How could Hitler have won WW2?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

I remember reading before that Stalin had a train ready to go if he thought Moscow was a lost cause. So, he wouldn’t have been captured. Maybe he would have shot himself or someone might have shot him and taken over.

If Moscow fell that winter Leningrad would have likely fallen also soon after. The Germans would surely have taken over the oil resources in the south the following summer and all supplies to the Russians from the west would be cut off. In that scenario Russia may still be in the war but they would be at a shadow of their previous strength.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.

Once Western Russia was occupied (had that even mostly occurred) it would have been game over for the Soviets, they could not simply have just kept falling back, the war would have been over, there would be no way the Soviet Union could have sustained a war and likely no way in which it could have continued as a nation, I think the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

The Germans intention was to lay claim to all of what was west of the Urals. Any Soviet retreat further than that would have ended fullscale war. Had the Soviet Union clung on somehow I doubt any remainign military would have been capable of attacking. The Germans forces could have dealt with that piecemeal over a significantly shorter frontline around Perm, but it wouldnt be a full on war imo. Its possible the Germans would have more strategic capable bombers such as the He-177 or He-277 by then.
But more likely that Russia might have been White Russia (East of the Urals) maybe a demilitarized zone around Perm, and effectively a vassal State of Germany, supplying raw materials, potentially in return for food products.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of German troops were needed to garrison their conquests - the ports and coastal defences of Northern and Western Europe the Mediterrean and Balkans and Greek islands and North Africa - because of the threat from Britain. If Halifax had been PM certainly many of those troops would have been freed up to make up for casualties on the Eastern Front.
As I said before Hitler had only one shot - capture Moscow in 1941. Moscow was the nerve centre of the Soviet Union - seize it and decapitate the leadership take Stalin alive or dead and the system would have collapsed.
German victory would still have been a long shot but it is the only chance history would have turned out differently.

The Winter of 1941 was one of the worst, had the delay been longer, imo so long while the Soviets were still supplying war materiale to Germany, giving the Germans time to knock Britain out of Europe effectively (capturing her 335k odd expeditionary army troops and keeping them as POWs at Britains expense), ie instead of bombing british cities, drop propaganda on them saying we cant feed your troops, you need to help, but you declared war on us, so we're not relaeasing them and remember Churchill set your own army, tanks and all on you in the 20's (before a citizen army was created), I think Britain might have caved and Hawks like Churchill would not have gotten in.
Britain might have had to sue for peace and may have had very restrictive terms applied regarding access to the Med, maybe rewarding Spain with a German co-occupied Gibralter, out of Malta, that might have knocked Britain out of the Med with either no fight or left them so weakened to be easier to deal with/disregard/access to Iran for oil via shipping.


With Britain not just out of Europe, but out of the Med, that would have a significant effect on encouraging cooperation among other nations without even engaging in military action, Greece, Yugoslavia, which broken up were more of a danger and problem for Germany.


Dealing with Russia, single handed after that, they may have had other resources than horses, they might even have gotten away with using horses, they'd likely have better aircraft than they started out with, more FW190 rather than only Bf109, More Ju88's than Me110 and He111, and possibly longer ranged strategic bombers if they even needed them at that point.
While the Soviets may have been more prepared, I believe at one point the Soviets even offered a truce or there was the potential of peace when they thought they were going to collapse before the Russian winter set in and even after 1941. Stalins suspicions of this even after the Anglo-American alliance was established in Britain left the allies susceptible to breaking up later in the war, but with a knocked out Britain and a USA not even in the war, I think this was a high possibility with huge concessions from the Soviets,

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

Agreed, had the Germans been more like the Allies in conducting their war, fighting to their strengths and not even engaging in outright war, but a more hostile war diplomacy (basically threats), they might have achieved more (while buying time themselves).
If that occured, even if it took fighting to achieve, I belive it would have weakened Stalin t the extent that he'd have been shot in a basement in the Kremlin, shot and thrown off a train on its way east of the Urals or handed over to the Germans and shot. That imo would have been prior to, during or just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

Govts in exile don't hold that much power, unless there is a nation at war directly with the occupier. Britain couldnt do anything for the Poles in exile when the Soviets rolled in, France and Greece was different because the British and French forces were so near and french forces armed with US equipment were allowed/used to participate after D-day. Greece was withing the British sphere of influence of the Med, because the RN and the allies had access everywhere in the Med they saw fit.
There is no way a Govt in exile could have retaken a defeated Soviet Union. I dont think the British and US would have supported it, where to? China? in a timeline where Germany knocks Britain out of a war early by rapid defeat as occured and then have them sue for peace, doesnt look like a war where the USA substantially got involved until too late, either Japan focused on China, no benefit to Soviets or a seperate White Russia expels or shoots Soviet leaders and commisars they capture.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

I think that would have happened.

Azza wrote: »

Well if we are trying to look at alternate histories that could of been in terms of how Hitler could of World War II, I'd try to keep to it to reality/feasibility as close as possible, as in what was achievable with Germany's known capabilities, leadership and ideology with the benefit of hindsight. Otherwise one could literally suggest anything, i.e Hitler should of built a fleet of Star Destoyers and crafted the One Ring and he would of won.

Samsonsmaher suggestion about Britain accepting peace if Halifax became PM has the strong merit that it doesn't require any change or out of character decision on Hitlers part. He didn't want to be at war with Britain and did offer them peace terms. Peace with Britain did not conflict with Hitlers ideology. My issue though with the suggestion is the leadership of Britain is not something Germany could ever have control over.

The Germans did have control over the Halt order at Dunkirk. Had that decision been made to attack ,most of the BEF would have been destroyed at Dunkirk (I've never read or heard any historian say it was beyond the Germans capability to do this), there is a possibility that Britain with no army left to speak of, would of accepted peace terms. Yes had the Germans attacked the British at Dunkirk, the conquest of France might have taken longer and the Germans might have sustained overall higher causalities than they did historically, but the Battle of France had already been decided at that point, the French where beaten. With Britain out of the war, the Battle Of Britain does not have to be fought meaning the Luftwaffe is considerably stronger for Operation Barbarossa, there would also be no war in North Africa which was incredible resource (oil) intensive from a German perspective, no war in North Africa that resources sent there would of been freed up for Barbarossa as well. Finally the naval blockade of Germany/Occupied Europe also would come to an end, allowing Germany to trade for oil, increasing their supply for Barbarossa. Combining these factors, there is a chance that the German's take Moscow in 1941. There would also been no aid sent to the Soviet Union by Britain either, though its debatable how much the aid they sent them historically actually mattered.

The aid to Russia was vital. In the Moscow defense something like 20% of the tanks were British. Even more so the supplies and material see what Khrushchev said about this later. I read that 90% of the red armys food rations were from US/Britain in 1944.

Duke of Schomberg wrote: »

Well its a good job we were up for the fight - unlike DeValera, fueling U-boats and directing German bombers to Belfast. That Fenian was a disgrace to those Free Staters that did take up arms against evil.

Hitler defeated by orange flutes.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Weren't British tanks famously crap, though?

I gather that by the time of D-Day the British had largely switched to using American Sherman tanks, and even they were not considered to be much good compared with the best German tanks that they faced. Many writers of the period point out that the advantage the Shermans had over Tigers and Panthers was merely that there were more of them. Also, that they were more serviceable and repairable and could be patched up and put back into the fight after suffering minor damage more easily than the Germans which had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own side once they suffered any significant damage.

Just a brief anecdote: my late father was a child in England during the War. He used to visit a convalescent centre with his mother where wounded soldiers were recuperating after hospital treatment. He said he once spoke with a wounded British tank driver (he would have been about 10-11 years old) and asked him "Are those Tiger tanks any good?"
"Too ****ing god, son!" was the reply.

The British used a range of tanks, following D-Day, differently armed Shermans to the US 17pdrs?, Cromwells ( & Centaurs), Churchills, they had a challenger built in low numbers and still used Valentine tanks in Italy, so its likely they were using their Grant tanks there also, but Grants were also used in Europe too, I think its just that Shermans get recognised and maybe photographed a lot?
By the end of the war they had Comets, I think fighting had ceased by the time Centurions had arrived