Could Germany have won the war?

Uncensored2008 said:
Dude, Hitler murdered 14 million people, your beloved Stalin murdered 65 million. But you had no problem with industrial-scale mass murder by Stalin, because you love Communism.

Hitler fucked up by attacking Western Europe, had he moved through Poland and went directly after Stalin's black and shriveled heart without France, England, and America to worry about, there is a good chance he would have prevailed.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards! Russia was Hitler's downfall!
He just repeated Napoleon's mistake with the same result!
Russia has two advantages it's huge and nobody can defeat Russian winter!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
FDR did.

Russia had no viable technology. They were still fighting WW1.
Click to expand...

Russian had millions of people to sacrifice and nobody in history has defeated Russian winter!
And how could anyone possibly occupy Russia that would be harder to accomplish than defeating them on the battlefield.
 
guno said:
In the late 1920s Stalin instigates a series of five year plans to turn the Soviet Union into a modern industrialized country.

He was afraid that if the Soviet Union does not modernize then Communism will fail and the country will be destroyed by its capitalist neighbors. He achieves huge increases in coal, oil, and steel productivity and the country sees massive economic growth. His plans are ruthlessly enforced.

Stalin promotes an image of himself as a great benevolent leader and hero of the Soviet Union.

Yet he is increasingly paranoid and purges the Communist party and Army of anyone who might oppose him. Ninety three of the 139 Central Committee members are killed and 81 of the 103 generals and admirals are executed. This had an impact on the Soviet union in fighting Germany
Click to expand...

Russians don't play!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
This is not correct.

When Russia entered the war, they were relying on surplus weapons from WW1. They had no technology and couldn't even produce ammunition for the Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles they used in the infantry.

FDR sent modern machine tools that industrialized Stalin overnight. General Motors sent an army of engineers to design the T-34 tanks that the Russians used. Russia never did develop any sort of useful air force during the war.

German arms are every level were massively superior to those of the Russians. But the T-34 was cheap and disposable. Stalin threw them at the Germans as cannon fodder. Short on steel and fuel, the Germans couldn't afford to lose any armored vehicles. They were tied down in Western Europe and North Africa, cut off from both oil and iron that they desperately needed.

The much maligned British fought brilliantly by cutting Germans off from the resources they needed. Had Hitler NOT attacked France and Britain, those resources would have overwhelmed Stalin - even if FDR were still aiding his Comrade mass murderer.
Click to expand...

FDR even went into a PR campaign to make Americans like Stalin more

good ole "Uncle Joe"
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No. Germany could not defeat Britain for starters. Once the US entered the war, Germany was doomed.
Click to expand...

We don’t know that because Hitler cancelled the invasion to go after Russia.

In all likelihood they could have eventually taken Britain but the cost of it would have depleted Hitler forces leaving them open to Russian invasion who at this point already had more men and equipment than Germany did
 
Tinkerpeach said:
We don’t know that because Hitler cancelled the invasion to go after Russia.

In all likelihood they could have eventually taken Britain but the cost of it would have depleted Hitler forces leaving them open to Russian invasion who at this point already had more men and equipment than Germany did
Click to expand...

It's hard to win a two front war! Especially without oceans between you and the enemy!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
This is not correct.
Click to expand...

Well, what you wrote that follows is mostly complete bullshit.

When Russia entered the war, they were relying on surplus weapons from WW1. They had no technology and couldn't even produce ammunition for the Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles they used in the infantry.
Click to expand...

The Russians had plenty of modern weapons available in 1941 when Germany attacked. They had the largest tank park in the world, by far. They were producing modern arms. You mention the Mosin Nagant rifle. It was pretty much the equivalent of the German Mauser K 98 that was the most common rifle in use in the German military. The Russians were also producing the SVT 40 semi-automatic rifle, and PPsH 40 submachinegun. Their artillery park was mostly modern pieces in 76mm, 107mm, 122mm, and 152mm.

FDR sent modern machine tools that industrialized Stalin overnight. General Motors sent an army of engineers to design the T-34 tanks that the Russians used. Russia never did develop any sort of useful air force during the war.
Click to expand...

This is complete and utter nonsense. The T-34 was designed starting in 1939 well prior to WW 2. The same goes with the KV-1 heavy tank. The Red Air Force used primarily Russian designs, with the most common coming from the Yakovlev, MiG, and Lavochkin bureaus for fighters and Petlyakov and Tupolev bureaus providing modern bombers. They focused their air force on use as a tactical arm rather than for more independent operations.

German arms are every level were massively superior to those of the Russians. But the T-34 was cheap and disposable. Stalin threw them at the Germans as cannon fodder. Short on steel and fuel, the Germans couldn't afford to lose any armored vehicles. They were tied down in Western Europe and North Africa, cut off from both oil and iron that they desperately needed.
Click to expand...

Actually, most German arms were not really any better than other nations, and often worse. Virtually all German technology was no better than on par, and often far worse than Western Allied technology in the same field. There were few areas where the Germans held any advantage whatsoever by the beginning of 1944. There was never any shortage of iron for raw material to make steel in Germany. The only thing that limited production for virtually the entire war was capacity at steel mills to turn out product.


The much maligned British fought brilliantly by cutting Germans off from the resources they needed. Had Hitler NOT attacked France and Britain, those resources would have overwhelmed Stalin - even if FDR were still aiding his Comrade mass murderer.
Click to expand...

Without defeating France, and taking Czech industry, the Germans couldn't have invaded Russia at all. In 1939 when the war started about a quarter of all German tanks were Czech models made by Skoda. Skoda also was the source for much of the artillery going into newly raised divisions as the war expanded. Whole German divisions were being equipped with captured French, Czech, Belgian, Polish, etc., weapons such was Germany's shortage of everything.

Britain, up to the US coming into the war was hanging on by a shoestring. They had no capacity to conduct any grand offensives, and most of their defensive operations against Germany had ended in utter failure, like Greece, Crete, or N. Africa. At sea, the RN alone didn't have the ships, aircraft, or anything else to defeat the U-boat campaign Germany was waging. That took the US who dumped cubic dollars into that campaign to the tune of about $10 billion or the equivalent of 3 Manhattan projects.

Take this example: In the US and British military, training troops to drive vehicles was a minimal task. Most men already knew how to drive and had some mechanical ability with vehicles. In the German military, troops that were to be drivers usually had to be trained from scratch as they had never operated a motor vehicle. The Russians had the same problem but dealt with it differently by giving only the minimum training to get someone in the vehicle where they were expected to get better on the job.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
In all likelihood they could have eventually taken Britain
Click to expand...

How do you see them doing that? The Kriegsmarine was massively outnumbered in surface ships by the Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe had taken on the RAF in 1940 and been repulsed. The German army, so formidable in other respects, had no experience of seaborne operations.

Would they have tunneled under the Channel, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Tranquillus in Exile said:
How do you see them doing that? The Kriegsmarine was massively outnumbered in surface ships by the Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe had taken on the RAF in 1940 and been repulsed. The German army, so formidable in other respects, had no experience of seaborne operations.

Would they have tunneled under the Channel, perhaps?
Click to expand...

I second that. Germany could not successfully invade and take Britain. Their build up to try in Seelöwe was a farce. Without a real navy and control of the air, the Germans weren't going to do it.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
How do you see them doing that? The Kriegsmarine was massively outnumbered in surface ships by the Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe had taken on the RAF in 1940 and been repulsed. The German army, so formidable in other respects, had no experience of seaborne operations.

Would they have tunneled under the Channel, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Germany had the RAF essentially beat but Hitler decided to quit hitting their airfields and focus on bombing their cities.

I don’t think you realize how close the RAF was to defeat

Had Germany gotten air superiority it would have rendered Britains navy very weak as they could have just slowly withered them away with aircraft and Uboats

The actual invasion of Britain would have been a mess though, far worse than d day probably costing millions of German lives similar to us invading Japan.

The cost was simply too high for Hitler to continue with it and at that time Britain was pretty much out of the war anyways

Russia was the main threat
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, what you wrote that follows is mostly complete bullshit.



The Russians had plenty of modern weapons available in 1941 when Germany attacked. They had the largest tank park in the world, by far. They were producing modern arms. You mention the Mosin Nagant rifle. It was pretty much the equivalent of the German Mauser K 98 that was the most common rifle in use in the German military. The Russians were also producing the SVT 40 semi-automatic rifle, and PPsH 40 submachinegun. Their artillery park was mostly modern pieces in 76mm, 107mm, 122mm, and 152mm.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a steaming pile - where to start...

The PPH was rare and unreliable. The SVT was not standard issue. Playing "Call of Duty" isn't the same as accurate history.



This is complete and utter nonsense. The T-34 was designed starting in 1939 well prior to WW 2. The same goes with the KV-1 heavy tank. The Red Air Force used primarily Russian designs, with the most common coming from the Yakovlev, MiG, and Lavochkin bureaus for fighters and Petlyakov and Tupolev bureaus providing modern bombers. They focused their air force on use as a tactical arm rather than for more independent operations.
Click to expand...


The T-34 was put into production in 1942 through the Lend Lease agreement with the United States. The basic framework was built on the T-29 from 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

As for MiG's:

MiG 1 - 11 produced
MiG 2 - prototype testbed
MiG 3 - 182 produced
MiG 5 through 8 - Prototypes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_and_MiG_aircraft

Are you a Russian national trying to pimp the GLORIOUS Soviet military?


Actually, most German arms were not really any better than other nations, and often worse. Virtually all German technology was no better than on par, and often far worse than Western Allied technology in the same field. There were few areas where the Germans held any advantage whatsoever by the beginning of 1944. There was never any shortage of iron for raw material to make steel in Germany. The only thing that limited production for virtually the entire war was capacity at steel mills to turn out product.




Without defeating France, and taking Czech industry, the Germans couldn't have invaded Russia at all. In 1939 when the war started about a quarter of all German tanks were Czech models made by Skoda. Skoda also was the source for much of the artillery going into newly raised divisions as the war expanded. Whole German divisions were being equipped with captured French, Czech, Belgian, Polish, etc., weapons such was Germany's shortage of everything.

Britain, up to the US coming into the war was hanging on by a shoestring. They had no capacity to conduct any grand offensives, and most of their defensive operations against Germany had ended in utter failure, like Greece, Crete, or N. Africa. At sea, the RN alone didn't have the ships, aircraft, or anything else to defeat the U-boat campaign Germany was waging. That took the US who dumped cubic dollars into that campaign to the tune of about $10 billion or the equivalent of 3 Manhattan projects.

Take this example: In the US and British military, training troops to drive vehicles was a minimal task. Most men already knew how to drive and had some mechanical ability with vehicles. In the German military, troops that were to be drivers usually had to be trained from scratch as they had never operated a motor vehicle. The Russians had the same problem but dealt with it differently by giving only the minimum training to get someone in the vehicle where they were expected to get better on the job.
Click to expand...

I take it you claim that the Soviets alone defeated Germany, right?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Tinkerbell, you should read more history books and watch less politically-biased YouTube and TikTok videos.

Germany, like France and Britain, lost a generation of men in WWI. What made Germany strong was industry and developing a combined arms strategy; Blitzkrieg. Combined Arms is a force multiplier where a military with fewer men could do more against conventional military.

The French, for example, relied on a stupid wall to stop Germany and shrank their military as did Britain and the USA. It’s why all three were still flying biplanes while Germany had ME 109s and Stuka bombers.

Blitzkrieg is why Germany rolled all the way to their allies, the Soviets, all the way to the Spanish border and all the way to the Western coast. Without US support, I have no doubt Britain would have fallen. Hitler’s big mistake was attacking the Soviets before consolidating his wins in the West. He set himself up for a two-front war. The USSR, too, may have fallen without US Lend-Lease support.
Click to expand...
It left behind widows and children who suffered extreme poverty. The German men who didn’t die in the war, died in Russian gulags.
 
Phantasmal said:
It left behind widows and children who suffered extreme poverty. The German men who didn’t die in the war, died in Russian gulags.
Click to expand...

Agreed. World wars are devastating to all close to it. It’s a primary reason why the US, traditionally isolationist, decided to hang onto its power after WWII. Two world wars in 50 years by Colonial Era powers is two wars too many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top