Operation Barbarossa

>>2874757
>You were so close
Not really, even if they had taken moscow the slavs weren't going to surrender when the future of their entire race was at stake

>>2874757
The war with the united states would've have continued, although I cant see D-day succeeding if Hitler isn't being raped by the USSR. This would also have a big impact on the north africa campaign.
There are two problems for Hitler still:
1. Britain exists
2. The USA, an allied country, is the first one to develop the atom bomb

>>2874771
Britain and America might sue for peace if DDay fails, provided that the conditions put in place by the Axis aren't too harsh for them(i.e. they get to keep their empire almost intact). As for the atomic bomb, one won't probably be enough to get Hitler to surrender if he's in a good position.

Another interesting question would be what would the relations between Germany, Italy and Japan look like(peaceful and collaborative, or tense and cold war like?), and what happens when Hitler dies(would he nominate a successor?).

>>2874771
>atomic bomb meme
good luck dropping a nuke, much less getting to Berlin when Germany can strengthen the entire Western Europe with fighters and AA guns.

>>2874951
Japan refused surrender after the first nuke too. It's just after the Americans hit them with the second one, they just realised that they were basically vulnerable to nulcear devastation and had no real response, so it was either surrender or face the destruction of the urban population.

>>2874980
To be fair the USA was easily outproducing both Japan and Germany. It would be very difficult for Germany to protect its air supremacy if Britain is still in the fight. They were unable to proceed with operation sea lion because the Luftwaffe didn't destroy the RAF in 1940

>>2874741
so is it true Hitler unironically thought he would be able to colonize and replace most of Russia with Germans or is it just allied propaganda?

>>2875004
Yes, google Lebrensraum.

>>2875004
Realistically he would have stopped at Poland and perhaps parts of Ukraine. Good luck killing tens of millions of people and trying to convince Germans to move en masse to the cold, vast and desolate wastelands of a raised Soviet Union.

>>2875022
>convince
>not "You live in der Soviet Union nao or Obergruppenfuhrer Hans will fire his luger into the back of your head"

>>2875036
Even then, how are they going to fill up lands once inhabited by 100+ million people, given that their population was only about 70 million? Within Hitler's lifetime they probably wouldn't have even been able to settle past Poland.

>>2875049
It was a going to be a process probably taking decades. In fact they actually planned to use Lithuanians/Latvians to help replace Russians because of Germany's insufficient population.

>>2874741
Unlikely for bowing out of the UK or the U.S. as long as they are themselves secure. Without an Eastern Front to suck up huge amounts of Heer resources, a Northern European invasion is near-impossible. Strategic bombing is likely to intensify, which means that come 1945 you have nuclear bombing over the Reich. Things get really bad in Germany.

>>2874771
> This would also have a big impact on the north africa campaign.
Unlikely. The limiting factor in North Africa was sealift to NA itself. That's not something that is going to be substantially affected by Barbarossa.

>>2874757
>not even including puppet states
Wasnt that the problem?
So many men had to garrison the vast territories while next to no men could be recruited from them

>>2875061
Well one of the problems the Germans faced was simply the fact that virtually all resources went towards the eastern front. Rommel was basically stuck with little more than the initially forces he got at the beginning of the campaign, whilst by 1942 the allied front in north africa was being flooded by American tanks.

>>2875022
Initially they didn't plan on outright genociding most of the Slavs, but to put German families in charge of large rural estates worked by Slavs, that seems entirely feasable until they reach critical mass/automation and no longer require the Slavs

>>2875069
Rommel had almost as much motorized transport as an Eastern Front Army Group. The limiting factors weren't commitment; when push came to shove and the Allies werel ooking at Italy, suddenly you had a German force about 3 times the size of 1943 DAK, and about 12 times the size of 1941 DAK; the problem was

A) Getting stuff across the Med to North Africa
B) Getting stuff out of Tripoli when you have no railroads, the distances are huge, and the desert eats up all your equipment.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
This is a very good essay on the subject, but the very tl;dr takeaway is that the main issues were material factors in theater, not a balance of commitment. They already had stuff piling up in Tripoli in 41-42 which they just couldn't transport to the front line, and the only short-term option is to increase motorized transport, but at longer distanes, that runs into a tyranny of the rocket esque problem; the trucks themselves need a constant supply of fuel and maintenance, and when you're trying to push on to somewhere like Tobruk, you don't actually gain much, if anything.

File: i agree.jpg (576KB, 2260x2177px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2260x2177px

>>2874757
why would you want him to win

File: Literally Hitler.jpg (11KB, 190x280px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 190x280px

What if the Fuhrer decided not be an idiot and did not declare war?

>>2875100
I want anglo scum to suffer.

>>2875193
T.continental.

>>2875219
The Nazis would literally have exterminated most of those groups. Eastern Europeans who support Nazism in the 21st century are some of the most ignorant/idiotic people on the planet.

>>2875300
proof it nigger

nazis were the fucking best

they gave out chocolate and shit

>>2875621
This post wasn't funny.

>>2875674
this post wasn't proofs

>>2875300
wtf i'm a nazi now

>>2875679
4u

>>2874741
>Let's assume that Operation Barbarossa was a success
and how exactly would they have done that, fuckface? History isn't math where you can isolate variables, everything event and idea is connected and assuming that Barbarossa was a success requires a massive change in both the build-up to Barbarossa and thinking of both forces.

>>2875689
According to gadurien,Moscow could have been taken if he had been allowed to attack before winter

Generalplan Ost
fact or false?

>>2874980
The US made more and better fighters than Germany and the USSR combined.

Germany still loses air superiority over the Western Front, which means they still get nuked.

Remember the thing about a nuke is that you only need 1 flight of B-29's to do it. B-29's can also fly over 88 mm Flak 36, which means the Germans only have 3 weapons to stop B-29's; Ta-152(which is experimental), Me 262 (unreliable and expensive), and 12.8cm Flak.

>>2875832

According to Guderian's logistics officer he's full of shit.

That shit could only be possible in HoI 3. Even then it's too fucking hard. I could only stare in amazement when I watched a guy pulling that off on Youtube.

>>2875855
Do Americans actualy bealive this?

>>2875982
Facts remain facts, regardless of belief.

>>2875997
American math: 12%>82%

>>2875832
>losing moscow means Soviets lose
No

>>2876033
>I think the Heer and the Luftwaffe are the same thing because my mother and father were brother and sister.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

>>2876073
>i think US had any chance of performing D-Day without existance of Eastern Front because i have been educated in merican school

>>2876056
Moscow was the main logistics hub,conquer it and you win the war of attrition

>>2876149
>I am literally illiterate.
Where did I say ANYTHING about D-Day? I talked about nuking Germany, which yes, can be done by air alone

>>2876163
Please don't use the word 'logistics' when you clearly don't know what it means.

>>2876163
damn...there's a whole lot of brain damage in this thread.

anywho...Allies start dropping nukes on der Reich, Hilter is ousted in a coup, negotiated settlement where the Germans have to get out of France, the low countries and Norway.

>>2876221
You have heard of the me 262? Apparently b-29s arnt that hot against jet fighters if Korea is anything to go by...

File: Strat bomb tonnage.jpg (421KB, 1820x1479px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1820x1479px

>>2876238
You mean, the plane that historically shot down a grand total of 542 (with 1,430 built and almost all destroyed!) allied planes is going to stop a concerted bombing effort. Those jets sure stopped the colossal bombing of the Reich in 1944.

>>2876256
Where talking about one plane with a nuke,how difficult will it be for a faster jet fighter to stop it?

>>2876298
No, we're talking about a flight of planes, one of which has a nuke (early on, they were projecting to be able to make 3 nukes a month come October 1945, so later on in a strategic bombing campaign you're going to have multiple nuclear sorties), you don't know which one is carrying it, they will have escorts, and they've already been attritioning away your best pilots, as well as bombing all of your infrastructure to bits with conventional bombs, making things like fuel and aluminum dreadfully short.

Seriously, show me a raid that was stopped before target by jet interceptors in WW2. I'll wait.

>>2876318
Your ignorance and arrogance is astonishing
There is no way they could pay for three nukes,they ran out of incendiaries bombing Tokyo

A squadron of jet fighters could stop a squadron of b-29,escorts don't even come into it because jets are so fast they dictate the action

>>2876354
>Your ignorance and arrogance is astonishing
Pot, meet kettle. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

>they ran out of incendiaries bombing Tokyo
[citation needed]

>A squadron of jet fighters could stop a squadron of b-29,escorts don't even come into it because jets are so fast they dictate the action
Then it shouldn't be hard to find an example. Go on, scoot. While you're at it, try to come up with an explanation as to how roughly every 3 Me-262s managed to down a single plane between them before being smashed on the ground or just shot down on take off or landing.

>>2876375
We are talking theoretically here so examples of MIGs vs b-29 show the bombers were sitting dux

>>2876425
>We are talking theoretically here so examples of MIGs vs b-29 show the bombers were sitting dux
An Me-262 isn't nearly as good as a mig 15. Nor is the spotting ability of Germany as good as what the Soviets had in Korea, and the overall balance of air forces is heavily in the Western Allies favor, not roughly even. The comparison is retarded, as are you. If the Me-262 was so good at stopping B-29s, why can't we find them stopping the more primitive, weaker B-17s? You know, the actual matchup that historically happened, and is a far better comparison to make for trying to see how German aviation would do at trying to stop a nuclear assault come 1945 and onward?

>>2876354

The Allies can destroy the luftwaffe by baiting them up to high altitude repeatedly.

Send a small flight of B-29's with extreme fighter escort on a constant basis.

Does it have a nuke onboard? maybe, maybe not.

But the luftwaffe have to send interceptors after each and everyone one, because it can't risk not intercepting a flight of 29's that do have a nuke, they have no idea which flights are dummies and which ones are going to fry Berlin.

This also puts heavy attrition on the 262's, since they have very short engine life and don't climb all that well, which means a lot of engine life spent climbing up to altitude. Better yet, the Allies use the long endurance of the Mustang and establish air superiority long before the 29's arrive. Now any German interceptor has to climb up into the allied CAP to intercept the B-29.

>>2876476
Honestly, you'd never even get to that point. By an august 1945, you'd have long since smashed the overwhelming majority of Me-262s by just bombing them on the ground, and bombing the factories that are making the things.

>>2876432
Because the b-29 was the only bomber that could carry a nuke

It would have to fly several h ndred miles to reach Germany which would give the LW ample time to prepare.

And oh yes,if you put a mig 15 beside a 262 (you) would be surprise d how similar they were

>>2876494
>Because the b-29 was the only bomber that could carry a nuke
Missing the point. The 262s weren't stopping B-17s. Why do you think they could stop B-29s? Why do you think Germany even HAS a functioning airforce by August, 1945? They got the shit plastered out of them in 1943 over the Ruhr and never recovered.

>And oh yes,if you put a mig 15 beside a 262 (you) would be surprise d how similar they were
The MIG is over 100 kph faster at all altitudes, has a 25% longer range, is enormously more mechanically reliable, is more heavily armed, has a flight ceiling that is about 4 kilometers higher, and can dive at supersonic speeds without disintegrating. It is an enormously superior plane.