German Victory WW2

>Focus on uboats exclusivly.

You simply cannot conquer the Atlantic with just U-boats alone. It's far too big of an area. You must build aircraft carriers.

>What if Hitler instantly surrendered
Dunno, doubt the allies will accept anything other than an unconditional surrender and God knows where that'll lead to

You mean I can't just spam U-boats to kill the royal navy just like in Hearts of Iron 2?

Yes an instant unconditional surrender Hitler will agree to be Roosevelt's literal public bitch if he wants.

Goebbels will be my cumslut, then.

>Focus on uboats exclusivly.
Wouldn't change shit, Germans were never even close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Submarines aren't wonder-weapons. They had some great periods but in general they didn't achieve much, and inevitable Allied technological progress crippled their effectiveness. At worst case, Americans and British build more destroyers and patrol aircraft.
>Make sure to capture the brittish at Dunkirk.
Dunkirk is overrated. Even if you captured all those Brits nothing would change in the grand scale of things. Sure, loss of trained men and officers would hurt, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
That is, if you manage to capture them all. There are good reasons why Germans stopped.
>At the battle of brittain focus exclusivly on radar installations and their airfields and airforce.
And do what? This is another myth. Germans were never even close to knocking out RAF. Even if they somehow magically achieved air superiority over Southern England, RAF could always relocate a bit north and you're fucked. Kriegsmarine is incompetent and weak and there is no chance of Sealion succeeding.
>Invite Spain to the Axis after the defeat of France and have them invade Gibraltar.
Besides doing that, maybe, Spain was totally useless and divided country ravaged by civil war few years before. Franco was invited and was smart enough to decline. Spain in Axis would change nothing.
>Support the China instead of Japan.
Nothing would change, realistic German support would be too limited to change anything.
>Make peace with the Ukrainians
Treating people in occupied territories would be good. But that also means you get less resources for your inefficient economy, and less slaves for your industry. But sure, it would be a good move. However, that move was exactly against Nazi ideology. Lebensraum or living space (in the East) was on it's pillars.
>Offer Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan to Turkey if they join the Axis.
Land you don't own.
[1/2]

>Help the Italians from the start to take Grecce.
And that changes what exactly?
>Capture Malta and send a larger expedition to Africa
Easier said than done, and also you wouldn't be able to supply larger expedition. Even the one they sent had huge problems.
>Never declare war on USA
USA would join the war whether you declare it or not, unless you somehow stop Japanese from attacking. Even then, USA would probably enter. Anti-war sentiment there is exaggerated by historical illiterates like you. Americans in general had no love for Hitler.
>Fortify Normandy more and go with Rommels plan of having response units closer to the beaches.
Wouldn't change much. Normandy landings actually went very smoothly. Allies were prepared to face what Germans could throw at them. Confusion in German ranks only helped, it wasn't crucial.
And where do you get the resources to further fortify Normandy?
Something else would suffer and Allies land there. Pas-de-Calais for example.
>Dont waste paratroopers on Crete
It was a successful operation that seized a major island in Mediterranean. How would you use them, if not for what they were raised for?
>Never attack Stalingrad instead shift troops to Moscow.
Moscow was a fortress by then and most of Soviet troops were concentrated there.
>Dont spend reasources on killing jews instead use them as slave labour better.
Only good proposition of yours.
>Focus on building jets and nukes.
Germans focused on building jets but didn't get too far.
Nukes, you're totally plagued by various factors. Germany was extremely far from building a nuke in WW2.
>Help Finland more with troops and material.
And break your pact with Stalin few months after it was signed? While you depend on Stalin for resources, and while you're facing French and British in the west?
That's idiotic.
>Its actually very possible for Germany to win ww2.
No it wasn't, it was a very remote possibility.
[2/2]

Nice HOI AAR dude

Literally the only thing that prevented Germany from victory was American-lend lease.

the only reason Russian people physically exist is because of American "lend-lease"

without lend-lease saving the Russian "species", that entire region, and people would be a brief lesson in German childrens school books.

if left totally to their own devices, without a single solitary form of aid from the US or some outside interference like lend-lease, the soviet union and the core of boleshevism would have been extinguished like a small match in a hurricane by Years end 1941.

The outset of Barbarossa was absolute annihilation of Soviet Forces in all fronts, all battlefields. Their command structure was obliterated and thier industry shattered. Factories were literally and physically in transit to central Russia and would not have been at a worth-while production capacity before the lot of their reserves were used up. Muddy roads or not, there would have been ZERO worthwhile production from the war industry in Russia untill midway through 1942, if at all.

Their only strategy was to clog the proverbial German wood-chipper with Soviet bodies long enough to stall them before the industry could be re-assembled in 1942.

American Lend lease products single handedly saved the Russian-slavic species.

nice meme

Ahh, if only the advanced minds of /pol/ were around to help Hitler back then, these plans are all staggering in their depth of understanding of international politics and war and are all foolproof. Alas.

>Muddy roads or not, there would have been ZERO worthwhile production from the war industry in Russia untill midway through 1942, if at all

1. Battle of Moscow was won before any significant quantity of LL arrived.
2. LL was around 10% of Soviet war production.
3. LL was paid (in gold).
4. British received far more than Soviets.

Dream team right here. That is like Wh40K levels of production.

>Nukes, you're totally plagued by various factors. Germany was extremely far from building a nuke in WW2.
I wonder, did germany even have access to a proper source of uranium at any point during WWII?

>Muh lend lease

Fucking revisionism at its best

There's plenty of uranium in Germany and Czech Republic. Whether they exploited it in WW2, I'm not sure. But they could have all uranium in the world, they were extremely far from making a nuclear weapon. Driving out shitload of scientists and further conscripting shitload of them while denouncing "Jewish physics" does that to you.

There is the story about the U-Boat transporting Uranium Oxide to Japan, so Germany was getting it from somewhere

That article talks about the first 6 months of 1941, and Barbarossa didnt even begin untill almost July (month 7). And Soviet industry continued, BECAUSE lend lease happened, because lend lease allowed them to continue to fight and defend, when by their own means, they were defeated and in retreat.

and it was all about the savior-like opportune timing of Lend-lease. It came in their greatest hour of need. on the eve of defeat.

There is a direct correlation to the lend-lease equipment arrivals and the "tide being turned" against the Germans in the East. Inconcievable to think anything else precipitated German defeat in that front. It was the direct origin of their loss. It was 2 massive nations productions against one. the Germans killed 5:1 then 6:1 then 7:1. aircraft, men, vehicles you name it. and yet more replaced it. all from America

Are you retarded, or you can't speak English? Battle of Moscow was won by Soviets before any significant quantity of LL arrived.
Do I need to draw this for you so you can understand?

uranium was being mined there but not nearly in the quantities required, nor was it possible with even 1945 era technology to exploit it
US got fairly lucky that the Congolese mines already had a 1200 ton stockpile of uranium ore lying around by the time the manhattan project started and had the infrastructure present for a yearly 400ton supply

germany didn't have anything even near that

Do you know how long it takes a ship to get to either Archangelsk or Vladivostok and then overland to the west? And America wasn't licence producing Soviet aircraft so I don't know where the fuck you're getting this "all from America" delusion, lend lease was more about the trucks and railcars than actual military hardware anyway

>What war aims what if they wanted revenge against Britain for Versailles?
t.[hon hon hon intensifies]

>That article talks about the first 6 months of 1941, and Barbarossa didnt even begin untill almost July (month 7)
It also talks about the other 6 months of 1941, and 1942.
>And Soviet industry continued, BECAUSE lend lease happened, because lend lease allowed them to continue to fight and defend, when by their own means, they were defeated and in retreat.
Maybe for later on in the war, but I'm having a hard time understanding how Soviet industry was reliant on the 2.1% of the total Lend Lease sent in 1941.

The most populous European country spent 20 years preparing for a future war, what did you expect?

>Focus on uboats exclusivly.
This will cost you steel that is historically going to the Heer and the Luftwaffe. How much ability to knock over places like Poland and France quickly (and you do need quick, decisive wins there) are you sacrificing for your ability to harass British shipping?

>Make sure to capture the brittish at Dunkirk.
Ahh, starting the proud tradition of overriding your generals early, I see. And when you run into trouble pushing half-strength panzer formations unsupported by infantry into the swamp, what then?

>At the battle of brittain focus exclusivly on radar installations and their airfields and airforce.
Even if this works, what do you do when FG 11 either gets reinforced by 12 or pulls back to the Midlands out of escort reach?

>Invite Spain to the Axis after the defeat of France and have them invade Gibraltar.
This was historically attempted, Franco was not interested in joining this hatchet fight.

>Support the China instead of Japan.
Yes, I'm sure the China (which China? It was hardly politically unified) will do lots and lots to help you.

>Make peace with the Ukranians.
1941 Germany + conquered territories was not food self-sufficient. If you make nice nice to the Ukranians, that probably means you're not embarking on the confiscatory food policies, which means someone else starves. Who are you condemning to die, user?

>Offer Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan to Turkey if they join the Axis.
You have none of these areas, and have little chance of actually getting them. Furthermore, Turkey has no interest in being invaded by the USSR, which is the likely response to joining the war on your side.

>Help the Italians from the start to take Grecce.
Okay. So you're invading Yugoslavia in the winter, I take it?

>Capture Malta
How? With the landing craft you don't have?
1/2

>and send a larger expedition to Africa
It can't be supplied. Hell, Rommel's forces as they were couldn't be supplied, and often Tripoli was bulging with supplies that were delivered to the port but couldn't get to the front.

>Never declare war on USA
And when they declare war on you? It's going to happen; by late 1941 you were already in an undeclared war, effectively.

>Fortify Normandy more
And when the Allies spot this and attack somewhere else?

>go with Rommels plan of having response units closer to the beaches.
Why do you think it would work in France when it didn't work in Salerno?

>Dont waste paratroopers on Crete.
Okay. What do you do if the British start basing heavy bombers there and start pounding on Ploesti?

>Never attack Stalingrad instead shift troops to Moscow.
So they can break their teeth on the huge defenses there? The main reason Blau got as far as it did was that the Soviets thought Hitler would make another crack at their capitol and had the bulk of their army up north.

>Dont spend reasources on killing jews instead use them as slave labour better.
So now you have more slave laborers. How much do you think was actually spent on the extermination policies? It wasn't that much.

>Focus on building jets
Why? The WW2 jets sucked. Low range, high maintenance and fuel costs, bad kills per sortie. They were only useful for not getting shot down in flight, but if they can't actually bring down bombers, they don't actually help you. The 1,430 Me-262s historically built had 542 confirmed kills between them.

>and nukes.
You have no delivery mechanism, or easy access to uranium. At best, you will throw down a bunch of money and man-hours so you can be some of the way towards a bomb instead of nowhere near it when the Allies overrun Berlin.

>Help Finland more with troops and material.
Why?

Of your 16 recommendations, 2 are impossible, 6 are useless, and 8 are actively bad ideas.

>the Germans killed 5:1 then 6:1 then 7:1.
They killed 1.3:1 overall in the war, and most of that was the huge losses they inflicted in the early war not being replicated. Furthermore, the bulk of Lend-Lease arrived after the battle of Kursk.

>it was just trucks and rail-cars.

Logistics were literally the determining factor between winners and losers in World War II. The entire war as about production: both man and machine.

at a casualty ratio of 8 dead Russians per 1 dead German. The tactical goal of occupying Moscow was repelled, but given the course of the rest of the war it was not the decisive action.

and Moscow was only "the turning point" because from that campaign forward, German could never have the materiel advantage again.

and the Soviets did not rebound from their "victory" in Moscow with Military campaign victory, or a German retreat from their nation but instead saw millions of men Shredded in Rhyzev, Leningrad and soon Stalingrad.

Im sure it did, when the war was fully engaged on 2 fronts. But what DID show up 1941-1943. was the deciding factor in World War II.

The Timing of the first major arrivals of lend lease during 1942 saved the Soviet Union from LOSING the protracted war of attrition, rather than winning.

and 1943 Ensured Soviet Victory. By 1943 Germany had "lost" the initiative it was stalemating for in 1942.

Lost was cast and the deciding factor was this aide. It broke the stalemate, and nearly every post in this thread has proven that, whether my own, or others refutations. all of them show the dead being broken by 1943. Coincidentally the height of lend-lease aide to the soviet union (into 44).

>But what DID show up 1941-1943. was the deciding factor in World War II.
Prove that. Show what arrived against what was domestically produced by the Soviets.

>The Timing of the first major arrivals of lend lease during 1942 saved the Soviet Union from LOSING the protracted war of attrition, rather than winning.
It was never really in a risk of losing a war of attrition. The Germans themselves planned on needing to destroy the Soviet military capacity and getting a surrender before the Soviets retreated across the Dvina-Dniepr lines, preferably within 2 months.

Real life is not Hearts of Iron.

>Why?
We could have btfo'd SPB though Mannerheim was sentimental about attacking SpB and might have not done it anyway even if it was actually the smart move.

see
>pic related.
and on top of that ,nearly 100% of all produced lend-lease goods found their destination in Russia. Virtually none were interdicted. That fact in and of itself could be legendary. It was a colossal effort to float this country in its hour of need.

and as clearly indicated by the charts, Lend-lease shipments arrive on the DAY OF BARBAROSSA's onset.

The charts also clearly show that some 85% of it arrives from the second half of 1943 onward, and would continue to arrive until 1949.

You have been making a claim that it was the critical component of the early war period by citing to overall volume of Lend-Lease sent, not WHEN it was sent; goods delivered late in the war are not going to have an impact retroactively.

>let Turkey have Azerbaijan.
And let the turks get the sweet petrol in Baku? No thanks

This has got to be the single most clearly underage OP in all of Veeky Forums.

Remember this book and realize all Hitler's decisions make sense when you realize how critically short of every resource the Germans were

>needed to invade france and belgium for steel and coal
>needed to invade norway for steel from sweden
>needed to invade the ukraine for coal and wheat
>needed to invade the caucasus for oil
>needed to liquidate undesirables because you literally don't have enough food for them

>There are good reasons why Germans stopped.
There is literally no good reason
Guderian would have been able to reach Dunkirk long before the British and the capture of the BEF would have been a huge blow to British morale

Rommel's plan was fucking retarded and is a good reason why the Normandy landings were virtually unstoppable.
You need a group of highly mobile divisions many miles behind the front lines so that they can move to wherever the front is most badly threatened

>How to win WW2 as Germany
>put Guderian in charge of the OKW
>actually listen to Guderian
>fire Goering

Your daily reminder that Hitler didn't originate the Halt Order, he simply ratified it after Von Rundstedt and Kluge ordered a stop.

Your daily reminder that the panzers were becoming separated form their infantry support, which is bad enough on their own, but they were also incurring significant operational losses. While these are things that could be repaired, that takes time.

Don't split army group south.
Don't be cautious when your only successes are from blitzkrieg

>go with Rommels plan of having response units closer to the beaches.
>allied aircraft and local spies locate panzer units
>allies land where the panzers aint

>thus a communised whole germany, netherlands, belgium, switzerland, france, norway, sweden and possibly a war with spain to communize it.

>op's post just got defenstrated like some bitch ass c*tholics.

>Logistics were literally the determining factor between winners and losers in World War II
I'm not debating that, I'm wondering why you started going on about aircraft when it was a very small part of the LL system

Do not invade Poland and work on either making Germany self sufficient or make sure the allies don't starve you out. Also don't let your economy fail. Also work on building nukes missles and subs.

>1941 Germany + conquered territories was not food self-sufficient. If you make nice nice to the Ukranians, that probably means you're not embarking on the confiscatory food policies, which means someone else starves. Who are you condemning to die, user
This. The Germans were able to plunder a shit ton of food from the occupied eastern territories, using the priority of army first, homeland second, and occupied lands last. From July 1941 to the end of 1943, they procured 4,710,000 tons of cereals, 537,000 tons of raw meat, 760,000,000 eggs, 10,737 tons of poultry, 107,600 tons of butter, 330,700 tons of vegetables, 2,670,000 tons of potatoes, 133,000 tons of sugar, and 230,000 hectolitres of alcohol.
And those are just shipments to the Wehrmacht - there were also shipments back to Germany, although not as large. Without all that food, you'd have to ship it in from somewhere else, when your own citizens are already complaining about rationing, and the transportation system in the occupied eastern territories are overburdened and inefficient.

>,nearly 100% of all produced lend-lease goods found their destination in Russia.
Most lend-lease goods were given to Britain.

read the picture, close to 100% of Russia bound shipments made lanfall in Russia. Virtually none were lost.

I'm aware of the overall distribution. and British Aide vs Russian aide was VERY different. Anything given to the British or the French was essentially the U.S. giving something to itself. The British+French+U.S. goals were symbiotic. There could hardly be a distinction between those three and their equipment. They acted in unison, as a singular front.

The Germans and Russians fought each other without major populations of allies in the front lines. (although I realize each had other nationalities involved in the front, the numbers were insignificant.)

That being said, the bravado and sheer amnesic memory of the the British+French+U.S. mythology of their contribution in 'winning' the war is rather funny depending on how you study this war.

Each member has its boastful tale how it "won the war", but truly it was Germany that LOST the war after succumbing to death by supply denial.

Germany's strategy was basically a first strike elimination of all western armies (initial succeeeds) and then wheel eastwards on those same supplies, where oil, food and material would be gathers O.S.P. through micro campaigns in the balkans, africa, italy and scandinavia. Victory could be ensured by disrupting Russian production long enough to assume those strategic goals. Russian prodcution was disrupted, but not before the largest aide package in human history could negate the late coming campaign victories (mostly) for Germany in those theaters. Italy's failure was the first nail, Moscow the 2nd and the lid closed with Lend lease. Everything after was the indomitable will of the German man.

Ok. So we go with you obviously bullshit story about how lend-lease was THE factor in the Soviets winning the war. How do you stop this lend-lease, exactly? Roosevelt is indomitably opposed to your regime, and even if you some how prevent their literal entry into the war they are going to be lendleasing them regardless.

>lend lease was more about the trucks and railcars than actual military hardware anyway

Trucks, rail cars, and aluminum. I don't fully agree with the user you're replying to, but the raw materials is what helped keep the Soviets producing at the rate they did. Don't have the image on me, but we're talking hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of tons in metals that were used to supplement Soviet production. From stuff like prefabbed aluminum plates for air craft production to copper wiring that could wrap around the globe several times over to be used in building factories, communications, and bases on the front. The lend lease's goal was to supplement Russian production and production needs so they could worry less about procuring materials and moving them around and instead pump out German killing death machines. In that sense it totally worked. And worked well.

You forgot about convincing Franco to join the axis

But China was at a civil war at the time

Lend Lease supplied 82.5% of Soviet wartime copper production, 96% of wartime aluminum production, along with 956,700 miles of field telephone cable, 2,100 miles of sea cable, 1,100 miles of underwater cable, 35,800 radio stations, 5,899 radio receivers, and 348 radars.

>paratroopers on crete
>successful operation

Was the object of the operation to occupy Crete? Yes
Was crete taken? Yes

>b-b-but it was a costly victory so they didn't actually win

Why would he listen you Captain Hindsight?

> muh lend-lease

Can't tell if bait, the Soviets didn't get any significant aid from lend-lease until mid-1942, after Barbarossa failed and the Germans lost any chance of winning the wat.

>i achieved my goal, so it was successful
If my goal is to fight a toddler and i lose my arm was that "successful"? Successful implies it went better than expected

>another "Germany would have won WW2 if I was Führer" thread
WEW
E
W

Not sure why Hitler would listen to me.

Step one: Don't break the Treaty of Munich.

There is no step two.

Thats pretty silly, considering the Axis occupied most of Western Europe. Thats a hell of a bargaining chip, even more so if it will be Germany loosing face by surrendering

>Dunkirk is overrated.

A total defeat at Dunkirk opens the door to peace with Britain, which means no American involvement either, and probably peace with France, freeing up huge numbers of troops and letting the G*rm concentrate on the Sl*v.

I'm fairly certain Germany just wouldn't exist or get turned into an actual shithole

It's baffling to see someone who doesn't know basic word definitions. Might explain a lot of things on here.
Do a quick google and upgrade yourself.

Break the treaty of Munich and don't go to war sounds like a better idea: you get to annex the Czechs

The only way the Germans win the Second World War is if they win the first

The whole point of Nazism was to destroy the USSR and annex the World-island for the Aryan race. Occupying the West was never the plan, and the Czechs in their rump state would become economically annexed to the Reich anyway.

The Soviet Union was going to become unassailable sooner or later. Barbarossa was a gamble to try and take down the Soviets before they became impossible for Germany to take down. That was the rationale at least.

You are going to have war on the East by virtue of being two expansionist dictatorships close to each other.

Not to mention Germany and Russia have always struggled for control of the Northern European Plain particularly the Carpathian-Baltics chokepoint.

youtu.be/W6LIhNgsQoc

That's a cute boy, is he in a band?

>Focus on building Jets And nukes
Fine, you are Germany in 1945 and you have a nuke. What Now? You Will never be able to get it to Russia or Allied territory since Luftwaffe got btfo already.
What are you gonna do? Detonate it on your own land?

What a load of absolute nonsense

They never conducted another major airborne operation ever again because of Crete, the losses were insane

>A total defeat at Dunkirk opens the door to peace with Britain

how? it's would just make brits even more angry like bombarding london did

They did lose a lot of aircraft and had a high casualty ratio yes, but the Allied losses were even more substantial. 20% casualties could've been a lot worse, look at many other major WW2 battles.

I think it was quite a remarkable victory considering the Allies knew when and where they were coming. I think further airborne operations might have been even more effective.

>After beat France ignore pizza's and just go for Russia
>Ignore Übermensch autism, get along with Poles and rest of nations who live under USSR boot also treat better captives so Russians resistance could stay low
>Win War

I think losing an extra 400,000 men just across the channel might have given them a slight moment of pause don't you think?

In other words:
>Don't be Nazis

This.
If the Nazis weren't so butthurt at Slavs, they would destroy Soviet Union with no problem. Ffs, majority of Slavs hated Communism more than Germans.

>That's a cute boy
Yes he is.

>over 500 Greek civilians executed
b-but they dindu nuffin they gud boyz

BEFEHL IST BEFEHL

Considering they had no idea about the prolonged effect of nuclear weapons in 1945, the answer is most definitely.

Not that Germany was anywhere near to getting a nuke during WWII.

>the prolonged effect of nuclear weapons in 1945,
Which was practically none if Hiroshima and Nagasaki are to be considered.

>Practically none

Oh look, 1950 Hiroshima is a nuclear wasteland full of mutants.

Way to sperg out over a meme post.