It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could of Nazis Won WW2?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

It is generally believed - but IIRC as yet there is no actual proof - that these purges were at least partly due to rumours Germany planted but it is equally likely to have simply been the product of a paranoid Stalin and the exposure of the several attempts (by official and decidely unofficial contacts) from the western govs (whom Stalin distrusted intensely) to try and get Russia to side with the west and not Germany.

Yeah supposedly Heydrich orchestrated some of the paranoia associated with the purges under the codename Operation Rubicon.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by agentlopez
To my understanding, the Nazis were VERY powerful in number. I believe that if Hitler was not greedy and foolish, his Third Reich would still have control of Europe today. He was very stupid! I hate him for what he did, but I admire his military strength. What idiot would fight Russia, America, and the rest of the world all at once? Germany, Japan, and Italy were quite foolish too. Now...if he kept the agreement contract with Stalin, he would of definately won and Germany & Russia would of been the 'Super Powers' of today.

They'd've annihilated each other and the rest of the western world along with it if the nazis won wwii. Nazis and Communists get along about as well as Nazis and jews or Communists and corporate landowners.

The entire idea of nazism is to destroy the communists and capitalists. It was either total war or a nazi germany that was so different that it almost can't be called nazi-germany.

*What stradegies should of the Third Reich of done different to win WW2?

Don't fight it. They were, from what I understand, doomed from the start. Either don't fight it or magically prevent britain from getting involved.

I think that the general idea is that the nazis really muffed up by not having a strategic bombing force and not having a large enough stockpile of resources. Germany is a resource poor country, they had to import most of their military resources, thats why blockades were pretty important. Either win the war very quickly in some immpossible way, or build up a global overseas empire with which the mother country can be supported. Of course, that'd take a few lifetimes so it wasn't really an option.

Once the nazis get power in germany, the history has to play out more or less like it does. They have to fight the commies, they have to fight the monied powers of britain and the US, they need global allies like Japan and italy, and they don't have the ability to fight for long at all. Once the idea of "Operation Sealion", the nazi sea-borne invasion of the british islands failed, the war was practically over, so long as the allies stuck with unconditional surrender.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by agentlopez
Let us say hypothetically, Germany conquered all of Europe, what would be their chances of being able to invade the US on thier own homeland?

The nazis and japanese did invade the US. The japanese landed in alaska, and the nazis had subs and sabatouers on the east coast. If they win the war, and the US doesn't have nukes, and the whole russian thing is left out of it, then the nazis make nukes, jet fighters, and transatlantic bombers. NYC, Boston, DC, etc, get nuked, nazi paratroopers and troop transports land SS battallions on the east coast, the Japanese maybe nuke LA and invade thru alaska into canada and occupy the western half of the us. The japanese had some really incredible tech, they had subs that carried aircraft and could've attacked with that.

Buts its all too vague. If the nazis win in europe, does that mean that they're occupying london, edinburough and dublin? What do canada, india, australia and the likes do about that?

And I doubt that they'd attack America with the Soviets still around, so have they also beaten teh soviets, nuked moscow and leningrad? Executed Stalin? Difficult to say what several million slavic and russian slaves can accomplish in terms of productivity.

If the nazis didn't invade poland, france, etc, and only focused on destroying the soviets, then you might have an interesting situation that might permit the british and french from getting involved. But then again the nazis sent the bulk of their fresh troops to the eastern front, to fight the soviets in the actual war anyway, so the soviets certainly received something pretty close to the full brunt of their war machine. And they had already dealt with the japanese in the Russo-Japanese war much earlier, and besides which the japanese problaby would've been pre-occupied with korea and china rather than charging across siberia to get the Soviets.

However the US might not've been in a situation to engage in the lend-lease program, and some would argue that without that the soviet war effort is either doomed, or at least has to be completely altered. And the nazis might've still been able to trade relatively openly with the rest of the world, with the soviets being unable to blockade them.

Infact, it might've been in the best interests of the would-be allies to let the nazis and soviets ruin each other's countries for a generation or so, and to feed the nazis just enough materials to allow them to struggle on.

crazy orange
The Anglo-Saksen powers would have never allowed Germany to spread so far that they could hold Fortress Europe. There trade position would have been comprimised greatly!

It wasn't trade, it was the obvious physical threat of the nazis.

One of Hitler's many, many mistakes, was the Declaration of War against America, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.

There is no way that the Americans don't go to war to the aide of britian and france and europe once they are engaged in war with the Japanese. FDR knew all along that the US and the Nazis were going to have to go to war, and Nazi Germany was obviously, well, absolutely insane. They clearly wanted to conquer Europe and make the rest of the world absolutely subservient to them.

German state one can only wonder at the scale of the fantasy those nutters enveloped themselves in attempting to conquer, hold and integrate all of Europe and beyond by force.

Given an early end to the war without much british involvement and a nazi-soviet 'cold war'', they'd've conquered the european peoples, the concentration camp system and totalitarian state are distrurbingly powerful. Those things've erased any sort of ethnic or even personal identiity before long. Their plan was to turn the whole nation, from the pyrenes to poland, into a giant concentration camp. Ironic, infact, considering that post-wwi germany was in such tatters and genuine horror in defeat, only to have the nazis undo that horror for a moment before brining it back tenfold in victory

But I really think that they'd've been able to contain and control europe, in this 'closed system' where there's no british, russian, or american involvement.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:47 AM
When I play Gary Grigsby's World at War, it's tough to win as Germany.

First, you have masses of distinct Russian armies that fight hard. I think this was the case in the real war, too. If millions of Soviets had not fought so hard (and died in heaps), there'd have been a much larger fight for Berlin and the allies could have been pushed back.

Then, you have a U-Boat force that is supposed to harrass allied shipping lanes but which is actually often more trouble than it's worth. Producing U-Boats is expensive when you have the desire to make aircraft instead.

Finally, you have considerable air defenses in England, and if you can't beat them, you cannot win. Japan is useless.

In the end though, Grigsby does not include the A-Bomb, which is what really won the war. Once the big gun got pulled out, war, in general, was over. It was actually a race to the miracle weapon, and Hitler's own bigotry drove his best German scientists out of Germany and into America.


So no, Hitler, being an idiot and a bigoted nut, could not have won WWII because his personality would always drive the smart people away from him.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:22 AM
Currently reading a book onPatton and throughout the book it is reiterated that the US was "under manned" initial in WW2. After WWI, much of the military was downsized. Even leading up to WW2, there was no "force in numbers" for the US. Obviously, the US rallied and more troops were transported to the ETO.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:53 AM
The one really close 'what if....?' that could have turned everything on it's head was in nov 1939.
(.....and this one doesn't require a long chain of ifs, almosts, buts or maybes.)

Namely the Russian attack on Finland.

Apparantly Britain came within a whisker of declaring war on Germanys' 'ally'.

Quite how things would have worked out then would have been anyone's guess.

Maybe a Soviet dominated, heavily damaged Europe - the nazi defeat inevitable whatever happened - with a solvent Britain retaining a crumbling Empire in dangerous cold war, cold-shouldered by an isolationist anti-British Empire USA?

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:59 AM
Considering that many Nazis were recruited by and brought to the U.S. to work as secret a way they did win because they weren't punished to the full extent of the law.

Just my opinion.... if you want to know what I'm talking about watch Secret Government in my signature.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:26 PM
Two more weeks of attacking Britian and they would have won the war. Scary if you ask me. Just two weeks, 14 days. They would have taken Europe over and moved their troops over to the Russian front and took over Russia. They would have won if they didn't attack Russia until after. Basicaly if they didn't attack Russia too soon they would have won Europe.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:25 PM
Hitler screwed up in 3 major ways, but also 1 other way, but I didn't like it:

1. Trying 2 conquer 2 much at once: Obviously, he screwed up by going after the Soviet Union while he was attacking Britian. HUGE MISTAKE, BUT HE STILL SCREWED UP BY GOING 2 NORTHERN AFRICA LATER!!! CMON!!!

If he would of conquered Britian First:
A. Germany would of had Britian's Navy, or at least wouldn't have 2 worry bout it anymore.
B. He could concentrate more of his forces on the Soviet Union.
C. Supplies
D. America, when they did enter the war, they would have 2 liberate either Britian or North Africa b4 they could launch an assualt against mainland Europe, but if he had waited a bit longer, he wouldn't have 2 deal with the US until after conquering the Soviet Union.

2. Super Weapons: HITLER U FOOL!!! He didn't give the go ahead with the Super Weapons Programs that Germany had going on, until he started 2 lose. IF HE HAD DONE THAT, HE COULD OF HAD 1000s OF ME 262s BY 1943!!! GERMANY WOULD OF HAD AIR SUPERIORITY!!!

3. Hitler making the military plans: Oh this is sad, Hitler was making the strategic plans 4 his generals 2 follow. The thing is, when he got out of the army, HE WAS A CORP.!!! lol! That makes a load of sense. If his generals had made the plans, there might had been a better chance of winning battles decisively even more.

STOP!!! B4 I say this 4th 1, I did not come up with it. Honestly, and I really don't think he needed 2 do it in the 1st place. I was talking bout this topic b4 if they could of won, and some1 brought this up, and cruely enough, it's true:

4: Don't kill the Jews in death chambers, use them as a slave labor: Simple, more production, get work done quickier, and they die of exhaustion by working them 2 death.

I've thought bout the 1st 3 a lot, and if I, respectively, was in power, Germany would have been won. Hitler was just 2 crazy. lol :shk:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:12 AM
haha.. this topic demoted to here too.. I'm beginning to wonder if most of the gen chit chat topics are moved from other fora

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:50 AM
Hitler's first mistake was to allow the BEF to escape from Dunkirk.

His second was to switch from hitting the RAF to bombing London.

Those two actions doomed him to failure.

His third mistake was invading Russia, whether his Greece operation delayed it six weeks or or not, Stalin simply would have evacuated Moscow snd then shifted his production to the Urals and called up his far eastern reinforcements, exactly as he did in reality.

His fourth mistake was to declare war on the US. The world's largest automotive producer with unassailable factories.

His fifth mistake was to send Rommel to re-inforce Mussolini in North Africa instead of walking through a neutral Turkey to Vichy Syria and taking Iraq.

If Churchill had been forced to capitulate he would never have allowed the Royal Navy to fall into German hands, look at what he did to the French fleet at Oran. He would have ordered it to Canada, a gov't-in-exile would have gone with it along with the treasury (as the Norwegians did when Haakon ran to the UK) and the Empire would have funneled its resources north to Canada and Egypt.

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:22 AM
Many of the "mistakes" people think they can identify are just 20/20 hind-sight.

The escape of the BEF is a prime example.
Firstly the concerns about the tanks getting too far ahead of the supporting troops are legitimate (tanks alone are rarely a great idea) and secondly this ignores the attempt at politics and some sort of diplomacy (I think it was intentional).

The myth that the RAF had a fortnight left in it is also as false as it gets. The rotational system has maybe a fortnight left in it but go ask the WW2 Luftwaffe just how long a hard-pressed airforce can fight without rotation of the kind the allies used, hhhhhm?

The attacks on the British cities was forced upon the Luftwaffe strategists as they couldn't think of any other way of forcing the RAF to engage in large enough numbers for them to destroy given their own attrition.

In other words in the BoB the Luftwaffe, far from being on the verge of a win and throwing it away, was actually being bled white itself and forced to try and do something about it!
Thankfully they failed.

Those who foresee a Russian defeat (whether or not the Yugoslav campaign cost 6wks or they Germans didn't 'do' the BoB) have obviously not read too much of what the Germans themselves have said about it and place far too much importance on whether or not Moscow fell (unlike the Russians who were prepared to retreat from and abandon Moscow as they had with Napoleon and many Russian ciries already.......leaving as little to the enemy as possible along with booby traps etc etc).

In none of the 'war-gaming' exercises has a German win ever been possible, they completely under-estimated the Russian forces and productive capacity - as well as grossly over-estimating their own.

Initial German estimates of Russian strength were 175 divisions capable of being boosted to 250 with reserves. Hadler (von Brauchitsch's Chief of Staff) wrote in july 1941 "Until now we have identified 348 Red Army divisions" clearly the complaint of a man who realises with terrible clarity how detached from reality initial plans were.

German losses were irreplacable and her production was absurdly low compared to Russia alone.

Germany lost WW2 because Germany chose to fight WW2.
As has been mentioned before the way for Germany not to lose that war was not to fight it, the instant they did they were always going to lose.

Anything else is wishfull thinking and at odds with the, rather obvious, facts.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

The myth that the RAF had a fortnight left in it is also as false as it gets. The rotational system has maybe a fortnight left in it but go ask the WW2 Luftwaffe just how long a hard-pressed airforce can fight without rotation of the kind the allies used, hhhhhm?

The attacks on the British cities was forced upon the Luftwaffe strategists as they couldn't think of any other way of forcing the RAF to engage in large enough numbers for them to destroy given their own attrition.

It is more than a myth, RAF airfields were under incredible pressure from german fighters and bombers; and indeed couldn't have lasted much longer. It was the switch to bombing the cities which allowed the RAF bases to recover as they were virtually untouched after Hitler's decision on the air compaign.

PS. The lUftwaffe wanted to destroy their counterpart. Tehy knew bombing British cities would all but allow the RAF to rtecover, which is exactly what happened. itler was the only person who made the decision to bomb Brit cities.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in