Could hitler have won if he didn't attacked USSR?

The point he's making is that it would force Britain to make peace

Since Britain hadn't made peace, it meant the US would eventually join the war and Berlin would get nuked. Simple as.

Please stop /int/posting

>genocide jews
Good luck those cancerous semites were fucking everywhere in Europe.

Who gives a fuck about the battle of britain, they lose a couple hundred thousand of civilians, so what they won't surrender from that.

No. The Soviets were planning a massive invasion on Germany. They were just overtaken

Suvarov, go home, you're drunk.

Because it would force Britain into a peace deal, as Germany can now begin unending bombing raids on London.

Not him, but unending British bombing raids (at far greater tonnage levels, see pic) didn't make the Germans surrender. Why do you think the reverse would be true?

Because Berlin was far less central to the German war effort than London was to the British one.

A good 15% of the population lived in the greater London area. Only about 3.5% of germany lived in Berlin.

Furthermore, the British were the only allied power at this point outside Greece. The Germans had the Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Vichy french and other allies backing them up, meaning industry was more dispersed.

Also, to have London almost totally destroyed would've crippled British Morale. It's a huge part of British identity.

It wasn't possible for the Germans to win the battle of Britain so completely though, it would be a phyhricc victory at best.

Although the intensity of the bombing was not as great as prewar expectations so an equal comparison is impossible, no psychiatric crisis occurred because of the Blitz even during the period of greatest bombing of September 1940. An American witness wrote "By every test and measure I am able to apply, these people are staunch to the bone and won't quit ... the British are stronger and in a better position than they were at its beginning". People referred to raids as if they were weather, stating that a day was "very blitzy"

really gets the noggin joggin

I agree, I'm just explaining why they had lost the war after losing it, and why winning it totally would've been awesome. i don't doubt for a minute it was impossible.

Isn't it unfair to use the british reaction to the blitz as they were, as opposed to their intensity had the Germans had established air superiority?

I think you overestimate the effect but w/e that's subjective, germany still would have lost once the United States got involved, I'm not american but U.S.A could have solo'd Germany even if they had to drag it out to 1948 or so (A-bomb excepted). There just weren't enough Germans or factories, what they really needed to do was implement war economy ASAP and let the women work in the fucking factories. Unfortunately for them ideology got in the way.

>germany still would have lost once the United States got involved, I'm not american but U.S.A could have solo'd Germany even if they had to drag it out to 1948 or so (A-bomb excepted).

In a vacuum yes. The problem is they need Britain in the war to launch an invasion of Europe.

Germany was always gonna starve due to lack of resources though. A quick victory was the only way out they had.

You're missing the point. Even if the Germans completely destroyed the RAF( Ha!) they can't destroy London. Nor has terror bombing a good track record. It took all of NATO months to intimidate tiny Serbia in a non-total-war setting. And then we have the rather big problem that British aircraft production was considerably bigger, and any short term advantages would be just that, short term, and eventually reversed.

>The Germans had the Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Vichy french and other allies backing them up, meaning industry was more dispersed.
Have you ever heard of the British "Empire"? You know, with possessions in places like Canada and India and South Africa? Don't be stupid about industrial dispersal.

Did you miss the part where I agreed Germany could never have won the battle of britain?

Also the British Empire wasn't really doing them many favours. India and Australia had miserable industrial output.

No, I didn't. I'm saying that it's fucking irrelevant. The Allies dropped almost TWENTY SEVEN times the bombs on Germany that Germany dropped on Britain. In all that bombardment, the German morale did not break, and the industrial capacity of the Reich was not destroyed, it merely cut into their rising production every year.

Even if, in the event of impossibility, the Germans win the Battle of Britain, and the British fighter force is destroyed, they are not multiplying their ability to bomb Britain by a factor of 27 times. There is zero chance, even if they control the skies, of forcing a British surrender, or of destroying a city like London. And of course, such an advantage is temporary, because it will not substantially cut into British aviation production, which means that that ahistorical loss of the BoB will eventually be reversed.

About the only case you can make is that the British would just surrender because lol they're British or something, when there's really nothing to base that opinion on.

Anyone who is commenting on this thread without having read The wages of destruction by Adam tooze is deeply misguided.

>the outcome of the war was decided when the Nazis failed to gain naval superiority during the Battle of the Atlantic

Fixed it.

Aaaaah

>Those bombing raids over Germany aren't going to stop, if anything, they'll intensify, as land action in Europe seems more and more difficult.
This has always been my biggest issue with ww2 what if's. We know how hard the allies fought with complete air superiority in '44. Imagine the same battles but with the german army "intact". I'd imagine they could throw a few armies out of the sea before the allies could make any serious headway into France.

Also, you're implying that Hitler would attack the US in a reality where the USSR was not involved, this would not be the case.

>There just weren't enough Germans or factories, what they really needed to do was implement war economy ASAP and let the women work in the fucking factories.
>implying they didn't
>implying the women weren't needed elsewhere
You think Hitler really cared about the women?

>Imagine the same battles but with the german army "intact".
But I'm quite literally not imagining that. I'm saying that without the Heer driven into Russia, they're not likely to fight on land at all, with the exception of North Africa anyway.

If they do try to invade, it'll only be after a massively upscaled Transport Plan-ish thing, where Germany is going to have enormous trouble actually bringing its army to bear.

>Also, you're implying that Hitler would attack the US in a reality where the USSR was not involved, this would not be the case.
First off, what does the war with the USSR have to do with Germany's declaration of war on the U.S.? Secondly, the U.S. was taking an increasing number of very hostile moves towards Nazi Germany; war was likely inevitable post the fall of France.

>could hitler have won if he didn't attacked USSR?

Obviously not.

You do realise they were fighting against Britain, right?

You don't need to land on the continent if you can just nuke the Germans.

>people here seriously think that there would be no backlash if the United States just started lobbing nukes into continental Europe and killing millions of Europeans

The reason they used it on Japan was more than just "the war in Europe ended before we could bomb Berlin"

>we're superior to jews
>we lost because of the jews

Why is /pol/ so mentally deficient

There is no plausible scenario in which the nazis win. Their performance in real life was just about as well as it could reasonably have gone for them

>Implying there would be any such backlash when you didn't have any for strategic bombardment in general.
>Implying the entire fucking reason of the Manhattan program wasn't to get an a-bomb before Germany got one.

Yes it's a historical fact that he resisted women working in the factories due to ideology.

>White people are the master race.
>Oy vey, thos dastardly Jews beat us again.

Th Entente's biggest mistake coming out of WW1 was allowing a German state to exist.

>Aryans are superior to everyone else
>Got fucked over by jews and slavs
hmmmmm

Even the best martial arts master can't beat 2000 plebs at the same time.

>could hitler have won if he didn't attacked USSR?
Won what? His whole aim was to attack the USSR

Wow, you're quite the stupid one, aren't you? They were rarer in Europe than an insightful comment by /pol/ by the Sack of Jerusalem. The diaspora happened BECAUSE of the sack, not before it.

They would have lasted beyond 1945 that's for certain.

The thing is Germany did not have any technological means to make Britain submit and sign a peace deal. They could have kicked out the Brits out of Libya had they committed an actual army there, and maybe captured Malta, but overall this doesn't make the British stop from retaining both sea and air superiority.

Had they survived beyond 1945 (without an eastern front) Germany would be hard pressed economically due to the sheer chaos of the economic mobilization/armament industry being continually maintained. At that point the Americans would just make an agreement with the Soviets for two-pronged invasion, and Germany would fall.

Had Hitler been smarter he would have tried to sign a peace deal in 1940-1941 at the earliest, by making concessions like leaving France intact, or not thoroughly annexing Denmark,Norway, Luxembourg, and Belgium, but instead seeking the restoration of the German Empire's borders. But that was never in the plans of any high-ranking Nazi, so it is useless to speculate.

Well maybe he shouldn't try fighting 2000 plebs at the same time.

>m-muh human waves
Stay mad, wehraboo

The German army is not going to be throwing any armies into the sea if the German Air Force is destroyed, which is what allowed overlord to succeed historically. The German ground forces in france were more then sufficient to defend against any invasion, the problem was the decline of the supporting arms.

Furthermore, the US had millions upon millions of men, more then enough to dwarf the size of the German military at any given time.

Fantastic book, and very elucidating.

But I still haven't understood how all German high-command and economic analysts when they were told by Hitler a weak after the war in France ended "Lets invade the Soviet Union", their answer was basically "go for it".

It's such a thoroughly mad decision that convinces me that because of the sheer irrationality of the Nazi regime, they would have destroyed themselves one way or the other.

they had BTFO France Britain and all those other countries so super overconfidant. Plus racism and "muh rotten structure"

>show mercy at Dunkirk

Something else must have been going on here imho

Not him, but for starters, his ground commanders urged him to halt the advance in that sector, as their operational strength was down and pursuing the main French force instead of a pocketed one was a higher priority.

>wehraboo
Really? Hahaha these fedora reddit communist atheists really came up with that one? HAHAHHAHA

Why are there no what if threads about WW1?

Okay Viktor, time to stop posting

No one's asking the most important questions, could Strasser have won?

Are you from the alternate reality where Trotsky headed the USSR instead of Stalin?

Not even if the NSDAP actually formed a cohesive, efficient government and war machine?

he legit trusted hitler, what does that tell you about his strategic capabilities ?

>What if the nazis weren't nazis?