Deutsches Reich 1941

>Germany would have won WW2 if I was Führer
Every God damn time.

>taking Gibraltar

Yeah sure thats super easy. Its not like the Brits have naval superiority or Franco was against joining WW2 and the hawkish generals were bribed by the MI6.

So Hitler would have to coerce the spaniards into submission by threatening Invasion. Then you have a costly battle for Gibraltar and a new 'ally' who is as useful as Italy (ally staging ground for allied naval invasions).

>Med is not really closed because surprise the Brits still have the suez.

>The Axis would have to capture Malta to secure their supply lines for the Heeresgruppe Afrika.

>With Gibraltar and Malta (assuming that just works,life is not a paradox game) in Axis hands you can properly supply what the germans had in Afrika maybe a little more.

>If the US joins all of this is moot because they are just going to buttrape you in Africa eventually. So you would have to prevent them for declaring war. (Only possible with magic if you don't start altering the timeline much earlier)

>Even if the Axis successfully invades turkey and the middle east there won't be an abundance of oil. I am not sure about the degree to which the oil wells of the middle east were used/usable at the time.

>Oh also oil engineers don't grow on trees. I think it was Baku (or another soviet oil field not sure) were the germans weren't able to utilize it because the soviets blew up their machines. The Brits would have done exactly the same.

>And even if all of that just works (unlikely given the terrain and the capabilities of the german logistical system) and america isn't joining (even more unlikely) you have to use a shitton of troops to garrison the new areas. Its shaky if you really get enough oil and you have new potential fronts with the soviets.

>Your biggest benefit is probably that you secured Italy and Mussolinis rule.

Germany had no money and no food.
Germany couldn't, and still can't, feed itself.
Germany had to buy food from the USSR, else people starved. This was part of the reason for the peace treaty. Germans didn't have bread.

Germany had a lower population than the British Empire. German men had to serve longer time, and Germany was already stretched thin. And if it stretched thinner, it would be the USSR invading, not the other way around.

So no, an even longer war on an even bigger front was not the winning move.

Turkey was actually close to Hitler and evn considered joining them in 1941/2 but I agree, if Germans secured Bosphorus or installed pupet government in Turkey that could have changed dirrection of the war in the short-term

Guys looking at this map it really reminds me of Napoleonic France some 130 years before. Hitler was German Napoleon

>MUH early easy wins
>Hahahahhaa if the soviets invaded the germans would have lost easily

Wat. You have a laymans understanding of strategy. This would have turned into a massacre for the soviets. Just look at the early war counteroffensives of the Red Army. They were disasters that enabled stalingrad.

A soviet offensive would negate the factor of soviet unpreparedness true. But many more factors that strongly benefitted them would now be in the germans favour.

>No supply problems for the Wehrmacht. Lets the reds deal with long supply lines and different train tracks.

>No static defense for the soviets. Instead constant manoveurs and high mobility warfare. The Wehrmacht of 41 was really superior there. The Red Army of 41 would get encircled even more on the offensive.

>Morale: Its not the great patriotic war. Now it is some madmen sent us to die in Poland against the best army in europe. Oh btw we botched finnland earlier.

Stop this tankie wanks.

Operation Barbarossa was not a stupid idea.

youtube.com/watch?v=ft-dYaZKxwU
youtube.com/watch?v=A_3R-Rkn_98

1. It started in summer, so stop with the stupid >le invading Russia in le winter. In fact it was Stalin who attacked Finland in the winter like a moron, not Hitler.
2. Russia was known to be a backward state that recently had lost wars to Japan and Germany and almost lost to Finland. To call it a superpower is hindsight, everyone at the time thought them weak. In fact many people in the german command had experience beating russians in the last war.
3. WWI was a grindy slow massacre in the western front, and a mobile blitz war on the eastern front. Germany reasonably expected a repeat, especially when its force made even the slow western front work, imagine how good things will play out in the east!
4. Russia was just coming out of a savage civil war. Compare with Spain, a friend to Germany and the nazi regime. Franco specifically stated that the civil war made it so Spain is absolutely incapable of fighting a war. Its not happening, not possible, the bad civil war prevents it. So the same was thought of the USSR.

Basically any sensible, rational and reasonable person would conclude that a German war with the USSR would be very easy, over fast, and the Russians would probably capitulate as soon as they lose a few fights, since they'd know they have no chance.
This is the conclusion that examining known facts leads you to. The result was a BIG SURPRISE to all people on the planet. It was not what the circumstances led people to believe would happen.

So no, it wasn't a stupid decision, it was just an ill informed one. More scouting, more maps, seeing the factories moved east, learning about production capabilities, reading the morale, patriotism and so on of the people was needed.

and while your busy for years building boats and planes for sealion to take a single island a few kilometers across the channel, a rebuilt, motorized and well-supplied red army will attack you in the back

congratulations, europe is now communist all the way to france. that went well, didn't it?

Thats actually what Hitler wanted all along. He saw the German people are not up to the task he set for them, so he wanted to purge them with fire, kill them all for being unfit for his dream. He would've wanted all of Europe red with blood and communism as punishment for failing him.

So much for the superior German weapons.

>and still can't, feed itself

Source? I tend to believe it but never see an actual statistic.

Just look up food imports, production and consumption.
Of course in modern day its more economically favorable for Germans to make toasters, electric toothbrushes and cars, and buy food from poorer people, but the numbers are still telling.

>>instead of launching retarded Barbarossa bullshit, focus instead on taking Gibraltar
Entire continental Europe ends up fucking zerged by T-34s and KV1's because Stalin was blueballed by Hitler by literally few weeks.
Which wouldn't be that bad, because then USA would have reason to beat commies back into stone age.

If he was so concerned about a Russian invasion, he shouldn't have invaded Poland and created a common border with the USSR.

why is it that people nowadays shit on Germany so much for invading Russia? Literally every country and their intelligence agencies believed Germany had an assured victory, not to mention that they were actually close to reaching a victory several times

he wanted parts of poland that were originally german, he wanted to do it before the soviets took it like they had already previously attempted and he wanted to take away a possible satellite state that the British were supporting

Cold War propaganda playing up the USSR as a huge threat, and people thinking they were indeed a world conquering force and Germany didn't stand a chance, foolishly attacking them.

>Nazis who were absolutely paranoid would just be surprised.
>Soviet leadership was well aware of german buildup and choose to ignore it.
>Axis leadership would have reacted.

>muuuh zerg rush ebin tanks

The soviets were unfit to lead a successfull offensive against prepared germans in 41.

On the tactical level their individual formations lacked the innovation,speed and leadership initiative to conduct successfull high mobility warfare.

The germans were far superior in regards to mobile warfare and in their use of combined arms.

The soviet logistics System wouldn't be able to support such an offensive. Without lend and lease trains and trucks and the problem of different track widths the soviets would be hard pressed to supply their troops efficiently.

The soviets would have crashed into a german defense line somwhere in central poland and they would have been stopped dead in their track. People tend to forget that the soviets weren't able to break the german lines in 41,42 and 43.

What would follow is every Wehrmacht generals Wetter dream. Excellent flow of supply, a road system that is miles ahead of the soviet one, no huge partisan effort that helps the soviets, no Winter that prevent german counteroffensives.

The soviets would have been outmanouveured in high mobility warfare in central poland. They would have been encircled and beaten to a bloody pulp somwhere in poland. Just look at the first counteroffensives in 42.

A surprise attack in 1940 when the wehrmacht was preoccupied in the west might have worked. Once france was finsihed it was out of the question.

When two armies are simultaneously preparing to invade, the one who does it first has upper hand.

Hitler mashed Ruskies like potatoes because he caught them pants down, with their infrastructure prepared for hauling tons of equipment through western outskirts of USSR.

If Soviets were to attack first, then Russian armour, that was simply more durable than German, would be able to fight evenly with defensively positioned gerrys, especially since their main forces are supposed to be around Gibraltar

>he wanted parts of poland that were originally german
>oryginally German
Like from what, partitions of Poland?

>mainforce around Gibraltar

Sure because they would send their whole army to conquering a small rock.

The soviets wouldn't be able to penetrate a german defensive line in 41. The germans could counter attack and encircle large formations of soviet troops.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Kharkov

Something line this would probably happen. Only on a much larger scale. The soviets paid a high price in blood until they learned to wage an modern war.

You propose they would succeded against well prepared,not over extended germans who are favoured by infrastructure and the supply situation.

By that time Russians already suffered tremendous losses.
>Something line this would probably happen.
But it actually fucking happened. Russians lost shitload of planes, tanks, millions of soldiers. And guess what. Germany still lost.
And somehow in '41, when German tanks were still a joke, and USSR army would be numerous times more powerful, they would lost?

I propose that without disorganisation and chaos of retreat Russians forces would be able to defend their units from German Air units, while KV-1's having no threatening enemy on ground would be able to push their way through German units.

omg just like become a Marxist and Ally with Russia. Not hard. German-Russian Union would be the best empire in history: first in industry, population, resources, and technology. "muh communism is jewish" suck that kike dick, krauts, trying to gtow just meant you got cucked twice as hard. Now no more slavic rape babies. Stalin would even give your lebensraum in Russia, Voila
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_German_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

now make the world red, cucks.

>reading the morale, patriotism and so on of the people was needed
I'm not sure even the soviets themselves expected such a response from the populace.

>Russian airforce was on par with the german one.
>Germans at Charkov hadn't recieved high losses, were overstretched and had long supply lines.

Numbers aren't everything. Its foolish to assume the soviets would be able to break through a german defensive line near the Reich in 41 without anymore eastern front losses. And its even more foolish to assume a counteroffensive wouldn't happen.

>muh better tanks
France also had much better tanks pham. It was about tactical leadership and the whole strategy of mobile warfare. Essentially you have better supplied german tanks who can use the better infrastructure to outmanouveur the soviets even harder.

Numbers are everything. Quality can win you some battles, but overall quantity will win wars. That's basically how Germany lost. Allies had far greater numbers.

no, strategy is everything

The soviets were just as surprised as the germans that the war wasn't over in 3 months.

>Achievement Unlocked: The Unholy Alliance

yeah it really was a perfect storm that led to the population holding fast, makes you wonder how the german would have faired if they'd acted as the benevolent conquerors that many locals hoped them to be

2meta

>Numbers are everything.

Geee how did germany win against france and britain in 1940?

How is Israel still existent? I mean their opponents had better armaments and even larger numbers how did they loose?!

The additional tanks, planes and soldiers of your proposed scenario couldn't have been utilized properly by the Red Army. Leadership at the strategic level was mediocre in 41 (and hampered by Stalins interference) and tactical leadership was subpar.

By attacking the Wehrmacht in Poland the Red Army essentially enters a battle that favours the germans heavily.

a) Its their hometurf
-logistics are no problem
-airforce has shorter routes and has more than enough bases
-they recently fought a war in poland so enough information in regards to good defensive positions is available

b)Terrain and infrastructure
-infrastructure is much closer to the german standard
-their whole doctrin is built to function in this
-soviets instead are forced to wage war in another country
-their logistics were train based and surprise polish tracks have a different width
-so its Questionable they could even supply all of their troops

C) None of the factors that allowed successfull soviet counteroffensives in 41/42
-no overstretched germans lines
-no overstretched german supply lines
-no Winter the Wehrmacht or their material isn't prepared for
-no muh that inhibits movement and greatly hampers mobile warfare

-if the soviet simoultaneously attack the balkan:
-motivated Axis allies
-soviet lines are stretched and the germans can lead concentrated counteroffensives

D) historical early war performance
-soviet airforce in 41 couldn't have prevented german air superiority in 41 especially so close to the Reich
-planes not destroyed in barbarossa would have been utilized but especially in the early war soviet pilots were shot like geese because of poor Training and experienced german pilots
-early soviet offensives were neither well planed nor well executed

>Winter War
Finland won with an army less than a third of the size of Russia's.
>Battle of Cartagena in 1693
Spain won with just 4000 fighters overall against 30000 Britains in a total of 186 ships from the Royal Navy.
Quality definitely counts for something.

>Winter War
>Finland won

When will this meme fucking die already?

>keeping your independence against a superior enemy while only making slight territorial concessions is not winning

>USSR wants land
>Germany wants them not do go for it
>goes to war
>Germany remains neutral despite big talk
>USSR fights badly but advances
>makes peace, taking the land they wanted, and some extra

Finland is victory! Very many meme! We lose our only port and industrial center, just as planned!

That would only count as winning if the invading country actually wanted to take over the whole place. But actually the USSR had no intention of annexing all of Finland, and only wanted the territories that they eventually got.

Would a full strength Germany not have been able to fend off a soviet invasion?

Yes it would have been able to fend of soviet Invasion. And its would have probably counterattacked.

>Gibraltar
You cant take it without a powerful navy or a big land base from where to carry on arty and aerial attacks.
Hitler had neither. Franco saw the strength of the allies and refused to enter the war, which could have given Hitler access to land bases.
Looking at the battle of Malta you can see he was right.
Had Hitler taken Gibraltar, the allies still had considerable presence in North Africa. UK could still be provisioned by Atlantic convoys or by its colonies going around South Africa. So it wouldn't have mean much.
And even then, the soviets would have attacked Germany sooner or later.

>Der Reich (tm)
Das Reich (R)

You're welcome.

>Basically any sensible, rational and reasonable person would conclude that a German war with the USSR would be very easy, over fast, and the Russians would probably capitulate as soon as they lose a few fights, since they'd know they have no chance.
You should also add that Germany's biggest threat was the USSR actually getting itself sorted out. There was no way Stalin wasn't gonna try to wipe out Nazi Germany eventually.

>USSR had no intention of annexing all of Finland, and only wanted the territories that they eventually got.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic

Just a coincidence, bro!

>instead of launching retarded Barbarossa bullshit, focus instead on taking Gibraltar
>either through morocco or blackball Franco into letting you pass through

It will probably take a full scale invasion and war. I mean, it's definitely doable, but attacking a soft ally for a tactical advantage is almost certainly going to carry repercussions down the line.

>cut off anglos from med.

Taking Gibraltar will not cut off the English from the Med, most of their resupply and reinforcement was done through Gibraltar. It will, however, let the Italian fleet out into the Atlantic. How useful that would be is hard to gauge, the Italian ships were generally well built, at least on paper, but their crews were lackluster, and they were designed for fighting in the Med, pretty much all of them had very short cruising ranges, making them unsuitable for commerce raiding. And of course, you're still going to have the fueling problems that plagued them in real life.

>send more troops to North African campaign from the very start so Italy doesn't bungle it up

Very difficult to supply them properly. Rommel couldn't really keep what men he had fueled and armed, and adding twice as many troops (or more) means you run out of shit that much faster.

>build up naval forces in Mediterranean, build strategic bombers to target British naval industry and ports

It takes about 2 years to build a capital ship. You don't have that kind of time. And see pic related. All that tonnage didn't crush the German will to fight, nor did it destroy German industrial capabilities. What makes you think the reverse would be true, especially since the British can outbuild the Germans in planes?

>when time is right, instead of invading Russia, invade neutral turkey.

Why?

>ally with Rashid Ali's Iraq, solve oil problem and oil shortages.

Unless you do this before may of 1941, it'll be too late, which makes your last point impossible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Hitler should have attacked Britain first. He would have crushed those cowards in a minute. Even drunken Churchill on the radio wouldn't help. Then there would be no attacking Normandy by Americans, western front would have been secured.

philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm

>no ostland lebensraum to populate Volgaland with german kin

Boy, you're forgetting that Germany wasn't fighting to win the war, but to provide an adequate conclusion to Uncle Adolf's famous book.