Discuss Here

There wasn't a chance of victory from the moment he invaded Russia. Even less after declaring war on the US.

The best he could have hoped for was a stalemate using mobile defense tactics (such as Manstein proposed), but he refused them.

Regardless, Germany would have been bled dry and had they lasted longer, would have suffered the nukes we used on Japan.

>>2256808
Most people think if he invaded in may instead of june like originally planned he would have taken moscow before bad weather.

>>2256839
The Russians wouldn't have just keeled over because Moscow was taken. The reason why there's such an emphasis on Moscow is because the generals were adamant about taking it, mistakenly believing that the Russians were the French.

It's a way for German generals to deflect blame for Hitler diverting resources for the Kiev encirclement which Hitler deemed essential to deny the USSR both manpower and grain. In a way, Hitler was more of a progressive strategist than the old "take the capital and we win" mentality.

>>2256808

the war was lost after invading russia and declaring war on the US,so much is clear.but at what point could the axis still have won?if japan wouldnt have attacked pearl harbour and Mussolini and Hitler would stand against the commonwealth alone?

>>2256839
Taking Moscow in 1941 would have meant that the Germans would have been trapped there like they were at Stalingrad a year earlier. Doing so may have hastened their defeat, not led to victory. Plus, had they left the large mass of troops on their flanks at Kiev, Army Group Center's flank would have not been able to hold.

>>2256808
>There wasn't a chance of victory from the moment he invaded Russia
Completely false

>>2256733
No.

>>2256887
If Hitler had not invaded Russia and not declared war on the US, then yes, they probably would have "won".

Troops and resources could have been directed to the Mediterranean against England and they could have possibly taken them out of the war with more resources thrown into subs before the British developed technology to stop them.

Japan is irrelevant. The moment they go to war against the US they've lost. We pushed them all the way back to their home islands with 10-20% of our military production as the rest was thrown against Germany. What Japan did was not reliant on Germany at all. They were in a classic Catch-22. Either they pull out of all their conquests in China (which don't give them the oil and resources they need) or the US cuts them off (which stops them from trading for the oil and resources they need). Sadly, we pushed Japan to war, not the other way around.

Most people see Prime Minister Tojo as a warmonger. He wasn't. He was appointed to the position because the Japanese were prepared to accept any US terms for the resumption of trade/oil/etc and they needed someone the military would obey if told to vacate China. The fact that US diplomats didn't trust their Japanese counterparts and continually didn't respond or out right ignored proposals drove Japan to war.

>>2256904
The only way Germany could have triumphed against Russia was if they went in as true liberators. Perhaps, and only perhaps, if they did, Stalin would have been overthrown internally and the war brought to an end. As long as Stalin lived, his resources and manpower guaranteed victory.

>>2256922
Why would they go in as true liberators. They gain nothing, no territory, resources, slave labor, not in the short term, not in the long term. They get saddled with a pointless war.

>>2256927
Exactly. They didn't go in as liberators, therefore there's no possibility of victory.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1480814230772.jpg (161KB, 499x632px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 499x632px

>>2256904
crushing poles
crushing a few french fags

not being able to kick gb's ass while they are alone

still starting a war against the whole world

>having a chance to win

nette Idee Kurzer echt nett

>>2256904
t. /gsg/