Hitler would have won if he listened to his generals!

>Hitler would have won if he listened to his generals!

well he would've been in a better position if he allowed generals to strategically retreat sooner instead of insisting that they should defend and fight to the last man before the last second

Not a nazi apologist, but he had the possibility of winning had he not been an idealistic fool.

He would not have won but he could have crippled more enemies and won a peace mid war if he wasn't so ideologically driven. Think about Hitler owning all of France, Half of Poland, in North Africa, and all of Spain. The Bargaining ability he had was pretty big.

>chance of winning
Of winning what? the axis forces were a lost cause right from the beginning. Way too surrounded and way too poor in ressources compared to it's enemies, it was simply a desperate cry that made an impact for a couple of years before being crushed like an insect.

Napoleon's chances were much lower than Nazi Germany's and look how far France went.

retard

As I said, I'm not a Nazi apologist but he had the possibility of winning.
I agree with you that the Axis' made huge mistakes, yet had he chosen the right decisions, he would've won, luckily he did not.

>being almost illiterate
never used that word m8
Try to tell me instead how a surrounded and underpowered movement can win a war against 80% of the world population.(axis poweres numbered around 260 million / around 1,6 billion worldwide in 1939).
Give us historical exemples I'm curious

well napoleon was also a diplomat while hitler was racist and nationalist which made him enemies everywhere, his was was not ENTIRELLY based on warfare alone(althought his victories did make his diplomacy stronger)

his war*

Hitler was right sometimes, in a broken clock kind of way. He was a gambler. When things worked out, they worked out really well to the astonishment of everyone. But when they didn't, it was catastrophic.

So yeah, he would have still lost, big time. It was a foolish endeavor and to imagine a victory for Hitler, you must imagine a man who is not Hitler.

explain

Hitler's decisions directly caused the failure of the Reich. In the beginning, he pursued better relations with Italy instead of Britain, a decision that haunted him throughout his entire reign. His strategies on the Eastern Front were some of the most idiotic plans ever put forth. Literally any other person within the Inner Circle could have done a better job of managing the war. He continually pushed divisions forward that had no ammunition or fuel left, and refused to let his men take up defensive positions in preparation for the winters. He never visited the front lines to observe the situation firsthand. Instead, he relied on the overly optimistic reports from the men who had formed an information blockade around him (namely Bormann). He also refused most of Speer's requests to increase armament production. Speer proposed that the factories they used to create luxury items should instead be repurposed for the war effort, however, Hitler, Goering, and other would not allow this. Speer also put forth many suggestions on military strategies, particularly those that involved the Luftwaffe. He knew that striking at the Soviet and British armament production centers would bring their forces to a halt. Hitler again refused, sticking with his simpleminded plan of striking at population centers, which only rallied the people to their nation's cause. Basically, Hitler was a fucking idiot and was only useful in rallying the national spirit.

>implying even if Hitler made all the right decisions he could potentially beat the US of A

No doubt, the USA would have been his greatest enemy. His best option would have been a peace deal with them, because a land invasion of America would have been a complete disaster.

Not at fucking all. The war was lost the moment it started. Best Hitler could have hoped for was a more favourable treaty. Declaring war on all of your neighbors is a bad idea.

>muh Speer

Nice regurgitating post war reports designed to glorify the inner circle and the OKW.

"Yes, yes, silly Americans! It was all just Hitler's fault! We had nothing to do with any boneheaded decision Germany made through the entire course of the war!"

>Believing in fate
>Believing in spooks

The Soviets barely survived certain early parts of the war. Their victory was absolutely not assured until Kursk. (though it had been leaning strongly for awhile already) Even without Hitler listening to his generals they were close as fuck to winning at their peak. A few things done differently, some focus diverted, and a little more luck, and bye bye Uncle Joe. It's very plausible that the generals would have won without Hitler's finger in their asses. Even with it.

>. He knew that striking at the Soviet and British armament production centers would bring their forces to a halt.

Are you joking, or just retarded? Pic related didn't bring the German armament production to a halt. What makes you think the Luftwaffe could have done the same to either the Soviets or the British, let alone both at once? Not to mention that WW2 bombers didn't exactly have the precision to choose between population centers or industrial centers, AND the Luftwaffe was designed primarily for CAS, which they got a hell of a lot of mileage out of, certainly far more than the RAF got out of Bomber Command.

nigga what
This has nothing to do with fate. Declaring war on ALL of your neighbors is a bad idea, period. It's made even worse when all of your neighbors are economic powerhouses.

>Being this spooked

>The Soviets barely survived certain early parts of the war. Their victory was absolutely not assured until Kursk. (though it had been leaning strongly for awhile already) Even without Hitler listening to his generals they were close as fuck to winning at their peak.

uwotm8? First off, a complete Soviet victory is not the only other outcome to a complete German victory. There's enormous room for things grinding down and becoming stalemateish, at least until the Western Allies break through on the other side, or start lobbing nukes or shit.

Then there's the fact that the Soviets were nowhere close to surrendering, or running out of material, and German operational costs are through the sky, and no, there is no plausible way of the Germans winning short of the Soviet state falling apart from the inside, which Stalin had consolidated power too much within himself to really let that happen.

a halt, no, but it would interrupt all sorts of things, a factory building parts for one of their experimental plane designs was obliterated for instance, delaying the project for ages

It would be a nuisance, and at most slow down the acceleration of production, like what happened to Germany historically. Not to mention the enormous difficulties operating strategic bombing where your enemies have total air supremacy, like in their industrial heartlands would create.

This shit wasn't a panacea. It was barely worth it; the strategic bombing campaign over Germany cost about 1 soldier for every 4 German civilians killed, and sunk an enormous amounts of industrial resources to even attempt it. Shouting that if the Germans had done it back being a path to victory is idiocy; it was a colossally inefficient allocation of limited resources as it was.

He didnt declare war on all his neighbours wtf? Many of the central powers joined him since they also wanted to larp as fascists, then he did his danzig maymay and got declared on by france+britain. And he also struck the ribbontrop/molotov pact with stalin til barbarossa. I agree that by 1942 the logistics werent on his side, especially after japan made the US enter the war but to say he "declared war on all his neighbours" is misleading and you know it. This thread makes it sound like nazi germany were fucking retards yet it clearly took years to beat them, you can't have it both ways. Stalin was probably even more retarded by this logic since his main strategy was just to throw an endless stream of proles to the eastern front in hope to eventually wear the germans down through attrition more than actual tactical smarts.

Sometimes his orders for no retreat saved his forces from disorder and annihilation, like during the Battle of Moscow.

Nazis new that if they don't win in 2 years, they are fucked.
They knew it long before they started the war.

Germany didn't have the logistics to win a protracted all-or-nothing war, and that's what they had. The only way to win was to sue for peace when they had the vast western European territories.

Honestly. Hitler couldn't done anything other than what he did.

He was literally Autistic and though the Allies would just roll over and let him have Danzig without a fight.

He was genuinely surprised that they declared war on him.

Had the Allies not also been autistic in Belgium, they'd would have beat Hitler and the war would have ended 5 years sooner.

If Britain had surrendered in mid-1940 the Axis would have won the war. The U.S wouldn't have joined and the Soviets wouldn't have been invaded until later.

Would you look at all these armchair generals in this thread.

>posting this on Veeky Forums
wew laddie

Do you think Hitler would be regarded as good guy if he doesn't attack France and stopped on the good note?

France and Britain attacked him. Also after the fall of France why is it impossible for Germany to win? They have one enemy England, as long as they don't attack Russia or provoke America in the war, then the British can't invade.

The whole point was to seek retribution for the treaty of Versailles. France dug its grave from the get-go.