If Hitler had abstained from perpetuating the Holocaust, and

File: 1.jpg (101KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x720px

there is no way they could have won the war no matter what they did. Germany had declared war on three major world powers at once which all had natural defenses and huge armies/war supplies. If Germany was somehow able to prolong the war for more than the length than it lasted. It would have met with nuclear devastation.

>If the Nazis had done X instead of Y could they have won the war?

No

File: 1495312262478.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>3103212
we have these threads every day

>>3103212
It would've lasted another year at least.

>>3103212
Hitler plan was a trainwreck from the first day . Expanding and exterminating the area you conquered is beyond retarded.

It was only a matter of time

>>3103237
>>3103241
Okay, it would be more accurate to ask "If the Nazis used the Holocaust resources on the battle front, could they have at least prolonged the war"?
>>3103243
I'm not a wehraboo, it's just that i got reminded of what an Anon said the other day, where he speculated that if at least a portion of the camp resources was relocated onto the Battlefield the Germaan army have resisted significantly longer.

I'm not even sure if that is a possible scenario so that's why i wanted to discuss it with you guys.

File: 1483506183686.jpg (613KB, 2008x1376px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 2008x1376px

>>3103241
>>3103237


Having a 5% chance, or even a 1% chance, of winning the war if you made different decisions is not the same as having no chance of winning.

If I asked you, who would win- if one man declared war on Imperial Russia you'd probably say that the one man would have no chance of winning. If I asked you what would happen if Vladimir Lenin faced Imperial Russia- you would say that he's just the face of a movement- which while true, also ignores the fact that, from his point of view, he was simply one man who declared war on Imperial Russia.

Regardless, counterfactual discussions will continue on the internet; and to say that it was impossible for the Axis to win, regardless of what decisions were made, and when, is silliness. Something as simple as the US not starting the lend-lease program, or embargoing the Japaneese would have drastically change the course of the entire war. So spare us your simplistic statements and you have something specific to say then say it.

>>3103270
>Okay, it would be more accurate to ask "If the Nazis used the Holocaust resources on the battle front, could they have at least prolonged the war"?
No. The holocaust did not really cost the Germans all that much. A few tens of thousands of men to administer the camps, (most of whom were not fit for military service anyway), a bit of coal and some pesticides, and that's pretty much it. When you had over 3 million men on the Eastern Front at pretty much any given time, that's a rounding error in terms of how much of their total resources were going into genocide.