They never had a chance, did they...?

You would need a new ruler (and therefore a completely different Germany) since massive rearmament was always one of Hitler's main goals.

>massive rearmament was always one of Hitler's main goals.
Hell it was one of the Weimar governments main goals, they just went about it in a less intensive manner

who?
I don't know anyone who uses the Sauwastika like that...
the swastika on the other hand

> their ideology mandated aggression and continued power grabbing
So, just like the commies. Right?

Not after September 3, 1939. Before that, maybe.

yeah, authoritarian political cults in general

Up until stalingrad sure, but not after

After the battle of France they should have sunk their resources into North Africa, the Atlantic wall and a defense against a potential Soviet invasion instead of Barbarossa. They should have strove not to piss off America, advising Japan against it and later claiming the comintern pact only stands against the USSR if they do a pearl harbor.

Just like the capitalists too.

>sunk their resources into North Africa
Logistics weren't up to the task for that.

Exactly. That's what makes all those
>if hitler did x he would have won
threads so retarded. Germany never had a chance. From the minute the Nazis got into power in 1933, they had no chance of victory, and with their pants on head retarded economic policy, postponing war wasn't even an option, as they would have just collapsed economically.

Invading the USSR and annexing/colonizing the Baltics and Ukraine was always the main goal of the Nazis though

The British were actually supporting the italian fascist movement at the start to counter act the communist. If Hitler didnt chimp out like a retard, he could have forged an alliance between the western powers and even america to curb stomp the soviet union and probably even give himself a chunk of the conquered territory and be the bad guys there, much like how the soviets ended up doing to Germany in the cold war

Why though? For that year from the fall of France to Barbarossa, Britain and its colonies were the only ones directly fighting the Allies. There was no way that Britain could have started a land invasion, so Hitler could have just left a few units up in Northern France to guard, sent some troops to the Eastern Front to hold off Russia, and sent most of the rest to the British possessions in North Africa/ the ME. Assuming Russia wouldn't attack for a decent amount of time and even with Pearl Harbor in this scenario, the Germans should have been able to do well and turn the tide of the war, right?

No he couldn't, Italy was a very different prospect to Britain than Germany was, and even that love affair ended when Mussolini started modernizing the navy too much for the Brits liking
How's he going to supply those troops user? The Italians failed to take Malta out, the RN is still going to be there even if it does fall

Churchill might have been sympathetic to early fascist movements in Italy and Germany, but the mainstream of British politics would NEVER have been willing to go along with it and Churchill himself wised up real quick and rightly condemned years before he became PM

The port facilities in North Africa could barely support the forces that were historically there even if Malta wasn't ruining everything for the Axis. Rommel's successes leveraged off of capturing British supply depots and were entirely unsustainable given his logistic situation.

It was literally impossible to throw more resources into North Africa.

Because the Germans were barely able to support the paltry 3 division force they had there historically. Their largest port in Tripoli could only process half of the supplies needed, they lacked any sort of infrastructure beyond a single road that stretched 2000 km where a large amount of fuel was being spent just getting supplies to the front line via truck, and the Italian ships which brought the Afrika Korp's supplies to North African ports were often stuck in Italy for want of fuel. El Alamein was the end of their logistical tether; taking Alexandria, let alone Suez, was a pipe dream.

In all honesty, El Alamein was beyond their supply tether, DAK only got that far on the basis of stolen British supplies, and it's telling that about 5,000 tons right there where the army was was worth more than 6 times that much delivered to Tripoli in the same month as Gazala

>on no bolivia DoWed us

Pretty sure the natsees declared war on the only two powers that mattered

No they didn't

Ethno-nationalists states are destined to fail, because of how the ideology works.

Look at North Korea's foreign policy if you want a modern example.

>What is a blockade
>How Bolivia and other irrelevant contries selling strategic goods to my enemies affect me

Look at Japan and see how good its doing.
>Muh multiculturalism is good

> Wehrabooism merging with lost cause-ism

Yeah but they won

>Japan is an ethno-nationalist state
Okay, remind me again how discrimination is practiced by the Japanese state. And no, a few stores in an obscure part of Tokyo don't account for the Japanese government.

You see, it's culturally enforced, not legally, which is 100 times more efficient, safer, and better for diplomacy.
They simply have a xenophobic culture that views people of different nationalities as truly incapable of ever being 'Japanese' while an 'American' can be any color and many do not care.

Evidently not, given that they lost.

North Korea has great diplomacy, in stark contrast with the Nazi Germany.

Even ainu (native japanese) and okinawans aren't considered japanese by the japs, go figure

This is true. The Yamato are self centered enough to believe any of the original tribes are not really Japanese.

Germany maybe still had a chance before munich agreement.
Maybe if Oster conspiracy happened and nazi government overthrown, they maybe could have fixed the debt problem without going bankrupt and crashing their economy.

If you mean if they had any chance in WW2, no.
Invading Soviet Union would've never worked and even if they peaced out in 1940 with all of allies, they were still fucked economically and resource-wise.

They absolutely did. There is a massive laundry list of points where they made the wrong choice and had they decided otherwise things could have turned out differently.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor had German rather than declaring war on America, made an effort to smooth things over, even if it cost them their alliance with Japan, if they could have kept America out of the war, they probably could have won.

When the tides had turned on the eastern front, had Hitler let his Generals commit to an organized retreat to a defensible position, they would have been far more likely to have been able to dig in on a line deep in Russian territory, and prevented literally hundreds of thousands of German casualties from the numerous costly ‘last stands’ Hitler forced, which ultimately resulted in haphazardly, disorganized retreats.

Had Hitler not committed to the siege of Stalingrad and countiuned the original objection of controlling to oil fields, they would have been in a far better strategic position to hold the front agaisnt the Soviet Union.

Germany was not simply defeated by the overwhelming strength of their enemies, there are numerous errors that were committed which seriously comprised them. Honestly if Hitler had just relegated the leadership of the army to the general, I think there is a good reason to think they would have won the war. The German army had an immense amount of talent in the top echelon of the army, and who had they been left to coordinate themselves without Hitler’s interference would have been a million times better off.

>controlling to oil fields
kek, this absolutely was irelevant even most of generals behind Case Blue understood it.
Even if germans managed to conquer all of Caucasia and take Baku, it was irelevant.
Soviets were already planning to destroy all oil fields and start massive fires so germans wouldn't be able to use them for 1-2 years and even if they managed to fix them, British would just do "Operation Pike" tier attack to make sure germans wouldn't be able use any of the oil in the caucasia.

Entire caucasia campaign was a huge retarded mistake that germans wouldn't have been able to maintain for long.
Just like entire Barbarossa, it was one huge autistic spregout which would have never been able to achieve.
The resources were getting extremely scarce in 1942-1943, to the point that german had to abandon half of aerial warpower to save oil.

There was a better chance in 1941 if Germans """"won"""" Battle for Moscow, which was impossible
Or Germans should have just been begging of peace treaty with Soviets right before or right after Case Blue.

>When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor had German rather than declaring war on America, made an effort to smooth things over, even if it cost them their alliance with Japan, if they could have kept America out of the war, they probably could have won.
America entering the war was a question of when, not if; and don't forget, by the time Japan attacked, America was fighting an undeclared war against submarines in the atlantic and funneling a tremendous amount of supplies to the British.

>When the tides had turned on the eastern front, had Hitler let his Generals commit to an organized retreat to a defensible position, they would have been far more likely to have been able to dig in on a line deep in Russian territory, and prevented literally hundreds of thousands of German casualties from the numerous costly ‘last stands’ Hitler forced, which ultimately resulted in haphazardly, disorganized retreats.
So you lose later rather than sooner. You still lose.

>Had Hitler not committed to the siege of Stalingrad and countiuned the original objection of controlling to oil fields
So now Uranus traps the entirety of Army Group South instead of "only" the 6th army? Great idea.

You're retarded.

>and instead focused on their economy
TOP KEKE
Someone tell him

Tell him what?