What if the Germans hadn't been retarded and kept the troops from the battle of the bulge to use against the soviets...

In certain regards, he was always kind of unhinged. He very much believed in the Stab in the Back myth, and would have been dead set against any sort of repetition of it, pretty much from the get-go.

Not that his conditioned improved, and yes, the deterioration was probably both due to his overmedication and the stress of losing the war, but to imply he was all there to begin with is probably inaccurate.

Was there perhaps a time in Hitler's life you feel that he acted natural and coherent?

They tried to achieve the peace treaty with western allies. Google: Wolff and Dulles.

The flower is at the window

they had to win decisively on one front or the other to free up resources to then try and win the other front, russia couldnt be knocked out in a single offensive, the allies were more vulnerable especially if their supply lines could be cut, the plan was a gamble and unlikely to succeed but it was the last hope the germans had of reducing the war to a one front affair

To be honest, even the "plans" for the knockout victory in the West were pretty speculative.

>Ok, so we'll carve up a bunch of the Canadian forces, which will make England's colonies look askance at her and make the Commonwealth pull out of the war.
>Without the commonwealth to provide diplomatic salving, America won't want to come to the aid of the Russians and they'll just pack up and go home or something.

for sure, but slim chance was better than no chance wich was what they would have had if they didnt try and take the offensive somewhere, sitting on the defensive while they got weakened by bombing and starvation and their enemies got stronger wasnt a option.

its like being 2-1 down in the last 5-10 minutes, you throw everything forward, you might end up failing worse than you already were but you are definitely beaten if you dont

>reinforce the Rhine or defend Berlin or some shit.
Reinforcing the Rhine would be useless. Just sitting at the Rhine hoping the Allies would get tired of attacking wouldn't lead to anything. Static defense lines can work, but not in this case.
The allies were not going to stop or retreat just because of heavy resistance at the Rhine. They'd either keep on fighting until a breakthrough or just flank around. The only way to stop them was an offensive.

Using those troops to defend Berlin would be a waste too. Berlin means nothing in the long run. It is purely symbolic and there wouldn't be much lost other than historically-significant buildings and monuments and political offices.

Best thing to do would be to evacuate all the civilians, government personnel, important documents, art, etc, and just turn the whole damn place into a death trap. Mine the roads. Rig the bridges and buildings to blow. Let the Russians hurt themselves over it while the Germans regroup at more defensible positions

It wasn't a "slim chance" it was a pipe dream. Start with an impossible operational objective (Go get Antwerp! Nevermind that they couldn't even get half that far and were planning on seizing allied fuel to get to their objectives because they couldn't reach them on their own.) that would hopefully envelop 4 armies, (yeah, right, because they'd just stand there and pick their noses) which could then be pocketed without effort (good luck with that, given that you barely outnumber the pocketed forces, who can call in all kinds of nasty shit to mess you up, starting with literally thousands of bombers to fuck you up), which will hopefully bring the Allies to the peace table, despite not having any mechanism to actually do that, nor force the USSR to the peace table even if you do somehow manage to knock the western allies out of the war.

It's not being down 2-1 in the last 5 minutes of a game.

It's like being down a rook and a queen with no compensation in a chessgame, and tossing your other rook into the center where it can be taken so you can lull him into a false sense of security so you can pull off your stupid mate attack that he sees coming.

> you might end up failing worse than you already were but you are definitely beaten if you dont

So throwing away hundreds of thousands of young mens lives and annoying your eventual conquerors even further for the faintest hope of a chance is "worth it"? NEWSFLASH: Strategy extends beyond the current war. If your loss is unavoidable, you should start thinking about what you can do to make the loss less devastating. Not that such a thing would ever occur to Herr Hitler.

>Best thing to do would be to evacuate all the civilians, government personnel, important documents, art, etc, and just turn the whole damn place into a death trap. Mine the roads. Rig the bridges and buildings to blow. Let the Russians hurt themselves over it while the Germans regroup at more defensible positions

What more defensible positions? You're pretty much out of "defensible positions" at this point, and blowing up what little remains of your industry won't actually get you very far even if you do somehow buy some time.

Northern Germany and Denmark

My idea of how Germany would have extended the war into at least a 15 year war:

- Erase Operation Barbarosa: Stalling the Soviets and not attacking them would be a sea change. Directing the assets westward MIGHT have repelled the allies on D Day. If not that, then a decisive victory at the Battle of the Bulge.
If you can refute it, I'd be interested in hearing how.

>Northern Germany

The parts overrun by the Americans, or the parts bombed out? Haven't you seen that picture used all the time in the Unthinkable threads? The one with the positions of the Allied armies on V-E day?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_in_Europe_Day#/media/File:Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png

All that was left unoccupied was a bit of Bavaria and a small nub around Kiel. Neither of which can actually sustain a war economy. And flat old northern Germany/Denmark isn't exactly "defensible terrain". At the very best, and even this is optimistic as all hell, you'd buy a week or two. What then?

The Allies wouldn't be particularly stupid, and wouldn't invade into Northern France until they'd built far more than they historically did and had Transport Planned the hell out of your rail network, so you couldn't effectively respond to wherever they wind up landing.

Sure, you'd have another 3-4 million troops hanging around, but if you can't deploy them effectively, can't counterattack with them, they'll again merely forestall the inevitable.

Plus, while the Western Allies are building up this massive force (you wouldn't see a D-Day like invasion until 1946 if then) they'd finish up that little Manhattan project and start slinging nukes on every city they can find.

Plus, you have the fact that in absence of Barbarossa, Germany and her occupied environment is enormously susceptible to soft pressure from the Soviets. You don't even need a USSR entry into the war, if Roosevelt winds up bribing Stalin to stop food shipments into Germany and you don't control the Ukraine to make up the shortfall, you're going to have starvation.

I was actually getting to the nuke issue later on. Stalling for time would have allowed the nazis enough time for one working model (possibly), which would have scared the Absolute Living Shit (ALS) out of the allies.
From that point, there are way too many variables to even make any postulations:
- sue for peace?
- Treaty with current boundaries?

The possibilities get to varied to see a clear path. My point stands, however: The war would definitely have been drawn out longer.

>another ww2 alt history thread

Saged, hidden and reported.

>I was actually getting to the nuke issue later on. Stalling for time would have allowed the nazis enough time for one working model (possibly), which would have scared the Absolute Living Shit (ALS) out of the allies.

I would recommend you pull up a transcript of the Farm Hall eavesdropping, after they rounded up all those German scientists and wiretapped them. Most of them were relieved they never got a bomb going, as the Allied retaliation would be way more than they could hope to match.

Remember, the Germans never got to the point in theory where the Allies were at the close of 1942, that of a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. Then you'd need to solve all the industrial problems of manufacturing and mining enough fissile material (too bad the world's largest deposits of uranium known at that time were in Canada) and design a bomb, all on far less of a budget the Manhattan project had. THEN you'd need to have some method of delivering it. The Germans don't have anything close to air parity by 1944, and wouldn't even if the Soviets weren't involved.

don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Not to mention their premier 4 engined bomber design had an annoying problem of catching fire spontaneously, so delivery is going to be a massive headache.

> The possibilities get to varied to see a clear path. My point stands, however: The war would definitely have been drawn out longer.

Oh, sure, and it would be far bloodier. But it's not lasting 15 years. If Germany makes it into 1950, it would be a minor miracle, even without the USSR involved.

I'm new to this board (and not OP, btw). Is this sort of thing forbidden?

>it's another "how can the 3rd reich avoid defeat when it's too late" episode

here's my idea of how Germany could've lasted indefinitely with one simple move

[spoiler]don't declare war on the US when Japan didn't do shit to help you invade the USSR[/spoiler]

I will concede the point of WWII not getting to 1950. I am aware of a PBS special regarding Nazi POW officers being bugged, but what I recall of it was that they were Luftwaffe officers and not involved with the nuclear project.
So the farthest I'll admit here is that you are partly right. I hold fast to my assertion that if the Nazis had not invaded Russia the war would have lasted much longer than it did.
Thanks for the discussion, I found it rewarding.

see
Like I said, I'm new to this board. History discussions fascinate me, and I'm sorry (not sorry) for peeing on your draperies.

Not him, but it's not forbidden exactly. What these things tend to be though is repetitive, poorly thought out, and just bad threads. They're all based on

>Look how cool it would be if we could do this!

As opposed to realistic appraisals of what would or wouldn't change if you altered some fact of the war. I think a lot of it hinges on pop history attributing so much of both Germany's successes and Germany's failures to Hitler personally, which leaves the impression that if Hitler had done something different, the war would have gone drastically in another direction. Real life just doesn't work that way, not in a total war involving nations with combined populations of over a billion.
And when the U.S. declares war on you 6 months or so down the line after already being in an undeclared naval war and supplying your enemies generously?

I guess it's back to Chaturbate then!

>History discussions fascinate me

this isn't historical discussion, this is, at best, alternative history.

and are you so new to the internet that you've never seen a "if hitler had done x/y/z, would he have still lost?"

the answer will always be yes, hitler will always have lost ww2 because he can't into military on strategic level.

>And when the U.S. declares war on you 6 months or so down the line

nigger are you fucking serious.

the US had no reason to declare war on germany, it was already isolationist as hell and didn't want to be dragged into another great war. not to mention that most americans at the time didn't really want to fight another western country that didn't do anything to them, when there's some small yellow chinky eyed monkeys dicking around in the pacific.

I'm sorry, I don't allow anyone to TRY to parse my words. I enjoy historical discussions, and you will not pervert my statement. Not in this lifetime, fucker.

>nigger are you fucking serious.

Of course I'm serious. You had increasing hostility towards Germany expressed in Gallup polls ever since the fall of France. By the time 1941 is closing, you have a slight majority in favor of war with Germany. FDR was definitely pushing for it. Congress was gradually giving ground to him.

They would have gotten there, eventually, especially once the war with Japan starts and you remove the single biggest obstacle: If you're already mobilizing and reordering the economy for one war, suddenly another doesn't seem like quite the same imposition.

>the US had no reason to declare war on germany, it was already isolationist as hell

Yes, which is why it was interning French vessels in the Carribean, supplying the British for about a year, developing a nuclear weapon, attacking u-boats in "their" waters, occupied Iceland, incrementally ratched sanctions against Japan, culminating in the freezing their oil trade over the occupation of Indo-China.

>not to mention that most americans at the time didn't really want to fight another western country that didn't do anything to them,

Wrong.

ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm

Interviewing Date 11/15-20/41

Survey #253-K Question #13

Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?

Keep out of war..................... 32%

Defeat Germany..................... 68

>when there's some small yellow chinky eyed monkeys dicking around in the pacific.

Which hleps the case, not makes it harder. Opinion in the U.S. was mostly anti-war on the basis of it being too much trouble to get to a war footing, not wanting to get involved in foreign affairs, not because they actually liked the Germans.

Once you're on a war footing, which you'll have to be to deal with Japan, it's not so much of a stretch to beat up Germany while you're mobilizing.

>Wrong.
>ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm

>Interviewing Date 1/2-7/40
>If you were asked to vote on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war?

>Go in.............................. 12%

>Stay out............................ 88

>Interviewing Date 12/2-7/40

>Go in.............................. 15%

>Stay out............................ 85

>Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41

>Go in.............................. 17%

>Stay out............................ 78

>Interviewing Date 3/9-14/41

>Go in.............................. 17%

>Stay out............................ 83

>Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41

>Go in.............................. 19%

>Stay out............................ 81

>Interviewing Date 5/8-13/41

>Go in.............................. 219

>Stay out............................79

>Interviewing Date 5/22-27/41

>Go in.............................. 20%

>Stay out............................ 80

It's interesting to note that when you frankly ask the people if they would go to war, today, and put their money where their mouth is, they consistently say no.

Americans might have felt threatened by Germany, but who the hell in their right minds wants to die fighting for some war that doesn't directly threaten them.

>It's interesting to note that when you frankly ask the people if they would go to war, today, and put their money where their mouth is, they consistently say no.

>Americans might have felt threatened by Germany, but who the hell in their right minds wants to die fighting for some war that doesn't directly threaten them.

Actually, it's completely the reverse, as you'd get if you looked at the questions pertaining to how England is doing.

urvey #226-K Question #3

Do you think our country's future safety depends on England winning this war?

Yes................................ 68%

No................................26

No opinion......................... 6

Interviewing Date 1/2-7/40

Survey #227-K Question #7

Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

Keep out........................... 40%

Help England....................... 60

Interviewing Date 1/11-16/41

Survey #228-K Question #8

Which of these two things do you think England should do now — try to make the best possible peace now with Germany, or keep on fighting in the hope of defeating Germany?

Make peace now.................... 15%

Keep on fighting..................... 79

No opinion......................... 6

Which side do you think will win the war — Germany and Italy, or England?

NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE 275

Germany and Italy................... 11%

England........................... 57

Stalemate........................... 8

No opinion......................... 24

Not wanting to go to war is tied to the notion that Britian should

A) keep fighting

B) Is probably going to win without help.

But your entire ridiculous initial assumption is that without a German DoW, they're going to win! Whch would draw the U.S. in, because the pressure behind American involvement was helping out Britain if she looked beleaguered.

>If you're already mobilizing and reordering the economy for one war, suddenly another doesn't seem like quite the same imposition.

i didn't have enough room in my last post to say what the things your saying are retarded.

war is always an economic burden, and yes, it's a very fucking big deal to start one. why do you think the US didn't intervene in China when the ChiComs took over? Did you even know how eager the Democrat administration was to demobilize after WW2? War bonds come with interest, and they issued metric fucktons of war bonds, they needed that money. It's also why the US almost lost Korea in the first 3 months. The demobilization and budget cuts had turned the US military into a shadow of its former presence.

>Yes, which is why it was interning French vessels in the Carribean, supplying the British for about a year, developing a nuclear weapon, attacking u-boats in "their" waters, occupied Iceland, incrementally ratched sanctions against Japan, culminating in the freezing their oil trade over the occupation of Indo-China.

All those actions were what Roosevelt and the Democrats could get away with without actually declaring war. They knew the population would not go to war for anything less than a direct attack on US citizens or US soil. And Germany didn't even do any of that, Hitler just went full retard and declared war on the US for literally no fucking reason, just like he decided to change Case Blue in 42.

>Once you're on a war footing, which you'll have to be to deal with Japan, it's not so much of a stretch to beat up Germany while you're mobilizing.

>yes it's not a big fucking stretch to ship soldiers, equipment and vehicles from the pacific to the fucking atlantic ocean without the SU, with Stalin being paranoid as fuck about foreign soldiers on russian clay

do you even read the shit you're typing or are you just that retarded?

>the Germans could have won when the battle of the Bulge was happening

i can't believe there are people this retarded.jpg

>Actually, it's completely the reverse,

how is it the reverse?

americans recognize that germany might be a threat to them in the future, and they say they the UK is essential to their security, but why is it that they consistently say NO to immediately declaring war?

because they're still isolationist and the war in europe or asia doesn't directly affect the you fucking shit for brains ass stain this is the second time i'm typing this just read a fucking book or something

>But your entire ridiculous initial assumption is that without a German DoW, they're going to win!

btw where the fuck did i even say that

are you making shit up now?

>war is always an economic burden, and yes, it's a very fucking big deal to start one. why do you think the US didn't intervene in China when the ChiComs took over?

Well, for starters, you have the enormous amounts of being fed up with Chiang's crap during the war, and how he managed to completely waste literally billions of dollars of aid he already got, while demonstrating no capability to actually rule over the areas he supposedly pacified, in between his frequent battlefield defeats with supposedly superior forces. But yes, war weariness was a factor.

> Did you even know how eager the Democrat administration was to demobilize after WW2

Very. They were also quite eager to mobilize FOR WW2.

> It's also why the US almost lost Korea in the first 3 months.

You mean, when they had no presence worth mentioning? ANd how they then enormously expanded it?

>All those actions were what Roosevelt and the Democrats could get away with without actually declaring war.

Yes, because shooting at enemy vessels is some small, meaningless step. Interning vessels isn't a big fucking deal, Mers El Kebir never happened. The U.S. was already significantly pro-Allied,and getting more involved by the day.

> They knew the population would not go to war for anything less than a direct attack on US citizens or US soil.

Well, except for the fact that the citizens don't say that, and said things like "entering the war is more important than letting Britain lose".

>Hitler just went full retard and declared war on the US for literally no fucking reason, just like he decided to change Case Blue in 42.

I'm pretty sure that "no fucking reason" had to do with U.S. vessels already attacking his u-boats and however much of that 30+billion that the UK got in Lend-Lease that had already been shipped over.

>do you even read the shit you're typing or are you just that retarded?

Have you ever taking a poli-sci 101 class? Governments deal in power, not in money. Money is only important insofar as it enhances security and their ability to project influence around the world. Once you're committed, it's easier to justify marginal increases,. You have heard of the term "Mission creep" before, haven't you?

>how is it the reverse?

You said, and I quote, in post , that

>Americans might have felt threatened by Germany, but who the hell in their right minds wants to die fighting for some war that doesn't directly threaten them.

And then I showed a bunch of gallup polls demonstrating a consistent view that the threat to England was enough to justify war, if it looked like England was losing, which it was not looking like, hence it not neeming necessary at that time.

> but why is it that they consistently say NO to immediately declaring war?

Which side do you think will win the war — Germany and Italy, or England?

NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE 275

Germany and Italy................... 11%

England........................... 57

Stalemate........................... 8

No opinion......................... 24

Learn to read, retard.

>btw where the fuck did i even say that

>here's my idea of how Germany could've lasted indefinitely with one simple move

Were your mother and father brother and sister? Do you forget things you said in the short span of half an hour?

...

>how he managed to completely waste literally billions of dollars of aid
>But yes, war weariness was a factor.
>Very. They were also quite eager to mobilize FOR WW2.
>You mean, when they had no presence worth mentioning?

thanks for acknowledging my points, i'd appreciate it if you didn't include worthless comments.

>Yes, because shooting at enemy vessels is some small, meaningless step

still not declaration of war.

>Well, except for the fact that the citizens don't say that

you really need people to explicitly say that they won't go to war unless attacked/invaded?

i'm just going to let you think for a good 5 minutes about how what youre saying is fucking ridiculous

>entering the war is more important than letting Britain lose".

then why do they keep saying STAY OUT IT when asked if they should enter the war that day?

>I'm pretty sure that "no fucking reason" had to do with U.S. vessels already attacking his u-boats

>having a few of your uboats damaged/sunk is somehow comparable to having a country that eclipses your own industrial and logistical capacity by magnitudes declare war on you

i honestly don't trust you to not get the wrong idea about my greentext, so the answer is a resounding NO, it's simply not worth it to declare war on an industrial giant, especially when you're in the middle of fighting an industrial giant that you share the same continent with, currently occupy a good amount of their land AND THEYRE STILL OUTPRODUCING YOU IN TANK/PLANE production.

>Have you ever taking a poli-sci 101 class?

Have you heard of moving a goal post?

what the literal fuck are you even about lad, i'm talking about you thinking it's no economical/logistical biggie if the US shifts from the pacific to the atlantic and you're going about governments dealing in power not money?

>You said, and I quote, in post (You)

i'm saying nothing about a reverse, i'm saying that people will say one thing, but you ask them if they want to pull the trigger and all of sudden they have a different answer.

have you even given a non-retarded answer for why they keep saying STAY OUT?

>>btw where the fuck did i even say that

>1745572 (You)

and i'm saying anything about victory am i? i only said germany could last indefinitely if it didn't have to worry about a western front.

i'm going to guess that reading comprehension is not one of your fortes.

either that, or youre That Guy who hears one thing, makes up some bullshit strongman and takes some whacks at it, thinking he's some kind of fucking debate master when the reality is you just did some olympic-tier mental gymnastics, deliberately misunderstood the idea and had a one-man circle jerk.

>you are neck deep in blood at this point
>you couldn't recount the names of all the people dead directly and indirectly because of you at this point
>if you are captured by the Russians they are going to put you on a showtrial and then torture you to death
>if you are captured by the Americans are British they are going to put you on a showtrial and then hang you until dead
>you are a megalomaniac who thinks he's god's gift to the Aryan Race and better than everybody else
>option 1 surrender and die
>option 2 postpone the inevitable and get some nice hot young poon from a blonde who's obsessed with you

>gee let's fuck up Germany even more by making them fight for longer

Should"ve brokered a peace in early 1941 , just after victory in the Balkans perhaps given how easy Yugoslavia was

>thanks for acknowledging my points, i'd appreciate it if you didn't include worthless comments.

And yet none of your statements support your argument. FUnny how that happens.

>still not declaration of war.

It's organized violence for a political aim. It IS war.

>you really need people to explicitly say that they won't go to war unless attacked/invaded?

They said the opposite you retard. The part about "We should go to war if Britain looks like they're losing" has a majority the entire time.

>then why do they keep saying STAY OUT IT when asked if they should enter the war that day?

Because they also are consistently polled as thinking Britain is winning. What part of this are you having trouble with?

>i honestly don't trust you to not get the wrong idea about my greentext, so the answer is a resounding NO, it's simply not worth it to declare war on an industrial giant, especially when you're in the middle of fighting an industrial giant that you share the same continent with, currently occupy a good amount of their land AND THEYRE STILL OUTPRODUCING YOU IN TANK/PLANE production.

Missed the point. Again. Surprise surprise. You have an enemy who is taking hostile action. Every day that action gets larger and more overt. But surely if you just ignore it it'll go away! [/sarcasm]

>Have you heard of moving a goal post?

Haven't moved a goal post. I've stated, and I stick to it, that war with the U.S. was a question of when, not if. You've brought a bunch of objections that don't actually support your claim that the U.S. is never going to get in the war without a German declaration of war.

>what the literal fuck are you even about lad, i'm talking about you thinking it's no economical/logistical biggie if the US shifts from the pacific to the atlantic and you're going about governments dealing in power not money?
I'm saying that the U.S can physically declare war on Germany any time it wants. There are no real direct repercussions to the U.S. for doing so, beyond what public opinion might do, but these are internal factors, not stuff that Germany can actively do to harm the U.S.

As such, despite the greater costs involved, it is more politically feasible to enter a second war to an ally (however) nominal that alliance is) to the first belligerent than it is when you're neutral. Because you're already going through a lot of enormous dislocation, drafting, re-structuring the entire economy to produce arms, that won't happen when you're at peace. War with Japan makes war with Germany more likely. I mean for fuck's sake, it's not like the bulk of the historic U.S. contribution of resources went to Europe or anything.

>have you even given a non-retarded answer for why they keep saying STAY OUT?

Because they kept saying that England would win on its own? Did you manage to miss the part that I quoted repeatedly? I'm not sure how you did, since it's quite large., multiple lines.

>and i'm saying anything about victory am i? i only said germany could last indefinitely if it didn't have to worry about a western front.

Ok, so Germany lasts indefinitely. Without U.S. involvement you have no Western Front, no Italian front, it's unclear whether you can actually drive the Germans and Italians out of North Africa, and Germany remains in occupation of France, The Netherlands, Belgium,Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Norway. They at least don't lose the war in the east., and their economy is continuing, because again, this is them holding "indefinitely".

On what fucking planet does that not constitute a German victory in WW2?

they would cause serious losses to the soviet armored/mechanized/cavalry divisions (the punching fist of the red army)
and suffer serious losses in mapower they could not replace (suprisingly equipment replacement was going alright, atleast for the panzers)

you have to see that by late 1944 the german army could only rely on a "small" fighting force, consisting of their armored divisions, locking down enemy attacks and making small thrusts into the enemy, getting the attention of the bulk of the enemy
they could only keep a loose defense line since the avarage infantry and whatever support divisions were so low on everything, they could occupy territory but they couldnt stand against an assault

Why did Hitler declare war on America? Would USA have declared war anyways? if that why not try to delay it as much as possible?