Is there really anyway Germany could have won WW2 following 1941?

>>2167907
no it was a lost cause from the beginning

>>2167911
Hmm, then is there anyway they could've dragged the war on for longer?

Not really.

They couldn't remove the US, the UK, or the USSR completely from the war.

The combination of these three powers was nearly guaranteed to destroy them.

>>2167916
Not without getting nuked.

If Hitler had not send his soldiers to death in Stalingrad,i think it yes.

>>2167921
So, in your mind how would Germany been able to pull off a victory in the east had they avoided Stalingrad?

>>2167926
If Hitler listened to Guderian and went for Moscow instead of redirecting troops south to encircle Kiev, thus allowing moscow to be taken before the winter hit. While the encirclement was the largest in history "what did it achieve?" considering USSR has a ridiculous manpower

>>2167940
But wasn't Moscow practically a impenetrable fortress by 1941? Could they actually have taken the city?

File: ribben.jpg (44KB, 541x800px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 541x800px

>>2167907
Could have Hitler avoided war with the US?

It seems to me that the US only had the intention of fighting the Japs at the onset of the war.

Also, did this man have anything to do with the downfall of Germany?

>>2167926
Not that guy, but having better foresight in general would've helped the Germans. The possibility of getting caught up in the winter was always present, especially after delays. Also a lot of tactical errors were made when Hitler assumed direct control over the army and no one was brave enough to ask him to reconsider a decision.

>>2167926
In my mind its more than likely as the army was better supplied in the summer and the raputistia(however thats spelled) also known as general mud allowed the soviets an additional month of reinforcements through hindering troop and armour movement. Though it's hard to say

>>2167907

No. Hell, there's pretty much no way they could have won following the invasion of Poland; Hitler had played the brinksmanship game too far, there was very little chance of him actually parlaying his early victories into a favorable peace, which means that sooner or later the industry advantage of his adversaries crushes him.

>>2167940

>If Hitler listened to Guderian and went for Moscow instead of redirecting troops south to encircle Kiev,

If Hitler listens to Guderian and goes to Moscow directly, the largely unrested Army Group Center attacks before the disaster of the Roslavl-Novozybkov offensive (began August 30th) and Soviet defenses are much tougher than they were historically, even if the force at Kiev sits around and masturbates. Which they won't.

It's a dumb as shit plan to just go after Moscow like that. If anything, the mistake was bringing them back north again after encircling and taking Kiev.

>>2168003


Not as long as he's at war with Britain. U.S. public opinion enormously favored the UK over the Germans, and it wasn't so much "Who do we like" as it was "Is it worth going to the trouble and bloodshed of a war to fight Germany". And while public opinion was pretty negative on that latter one by 1941, you had Lend-Lease going on in full swing and an ever expanding American naval perimeter. You'd almost certainly get a few incidents with u-boat fights, and that would push the U.S. still further towards war.

>>2167950
Moscow was the political capital. Cut them off from the rest, and the baltic states would immediately rebel (and side with Germany). Stalin would have been starved out with a siege.

>>2168046

>Moscow was the political capital

So?

>and the baltic states would immediately rebel (and side with Germany).

Are you retarded? The Baltic states were already liberated/occupied by Germany long before the Germans were anywhere near Moscow, and were militarily pretty worthless to boot.

> Stalin would have been starved out with a siege.

How? Army Group Center isn't anywhere nearly big enough to invest a city the size of Moscow. Again, think of Stalingrad. Army Group B of Blue didn't have enough men to invest Stalingrad, and one of the reasons Uranus was such a disaster was they had to stretch themselves so thinly on the flanks to cover as much of the city as they did.

Meanwhile, while AGC is a bit over twice the size, it's also trying to surround a city about 10 times as big. There's no way of starving it out short of spreading so thinly the Soviets will roll you up a few companies at a time. (And that's assuming you can keep your own men fed since almost all of the local rail connections go through Moscow itself, which will necessarily remain out of your control for some time.)

>>2167907
nah, not militarily, Soviet production levels were to great

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLkADpdKL0k

Potentially through diplomacy, playing up the soviet threat to western Europe and securing more Nordic support as well as an Alliance with the British, was their only hope. but this was almost impossible