanians provided Oil and rations i think.
Also Germans siding with Hungarians and forcing romania to give land to them wasn't peachy.
In the end i don't think Romania was even supposed to exist,world war I made it happen,World war II stabilized our existence i guess.

I don't know where i'm going with this,in the end i'm just wondering what would have happened to my country if the war was won and the Soviets didn't rape my people into oblivion.

is this one of them australian shitposts

They needed more bullets.

Reading this made me understand why it would have been better to ally with China.
Fair enough.

hindsight is an easy thing to consider but hitler made decisions that many of the worlds best commanders would have made had they been in that situation. however, i would have gone the route of erich von manstein and focused my efforts on moscow and an encirclement there, destroying soviet communications and supply networks and forcing stalin to retreat which would break the already crippled soviet morale. i'd also adhere to the old german doctrine of a moving battleplan and not be afraid to pull out of a disadvantageous battle rather than pull a stalingrad. once moscow was seized, a heavy push for the caucasus and an encirclement of stalingrad rather than a battle would have been the best course of action in my opinion given the exceptionally cold winter and difficulties that both forces were having fighting in it. a push south would have brought the oil that the germans so desperately needed, especially if they were able to get there faster than they did and secure the fields from the russians burning them, crushing their ability to just pump out tanks. a higher focus on creating a more reliable version of the panther or mass producing the panzer 4 would have also been something i'd have commited to rather than focusing on the tiger, an admittedly exceptional performance but unreliable tank that didn't suit russian conditions.

however, the main thing that would have been done is to focus on my home nation, Britain. we were struggling qutie a bit when france had fallen, so eliminating the army at dunkirk woulda been smart, as well as focusing the air raids on actual strategic goals rather than civillian population, leading the way to an easy conquest and regime change as britons certainly didn't want as much of the war as the government did.

Given that the Russians' biggest weakness was logistics and food security, Germany should have adopted the Fabian strategy. While the Russians dug in in Moscow and Stalingrad, the German army should have scorched the countryside. If the red army leaves the city, the Germans move in. If they don't leave the city, the Germans wreak havoc on their supplies and populace. They should not have obeyed Hitler's idiotic orders to never retreat or strategically withdraw.


Fabian strategy:
Fabius Maximus defended Rome from Hannibal. He knew he couldn't defeat Hannibal in a pitched battle, so he delayed and delayed and eventually Hannibal had to return home. For a brief time Romans got pissed at the delaying strategy and gave the army to other commanders. It resulted in the battle of cannae, the worst defeat Rome ever faced. They quickly gave the army back to Fabian, who became known as the Shield of Rome.

Lurk more

Does it even matter? After all, the Sino-Japanese conflict made it pretty much imposible for either of the countries to help in the fight against russia. Other than maybe delaying USA's entry into the war by a bit, I highly doubt that it would have made a difference.

Northern part of the front
Take St. Petersburg
Use it as a negotiating tool proving how weak the Soviet's are to the Fin's, get them in the war on our side
They have been attacked almost without reason barely a year earlier, so they are happy to eliminate the commie threat
Open a supply line to the Finns, supply them and let them hold the frontline from Karelia to Leningrad

Central part of the front
Use the spare troops from the north to make a decisive push towards Moscow, if it doesnt work by late August, build defensive positions and make a reinforced frontline until the summer.
During winter build autobahn Berlin - Moscow, using it.

Southern part of the front
Decisive push towards Stalingrad, establish frontline before the city. Use the italian navy to ferry troops from Crimea to Georgia, take over the oil fields there, establish naval supply line and push north from there surrounding the city and starving the occupying forces.

>Dont ally with soviets
>Try make ally with Poland
>Take Polish soldiers on attack soviet
Only Polish soldiers and armies with polish soldiers capture moscow.

Your hussars can't do shit against T34s and IS tanks tho