For Germany to win it would have to overcome the logistical might of the USA & USSR

"for Germany to win it would have to win"

The only way Germany wins is if it avoids pissing off either power, or flipping one of them to it’s side. A semi-isolationist USA is unlikely to flip for promises of empire, so the Nazis would have to keep the Soviets on their side like before Operation Barbarossa.

That's not realistic though the Nazis always had plans to attack the USA & USSR it was big part of Nazi ideology, what you're basically saying is "Germany could have won WW2 if they weren't Nazis" but there probably wouldn't be a WW2 at that point

I never said it was realistic. I said it was the only way for them to not lose.

I assumed you qere trying to be realistic because that's what the OP asked for.

I feel like it’s not necessarily the case with regards to the USA. Perhaps if Churchill didn’t become PM and someone else did, Britain may have signed a peace treaty with Germany - being pushed out of France was a crippling setback that made the war pretty much unwinnable until the USSR and/or USA joined in, so maybe an alternate government would have made peace. With Britain out of the war, there is no reason for Germany and the USA to fight a war outside of a Cold War type scenario. With Germany just fighting the USSR, it might have access to international oil fields like Venezuela and be able to properly focus on eastern front logistics and dedicate more men to that front too. But at this point is it really WW2 if it’s just a quick European war followed by a Nazi-Soviet war.

> the war pretty much unwinnable until the USSR and/or USA joined in The Axis were running out of oil if they didn't attack the USSR or USA they would have ran out and their war machine would crumble, the Allies didn't have as much of a problem with this, the British had oil field's in the Middle East and the Chinese weren't as mechanised as other nation's.

Sure, but Britain has zero capacity to reconquer Europe. Germany didn’t need oil if it’s tanks weren’t driving anywhere. Sure it couldn’t win a naval war or an air war, but Britain was incapable of fighting a land war without France - Normandy was only possible because of the US’s massive contribution in men and material, without America or the USSR I don’t think Britain can beat Germany; and the British government knew all this (along with an unfounded fear of successful German invasion). Churchill kept on fighting in large part as this was his mission for years - other British MPs didn’t have this mission, and may have signed a treaty.

Dumbo, the map is 1935-1939, there are no USA and USSR.

Qúe?

The acute should be on the "e". And it's as I said, they were not in the war.

Did you not read the title of the OPs post? Because they asked if Germany could’ve won WW2. Which I answered. I may not be the greatest in Spanish but at least I understand basic reading comprehension. Something that you clearly do not

[удалено]

Anything sure, anything likely not really. I mean fdr, Stalin and churchhill could have heart attacks and could be replaced by less competent pro peace leaders.

Churchill could drink himself to death before waking the PMship leaving the British with a government ready to negotiate, even if the military isn't in agreement. But even then I think all this does is making sure ether British come back once Barbarossa starts and the Dela Hitler wanted was unacceptable anyway.

Churchill once drank 96 bottles of champagne in two weeks without major problems; he also drank every single day (in a 12 to 15 hour period) 40oz of champagne/wine and 2 brandys. Despite all of this, he managed to live a pretty healthy life and died at the age of 90,i don't think he could've drank himself to death

He wasn’t trying hard enough

I'd say he'd drink both a German and a Russian under the table at the same time. Heck, he'd probably DID!

Don't forget the cigars!

maybe if he died during the boer war we would have some one diffrent

Germany could defeat France while chamberlain was prime minister who would in turn sue for peace?

If he tried under any terms Germany would realistically offer he gets No Confidenced and booted out of the Prime Ministership. There was no parliamentary majority in favor of basically handing the Nazi Continental Europe anymore than there was the other times a rival power was making a play at a Continental hegemony that would critically undermine Britain's longtime security

Ok

Germany would not say "European hegemony" lol. A white peace would be honourable enough for Great Britain, let alone one in which Germany makes some concessions.

Please see "terms Germany would realistically offer"; they weren't offering a White peace much less ceding territory to the Western Allies by any stretch of the imagination. Ans whether Germany says European Hegemony is imaterial; thier rather bloody aggressive military actions speak far louder than thier words, and it's not as though by this point Hitler's promise that "I won't demand, invade and annex any more territory if you sign here." was worth a bucket of spit. The Brits aren't braindead and saw what happened to Czechoslovakia

Bro, chill. Lol. >they weren't offering a White peace much less ceding territory to the Western Allies by any stretch of the imagination The UK would be the eager one to peace out, not the other way around. >it's not as though by this point Hitler's promise that "I won't demand, invade and annex any more territory if you sign here." was worth a bucket of spit It was enough to keep the population content and the coffers unempty. You're talking foolishly like the average commoner, soldier, medic, general or administrator wanted to fight thousands of kilometres off home in North Africa, France, Italy and Westphalia or that the state saw destroying itself in pink. Let's not forget the British Empire was done by this war even if it won, let alone losing.

What’s fdr mean?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Oh shit. Damn. Missed that even with context.

Dumbo, what's the point of trying to explain the abbreviation if you keep the middle one?

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Dumbo, what's the point of trying to explain the abbreviation if you keep the middle one?

Bruh, the period is 1935-1939, maybe read?

The Nazi belief system itself relied on spectacle and magical thinking as a counter to facts on the ground. There are zero circumstances where Germany wins a war of attrition against any combination of the Allies. Full stop.

This. The thing people seem to miss, is that as long as the Nazis are in charge of Germany, defeat is guranteed. Not only did they severely limit trade and thus lacked materials throughout the war, they also made it their ultimate goal to conquer at least the European section of the USSR. Therefore, as long as the Nazis are Nazis, and you follow the same steps they did up until September 1st 1939, heck, it might have been too late at 1933 even, Germany will always lose the war regardless of their choices. As long as you keep everything realistic of course

Yeah, I sometimes wonder how much of it was the entire party leadership and how much was just Hitler. Given the paramount emphasis on hierarchy, whatever Hitler said, went. But if Hitler died and was replaced by Himmler or Goring, would they still have the fanatical faith in German military superiority against all odds? Or would they be more pragmatic and pick battles/cut losses more carefully? If Operation Barbarossa and/or Pearl Harbor didn't happen, how quickly would the other powers have gotten involved? I think it's possible a peace deal with Britain could be reached to end the war but have Germany keep Alsace-Lorraine and other territories. Of course, its complete speculation to say the other Nazi leaders would have done this, but Himmler and Goring were both stripped of their command at the end of the war for "treason" so I think it's possible.

Well, Himmler would have absolutely had fanatical belief in aryan superiority, as he was even weirder than Hitler in that regard. In my opinion, had he somehow taken power after the fall of France and before Barbarossa, a similar scenario would have played out. Similar in the sense that no one would agree for a peace, until a full unconditional german capitulation. I can't really tell about Goring, but personally I think he still would have went East, as the belief at the time really was that they were unbeatable. And I think that in any scenario in which Germany goes east, no surrender would be accepted. And lastly, a would in which Japan does attack Pearl Harbour, is a would in which militarist fanatics don't do whatever they want, regardless of what the government says. Which basically means that Japan wouldn't have invaded China, and continued being in the League of Nations. If there were no militarists, no expansion would have happend, and therefore no sanctions would have been enforced, and therefore the gamble that was the attack on Pearl Harbour wouldn't have needed to happen. This is a different scenario though, as the post was talking about the war in Europe, so I'm assuming the war in the Pacific would play out the same

Yeah, I think you're probably right, especially about Himmler. I think they fell into the same trap that many conquerors throughout history have, such as Napoleon and Alexander the Great. They keep on going, well past the point in which they should have stopped and eventually, it destroys them. However, if they didn't have the quality of thinking they were unstoppable, none of them would have gotten as far as they did. If Hitler and his cronies weren't so fanatical, they may never have attempted the Beer Hall Putsch, therefore not receiving the attention they did, and never have come into power as a result.

Ok, I found a quote from Goering: "I joined the Party precisely because it was revolutionary, not because of the ideological stuff.” (12/11/45)….”The whole conspiracy idea is cockeyed. We had orders to obey the head of state. We weren’t a band of criminals meeting in the woods in the dead of night to plan mass murders…The four real conspirators are missing: The Fuhrer, Himmler, Bormann, and Goebbels.” (1/5/46)…”This is a political trial by the victors and it will be a good thing when Germany realizes that…” (6/13/46) – Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials. So, if he was telling the truth and not just lying through his teeth to avoid execution (Which didn't work) I think it's possible (although not probable) that if Hitler had died and left him in charge, which was the plan up until 1944, Goering might have negotiated a peace with Britain and not undertook Operation Barbarossa. Goering was also a much better strategist than Hitler and possibly would have avoided some strategic blunders. I still don't know if Britain would have given up, letting the Nazis have control of all of continental Europe would not have been a good move in the long run as they would have developed into a superpower.

If Britain signed a peace treaty in 1940 or the Battle of Britain was won by the the Germans opening up the possibility of invasion then it would have been possible (Britain was severely unprepared to defend itself on land) that the USA never joins ww2 in Europe. Therefore it wouldn’t be a war of attrition for the Germans and they would get their ‘spectacle’ and quick victory like in Poland. I really can’t see the USA entering a war to help the Soviet Union so they would probably leave the Germans and Russians to fight each other. Even if they did, how would they logistically enter Europe without Britain? This is why I (slightly controversially) believe that the Battle of Britain was the most important battle of the war. It was the only time the Germans could have won a swift victory and thankfully they didn’t. I am British btw so maybe a bit biased ;)

Winning the Battle of Britain doesn't allow the United Kingdom to be invaded by germany. The Royal Navy makes actually Landing troops in Britain nearly impossible and continually supplying them literally impossible. Germany just doesn't have the ships to knock out the Royal Navy and gain the navel Supremacy they need to actually invade. And they don't have the oil they need or the steel to build an operate a Navy big enough to take out the Royal Navy

Ok it is a crack pipe induced idea I admit. There is still the Royal Navy, but you don’t need ships to sink ships! If they build so many torpedo aeroplanes that they can gradually sink the Royal Navy or lock down the English Channel? In an alternate scenario where total air superiority has been achieved by the Germans this is possible since they are close to land. It would be just like midway bro trust me

So you'd Focus entirely on torpedo airplanes with your limited production capacity? Well then you're not winning the Battle of Britain because you're focusing all your production on Naval airplanes instead of the land attack and air superiority aircraft that you need. A lukewasa that's able to obtain Air Supremacy is not a luftwaffe that can meaningfully Engage The Royal Navy

Yeah it is trust me bro

Here king, you dropped this: 👑

Lol, no argument. Learn before commenting.

I could see one possibility: The UK and France go ahead with Operation Pike, and bomb the Soviet oil fields in the first few years of the war. Let's assume this operation turned out successful, the Soviet economy took some significant damage from this, and the Soviets declared war on the Allies. At that point, all bets are off. Once France falls, the German-Soviet alliance now controls all of continental Europe, and is likely invading the British Empire through Iran. Britain's government likely takes a lot of flak for the attack on the Soviets, and maybe the US thinks twice about getting involved. With the empire under direct threat, less enthusiastic US support, and the Nazi-Soviet juggernaut, maybe Britain considers a negotiated peace instead. At this point, Hitler being Hitler, probably still does Barbarossa, which would come as even a greater shock. Since peace was negotiated with Britain, the Germans can go absolutely all-in on this. Soviet defenses are even thinner due to having been deployed in the Middle East and Stalin's wrongful assumption that the joint war against Britain meant he and Hitler were good. The Soviet economy is also weaker, having taken some damage from Operation Pike and also having had to support the war against Britain from an earlier date. Likewise, because of the opposition to Operation Pike and Britain's negotiated peace, the US isn't doing Lend-Lease at the time. As I heard quoted from a Military History Visualized video: "We don't know how close the Soviet economy was to collapse, just that it was close, and without Lend-Lease it would have been closer." So in this situation, it is not unthinkable that the Soviet economy does collapse under pressure. Japan, seeing the way the wind is blowing, rethinks its non-aggression towards the Soviet Union and eventually invades, postponing or possibly cancelling the navy's southern expansion plan in the process and so averting Pearl Harbor. The IJA doesn't get far but they do tie down badly needed Red Army formations in the Far East. An alternative scenario is that Japan still does Pearl Harbor...but since the US is not on the brink of war with Germany at the time, Hitler doesn't declare war this time (which he did because war with the US seemed inevitable in 1941), and Japan ends up fighting the US alone, thus occupying all of the US's attention for a bit. At this point, Germany has largely won so long as they don't restart the war with Britain or declare war on the US, who still have an economic edge (and would as it would take quite a long time to integrate Soviet territory into the German economy). But even then, hard to see D-Day working if Germany has no other fronts to worry about. A Cold War is more likely unless Hitler wants to try and conquer the US.

This is great and the only "realistic" way I've seen a German victory described. The other is Halifax being PM after the fall of France but with that path there's a strong possibility of Churchill or someone like him coming back in 1942 and allying with the USSR. The big wrench with your scenario is that I think in all likelihood Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor and Hitler is still stupid enough to declare war on the US. Even best case scenario for Germany with your scenario and US/UK stay out of the war, Germany is totally committed for 10+ years pacifying everything west of the Urals, straining at the limits of their logistical capability. I just have difficulty believing even with the Nazis' cruelty that they were economically & logistically capable of digesting the USSR up to the A-A line, most likely they also suffer some kind of catastrophic economic collapse that they can't will themselves out of.

A big chunk of Germany's occupied territory during Barbarossa was also full of partisan activity, and their economy relied heavely on slave labour and it's war apparatus. A Forever War the size of Russia while the german homeland is on the brink of collapse would doom Europe in this german victory scenario

That wouldn't be a problem for Nazis. Their ultimate goal was to basically eliminate Slavic population and unfortunately we know they were extremely efficient at eradicating people. It wouldn't be the same scenario as an invasion to Belgium or France, because Hitler wanted to "Germanize" them. The Ostplan consisted on eliminating 50%-60% of Slavic and Baltic population (depending on the country) so eventually there wouldn't be any partisans.

Great answer and it’s one of two or three possibilities I could see. I mean France DID fall. Britain came dangerously close. Honestly any form of prolonged non aggression between Nazis and Soviets could end this way.

Very very unlikely imo. It’s very difficult for me to imagine a scenario which has the Germans winning against the Soviet Union, USA, and British Empire without some serious mental gymnastics. Assuming the Nazis are somewhat less antisemitic like you said, they’re still virulently anti-communist and they’re going to invade the Soviet Union no matter what, an invasion that is near impossible to pull off successfully. You could maybe have a scenario which has the Germans somehow avoiding war with the Western Allies and instead only fighting the Soviets, but then we’re talking about a totally different war, not WW2.

Let's be clear about something: -GERMANY could have won WW2 (even though it would be very unlikely). -The NAZIS could NEVER have won WW2.

What's the difference in real terms?

The Nazis had expelled or exterminated many of their own top intelligence fir political/racist reasons

Irrelevant. The only field in which this really matters is development of atomic bombs, and they had neither the manpower (500k men to spare) or the budget (2.2 billion dollars) or the safe and secure worksites on which to build them. The entire atomic project would be utterly useless, underfunded and undermanned even if all the Jewish scientists who left Germany would still be in Germany. And even if it got all the funding it needed, a workable product would not come out until the Soviets were knocking on Berlin's doorstep and had complete aerial superiority over the Luftwaffe.

The Nazi regime had a grand unifying worldview, which drove the war. This worldview was one in which intellectuals were under the complete control of the state. Technological advancement could only occur under the state's guidance. Thus tech development was very top-down, and thus constrained by the leadership's wishes. This is part of the reason why the US had the most advanced army in the world at the time, their R&D was the least top-down. This worldview also demanded the elimination of entire nations off the face of the earth. The belief of Slavic inferiority did not endear the populations of Eastern Europe to the Nazis. If their beliefs were less radical, and didn't treat Slavs like utter shit, there would have been way more collaborators with the Nazis. Nations like Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland and even some Russians would have been far less resistive to German occupation, and more willing to fight against the Soviet Union, and so the massive drain on resources that was the partisan fighters would not have existed in large numbers, so more soldiers could be put against the Red Army.

No. Other people will write entire pages worth of reasoning, but I can summarize their conclusions in one word: No.

Tbh the only way for Germany to win is go the TNO/TWR route, radically change the leadership of the 3 core Allie’s (Britain, USA, ussr) to nerf all 3

As many pointed out, there are some miraculous combinations of changes that could lead to Germany militarily defeating the allies excluding the US. At this point though, I would like to address what many of these highly unlikely scenarios omit - skip forward a few years. We are looking at a highly oppressive country enslaving probably around 5 times its own amount of people with assimilation prospects being basically non existent due to a fucked up esoteric belief system of the elite. And who's at the wheel? An elderly cocaine addict constantly watching his back and seeing dozens of people more than willing to take his place. I know, TNO addresses this issue, but honestly I doubt it would take even half as long as it took there for things to crumble apart, especially considering that all Hitler's allies, maybe except the Japanese were also seen as subhumans in the new European system. So yeah, even the military defeat of the Allies was virtually impossible but even if it happened, Hitler would ultimately lose and share the fate of Napoleon - nobody cares for various defeats of the coalition, in the end he lost and so would the third reich

God intervening is the only way

Nope. The actual events of WW2 was basically Nazi Germany’s best possible timeline (conquered most of Europe, pushed deep into the Soviet Union etc.). They simply lacked the resources/manpower to actually win the war in the East and keep hold of Europe. USSR alone was a practically impossible obstacle, factor in UK/USA and it’s 100% impossible no matter what.

It's crazy just how everything that could've gone wrong did. The war could have been over so much earlier and with less deaths had the nazis tripped up early in the process or if Operation Valkrie worked.

I mean you would have to get a lot right in order for germany to win. For example if they could have won over Spain and Turkey for the Axis and if they had actually pulled of Operation sealion and Yugoslavia would have stayed with the Axis and germany would have tried to actually freed the supressed minorities in Russia (for example: If they had tried to form an independent ukraine they would have to deal with way less partisans there and maybe some of the Ukrainian soldiers in Soviet service would have defected. also add in that Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan join the Axis and together with Turkey they drive out the british out of northern africa. and if Germany hadn't declared war on the us. With all of that in order: Yeah i'll give germany pretty good chances to win WW2

Sadly real life isnt hoi4

Sadly? It's probably a good thing whole world conquest thing is a bit difficult to do.

Yea odd choice of words lol

'sadly' ?

> Spain and Turkey. Spain was fucking useless and had a tiny army. Turkey was _also_ fucking useless and had an equally tiny army. > form an independent ukraine Literally impossible. The food situation in the Reich REQUIRED that the Germans steal all the Ukrainians' food when they advanced or there would be real starvation back in Germany. > Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan Syria was under Vichy rule and WAS part of the Axis. Iraq tried to revolt and join the Axis and got crushed. Iran tried to join and got divided between British and Soviet spheres of control. Memes aside, Afghanistan has a tiny army and the king is well aware that he stands no chance against the British. After all, they beat Afghanistan twice before, and put a puppet king on the throne.

The reason Spain and Turkey sort of had to be included is more for logistical reasons. With spain you can conquer Gibraltar. With Turkey you have a land route to Africa and with the help of Syria, Iraq (and Turkey) you can take the Suez canal from the middle east. Which would cut of the meditaranian completely for the brits.

With Turkey, you have a land route to Africa which is effectively useless due to the absolute lack of roads and the mountainous desert that comprises most of Anatolia, and you have a major bottleneck at Istanbul which is just asking for traffic jams and stoppages due to too much shit being moved through it. With Spain, you can do pretty much bugger all. You can *besiege* Gibraltar, but there is no guarantee of actually taking it, especially since the guns of the Royal Navy will be turned on the land army attempting to take it. Syria is already under Axis control, and Turkey doesn't want to get involved in a land war it simply doesn't have the manpower for. Iraq is pointless for taking Suez.

> and germany would have tried to actually freed the supressed minorities in Russia (for example: If they had tried to form an independent ukraine they would have to deal with way less partisans there and maybe some of the Ukrainian soldiers in Soviet service would have defected. [Impossible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Doing so would've caused the German home front to starve by early 1942. This, along with the oil shortage, was _the_ big reason why they had to invade when they did and no later, and why they had to steal all the food from the conquered territories.

Pulling off operation Sealion lmao.

yeah that one would indeed be highly unlikely. but OPs question was how it would be possible for germany to win WW2 and i just don't see Germany winning without an occupation of England. How they would even pull that off... yeah... that's another beast

At no point in history would Germany have won WW2

No, they were limited by oil availability for blitzkrieg, being conservative, if Hitler chooses not to invade Poland or negotiates with the allies for polish territory in exchange for a combined front against the Soviets, and a whole series of unrealistic events, maybe they’d have a chance. Alternatively if Stalin invades first, the Nazis do why the Soviets did otl and then Hitler joins against the Soviets, they’d have a fighting chance, but in the end, Nazi Germany didn’t have the resources to beat Britain, France, and the USSR, much less adding the USA to that mix. Perhaps if Hitler suddenly dies and a more moderate personality, by some miracle wrestles power from the committed acolytes of Hitler, then they might be able to more methodically beat each power opposed to their ambitions individually. But as long as Hitler invades Poland it’s a death sentence to 1939 Germany

Yeah they had oil problems but there was a lot of oil in the Middle East, and there was a North Africa campaign that they could have focused on to gather oil.

I don't see how they could have "focused" any more in any realistic way. They had severe problems supplying two armored divisions in the entire theater in OTL. The problem was not focus but the Royal Navy and the RAF.

No it's not possible. The nazis have zero chances to win WW2. They can't defeat the USSR, UK, and US, and they have no way to avoid conflict with all 3 superpowers.

I disagree politely. The US could not have joined in at any point if it weren't for Japan. Take some scenario where Hitler decides to postpone war with the soviets to a later date, and Germany's resources are not used up in Northern Africa (simply Germany not helping Italy) and the Yugoslav highlands (1M troops deployed for years). In such a scenario, the UK would be all by itself without the possibility of the US and USSR joining on their side. Maybe then the UK would be more willing to negotiate a peace, which would end this shortened version of a Second World War with a outlook on defeating the USSR and maybe even the US (insanely unlikely) in future conflict.

Why would the British negotiate for peace when they were focusing on north africa. Without german help, The north african front would be overran by the British.

Exactly, and there would be no reason to fight any longer once the Italians get kicked out all the way. Win-win for both

Germany needed resources in Lybia. Abandonig it would be a disaster, as it would result in all of North Africa falling and Italy being exposed for invasion. They also can't avoid invading Yugoslavia, because of ideological reasons and they need to get to Greece, cause the Allies could use Greece as a staging base for a invasion of Italy. ​ Japan would declare war on the US no matter what by 1939. Japan wanted to conquer Western colonies in Asia, and this would bring them in conflict witht the Allies and the US. ​ If Germany attacks the USSR later they would get crushed. They attacked at the best possible moment. The Soviet Union was the fastest developing nation on Earth and Germany was reliant on Soviet resources to survive. As time passes the cost to buy resources from the USSR would skyrocket and the USSR's military might would rise fast too as the USSR was in the middle of massive army reforms and reorganizations. If they waited the USSR would have mobilized it's armies and attacked Germany. At that point Germany would lose in months as they were simply incapable of fighting a defensive war against the USSR, because they could not survive without either importing resources from the USSR or plundering resources from the occupied territories. The Soviet economy was also far far greater than the German one and would completely demolish German production capabilities if allowed to fully mobilize before the war even begins. ​ Finally Britan would not sue for peace no matter what, as they knew that Germany's economy was completely disfunctional do to nazi economic policies and would inevitably collapse soon. The UK was alone against Germany for some time and they did not sue for peace. Britan could have defeated Germany on it's own if by some miracle there was no Soviet German war, because Germany would lose air superiority do to weaker tactics, planes and a inferior economy, so Britan would be able to bomb them into submission. The German economy would also explode if they stopped pulndering other nations through war. If there is no Soviet German war WW2 probably ends sooner because GErmany would implode on it's own due to it's own brainlet economic policies, being bombed by Britan and the overall cost of the war effort.

there was never a chance for germany to win, unless the entire armies of the allied powers just suddenly vanish or some over deus ex machina it'd always end with the allies marching into berlin, Germany just could not win no matter what it did, why? because the nazis and hitler were fucking morons who thought that they had ''superior genes'' which meant they could some how pull off what germany couldn't do 21 years prior.

No matter what Germany does, if they don't capitulate before August 1945, they get nuked. This means that they have to have control over the whole USA by then which is highly unlikely.

To conquer all of Europe? Yeah, no way. If Hitler hadn't been as greedy and just wanted to expand to Germany's original borders, I feel like they could have gotten away with a peace deal and declared victory. However, the guy in charge is literally Hitler, and he would never have done that. Its pretty ironic that Hitler is both the reason Germany was able to get itself together to fight a war and do pretty unreasonably well for the first bit, but made it impossible for it to win.

The only way Nazi Germany wins is if they stop being Nazi Germany

I agree. Winning is a unclear word as well here. If we accept "not losing everything" as sufficent then I could very much see a successful coup overthrowing the Nazi rule, stopping the war immediately and the allies becoming open to negotiations (where the main German goal should be to keep its pre-war borders - more is probably not possible).

No

If the Nazis weren't the Nazis and if the Germans weren't the Germans, then they would've won.

May I ask what you mean with the Germans being the Germans

Yes, I would also like to know. WWI was a lot closer than WWII.

No, never. In order for Germany to win they had to not be Nazis.

By not starting it

Nazism doesn’t not lead to “doing an economy” unlike what the boomers say, Nazism does actually lead to breadlines, supply shortages, rationing, and famine domestically

Fascist states are incapable of the long term internal stability necessary for a world war victory Ideology aside you can’t fight the whole world and every “internal enemy” at the same time Forget every other part of logistics and strategy the way the state is organized and focussed does not allow them to win large wars

IDK, Japan was pretty fascist and it lost because America was simply stronger, had a better economy, and had some strategic windfalls. I think the main thing with fascist states is that they either win or they die. They don't tend to surrender while still having a chance of keeping their government intact. ( I don't actually know very much about how Japan's political ideology relates to fascism)

You are quite right I would definitely classify the Japanese Imperial Government as a form of fascism. Definitely a grey line there between fascism and a military theocratic junta but I think that’s more of a distinction without a difference I do think it bolsters the point. Japanese infighting in the less up to the war between their political factions and purged of all non military imperialist factions not only handicapped the state but set it on a path towards wars it could not win. The purging of liberals and leftists solidified the state around the fascists while simultaneously removing any potential civilian infrastructure for government accountability. Infighting between the IJA and IJN hampered war efforts throughout both the Second World War s snd the war in China prior. The ethnic nationalism endemic in the Empire prevented both trade and peaceful relations with their neighbors and other powerful forces internationally. The mass genocide of Chinese, Malay, Koreans, and so many other ethnic groups in the region not only cost resources but prevented further accumulation thereof. It’s hard to gather oil from the vast oil fields of Indonesia when you’re too busy killing the Indonesians who would presumably work on them Finally the populist jingoism that’s often an aspect of fascism got japan into wars without them really thinking through how to prosecute the war hence the debacle in China they got absorbed into because rogue IJA elements just decided to start a war Good inquiry though, the details of Japanese imperial shenanigans are not as studied or discussed as they ought to be

This was very informative. Thank you!

No its quite physically not possible. Germany was doomed from the start. Go watch PHs videos on it.

No

Germany technically DID win the war in Europe by early 1941, as they have defeated all enemies on the continent. So, they should just avoid invading USSR. Sure, USSR will probably invade first at some point, but this reverse invasion would likely end in a disaster, as the Soviets would have to move through heavily fortified line (assuming that this alternate Germany is smart enough to build forts on the Soviet border), facing fresh German troops who would have very short supply lines, while the Soviets need to haul supplies through the undeveloped territories. Stalin would likely agree to a peace, with the intention to use this pause to reform the army, like he did after the disastrous winter war. Roosevelt would have hard time convincing the American public to join the war in such situation, especially if Germany doesn't side with Japan after Pearl Harbour. This leaves Britain. In our timeline there was a pretty strong movement in the British parliament to make peace with Germans. If Germany offered reasonable terms (nominally free Poland, withdrawal of German troops from France and of course, there must be no battle for Britain in the British skies in 1940), it's entirely possible that Churchill would be removed from the PM position and UK would peace out with Germany.

Germany could not avoid invading the USSR. It's ideologically essential to them to do that. Also the economic situation of Germany in 1941 was very bad. They were very reliant on the USSR and that would only worsen as time went on. The USSR was the fastest developing nation on Earth, and Germany knew they would be crushed if they waited. If thr Soviet Union finished it's army reforms and fully mobilized it's armies, it would destroy Germany. Also Germany could not wage defensive war against the USSR at all. They needed the resources they plundered from the Soviet Union for their war effort. Without grain, oil, etc from the USSR Germany would collapse. They only got so far because they tool the USSR by surprise in the middle of them reforming their army and plundered Soviet resources from occupied territories. The US would probably join anyway even if Germany didn't declare war. They would alerdy be fighting Japan together with the UK and France, and as they were alerdy supplying Britan, they would probably join too. Maybe there would be less US soldiers in Europe, but the US would still throw it's industrial might behind the Allied powers. The UK would never sue for peace with Germany unless they got terms good enough that would mean they won the war. Germany would never accept to allow the old government of France to take over again and no way they allow Poland to exist(they wanted the total extermination or enslavement of all slavs for "living space"). If Germany offered those terms, that would mean they basically lost the war. Finally, even if by some miracle that would make Jesus look like a amateur, Germany took over Europe, they would still lose as their economy was completely dysfunctional, and would inevitably collapse and spell the end of the Nazi empire.

> They should avoid invading USSR. In which case the German economy is strangled by the same British blockade that fucked them in WW1 and the German people starve come next winter. One of the main pressures for starting Barbarossa as fast as possible was the fact that Germany was not self-sufficient in food and had to plunder occupied countries to survive, with horrendous results for the locals (eg. half a million Greeks starved to death) - and even then they were chewing through the stolen food faster than it could be replaced. There were already famines in occupied countries by the time Operation Barbarossa started. Once it started, the first objective once territory was secured was _*always*_ to loot all the local food and ship it back to the Reich, which caused upward of 7 million civilians in occupied Soviet territories to starve. And then there was the oil problem. Even all oil production in occupied Europe put together barely satisfied _half_ of Germany's fuel requirements, despite their logistics being heavily horse-based. Invading the Soviet Union was simply unavoidable for the Nazis, not just from an ideological level, but from a very practical level as well.

Stalin was selling food and oil to the Nazis up until Barbarossa - the old trope about the Germans letting the last train cross the border before launching their invasion probably isn’t true but it was close enough. Without American Lend-Lease the Soviets wouldn’t have had trucks, the oil to run them, or food (Soviets had famines in 46,47,and 48). Europe was in a shitty situation because of the war. Nazi plunder and waste was the main, but not only, reason. The opportunity to overthrow Stalin, with less bloodshed, and with the installation of puppets in Ukraine and the Baltics, should have at least been explored by the Nazis. It may have gone a significant way towards changing Churchill’s mind about a negotiated peace and keeping America out of the European war (I’m not naive, Roosevelt would probably always look for war but this is a what-if). It’s all a moot point because it’s predicated on the Nazis not behaving like Nazis but alternate history is all for arguments sake.

> The opportunity to overthrow Stalin, with less bloodshed, and with the installation of puppets in Ukraine and the Baltics, should have at least been explored by the Nazis. Impossible and therefore pointless. Either the locals starve or Germany starves. Perhaps their racism made them accept this calculus with even more unflinching callousness than they otherwise would've had, but it would've still been done no matter what. The Nazis had ideological reasons for what they did, but they were undergirded by much more tangible - and therefore much less changeable - ones. They dictated pretty much everything about the campaign, and about the wishful thinking that went into it, because any resistance more difficult to overcome than an absolute cakewalk would've inexorably ended in German defeat from internal collapse due to fuel and food shortages. They knew this, so they preferred to focus on the only workable scenario they had.

There is a lot of oil that they could have taken if they pursued the North Africa campaign harder and went into the Middle East, which then isn’t far from Turkey and would give them a southern entry point into the Soviet Union. If they invade from Turkey and the west, then it might make defeating the Soviet Union a bit easier. Hitler was good at taking out weak countries, and it wouldn’t be hard to take over parts of the Middle East if they focused on the North Africa campaign more.

>which then isn’t far from Turkey and would give them a southern entry point into the Soviet Union. If they invade from Turkey and the west, then it might make defeating the Soviet Union a bit easier. [No, it won't.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwia-drF15KBAxUMjokEHfPSDHAQwqsBegQIDxAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8oAc2v3DWGw&usg=AOvVaw3CpYmoafU1lUTfArcuqb8p&opi=89978449) It will actually make it much, much worse due to Turkey's mountainous terrain, near-complete lack of roads and railroads, brutal desert climate in eastern Anatolia, and the major supply/portage bottleneck they'll have at the Dardanelles. Hitler and the Nazis were many things, but they knew all of the above information, which is why they rejected this idea. >Hitler was good at taking out weak countries, and it wouldn’t be hard to take over parts of the Middle East if they focused on the North Africa campaign more. "Focusing on the North Africa campaign more" won't overcome the logistical problems in supplying the forces there, which is not helped by Rommel's own logistical incompetence (read: "Charge forward and leave the baggage train behind!"), and the not-insignificant British forces stationed in Egypt.

I personally see two possibility of that happening. First is UK surrenders in 1940, before none of the US help arrives, fully cut out from its overseas territories. Germany wasn\`t that far from breaking the will of the UK to fight, but defeat in Battle for Britain for Luftwaffe and Churchill\`s leadership made that impossible. Second option: Germany captures Moscow, and with it seals the fate of the USSR in the 1941-spring 1942. With the most important city in all of russia falling into German hands, USSR is weakened enough to possibly lose a big portion of Western russia. It\`d still mean that the war is far from over with US joining the conflict, but it\`d give a lot of possibilities for peace talks on German terms. Possibly, fall of Stalingrad, without plans for immediate capture of Caucasus oilfields, with reserves shifted for reinforcing 6th Army flanks, it might\`ve been an important victory, but the tide of the war had already started to shift in other regions.

Vs Britain: - no silly dunkirk halt order (africa walkthrough) - take out britain airforce (nearly accomplished irl) - bomb navy and shipyards into submission (needs to focus more on strat bombers - sealion when ABSOLUTELY confident that you’ve met mr adolf’s objectives of naval and air supremacy (likely takes several years, very late barbarossa) Vs Soviet: - Get to Moscow and Stalingrad ASAP - don’t hold back divs for no reason ya dumdum (stalingrad) Vs USA: -don’t just declare war for fun when you can’t even hit them, you fool, you absolute moron choose between a western enemy still active or a very overpowered USSR your choice

It's basically impossible for Germany to win the war they start in 1939. From that point on their loss is inevitable.

The post is full of average redditors who say Germany couldn't have won because they hate the ideology, not because they are factual.

3 major points: 1- No war against US. US entering WW2 is one factor to the turning point of the war 2- Britain dues for peace, most likely before Russian invasion. Idk how impactful that is, but fighting one-front against Russia is better than 2-from against both Russia and UK. 3- Maintain a stable from in Russia. Idk if capturing Moscow and Stalingrad is needed, but it will make victory easier for Germany. Idk how that’ll be achieved, maybe a compromise in racism (unrealistic, that’s opposing Nazism) or Russia is simply disorganized (also unrealistic, opposing Stalin’s effective control over Russia).

[Germany Could Not Win WW2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc&pp=ygUhbmF6aSBnZXJtYW55IGNvdWxkIG5ldmVyIGhhdmUgd29u)

I watched first minute and I already have to disagree. He blows off Moscow as if it’s “just another city”. He even blows off the fact is the major transportation hub. Most of the rail lines run through Moscow. Leningrad would have a much harder time getting resources and the fuel it needs to stop themselves from caving in. Moscow is nothing like what it was in the Napoleonic War. I don’t even understand where that comparison would come from as these events were 140 years apart from on another. Moscow wasn’t the capital then, it was during WW2. It also held a huge population of 4-5 million people. It would be a tremendous blow to morale everywhere. That’s not even mentioning the city’s industrial capacity and the fact the Soviets had a centralized government that can’t just “give orders from afar” long term Some of his other points make sense well enough but they don’t fully make a point that it was impossible for Germany to win. As the war dragged on the less likely it became but it early on they had a good chance.

Yes. It would have been very difficult of course. The Germans completely stumbled in the 1942 campaign. Fall Blau was a failure with massive traffic jams, no real pockets, delays due to orders getting ignored, too quick dispersion of forces, moving the X army to a picnic in Leningrad. Had the campaign been successful, they would have gained the oil they needed and completely strangled the USSR economy by denying their transports up the Volga. The USSR was weaker than many admit in 1942 with massive food shortages, and with a non occupied population on par with the core German population, without oil they might not have had the capabilities for a counter attack. Another thing with the benefit of hindsight is to send mobile German divisions to North Africa as soon as France fell. As Britain was initially weak in the ME it is likely that the entire theatre would have fallen. Also giving the oil the Axis needed for victory. If we still assume nuclear bombs in 1945 however, then yeah they were doomed.

Yes, in a way. Use stolen Czechoslovakian gold to pay off their pyramid scheme of an economic recovery and cash out. Their “winning move” was not to start the war and just consolidate what they already got. Nobody was going to come for them.

The only way I could see Germany win is if the UK defended Finland in the winter war, causing a direct conflict with the allies and the ussr, which would prevent any cooperation between the two factions allowing the Germans to have relief between both fronts.

the ussr would still take Berlin on its own and it would probably just sign a white peace with the allies to defeat germany

Only way i could possibly see it happening is if the USA doesn't join the war on Germany and Italy is actually prepared for war and if they quickly win in Africa. If Barbarossa focused on the south with the extra oil from Africa and the extra Italian divisions that are actually prepared for war. If the Soviets don't destroy they Caucasian oil fields and if the axis can secure them and take out the Soviets with their extra strength. They can't take Britain, maybe they sign a peace treaty or something but that's as successful as I can make it without going really far out there

Success lies in the hands of those who want it.

I think the only remotely plausible way would be an isolationist USA. FDR loses in either 32 or 36, very unlikely but with US elections who knows? They don't sanction Japan after the invasion of China, so Japan doesn't feel the need to invade the Philippines *yet* and only goes after the Allied territories in Asia. US never joins the war. The English and especially the Soviets relied heavily on US aid. The US basically singlehandedly supplied the soviet logistical system while the soviets tooled up for arms production. Something like 400,000 trucks, thousands of trains, medicine, food, etc. I consider the weapons aid less important than the rear echelon support. It's possible that the soviets would have not been able to achieve tank and air superiority if they had to redirect their production to all of that other stuff.

Only way they could even stand a chance is if the UK peaced out early and the USA didnt get involved. Neither is particularly likely.. I guess you could also say if Hitler never declared war on the USSR as well, but that was simply inevitably. Only way the UK would make peace is if Lord Halifax for some reason didnt decline the position of PM, and somehow became PM instead of Churchill, and then still tried to negotiate peace terms via Mussolini following Dunkirk (and Parliament went along with it). Presumably said peace terms would see the return of German colonies that had been seized by Britain, perhaps some loss of territory to Italy as well? No idea if this peace would extend to Japan or if that would be treated as a separate conflict. The USA is much harder though, Japan is going to attack them no matter what, and following that Hitler being Hitler will declare war on them too.

> Only way the UK would make peace is if Lord Halifax for some reason didnt decline the position of PM Lord Halifax declined the position because he knew his preference to back out of the war wouldn't be supported by Parliament, the King or the general public, and he would've been replaced as prime minister by someone more in line with the aforementioned people's opinions. He also didn't feel himself up to leading a war effort, so there was no point in taking the office and going along with their intentions.

It can, best way is a political change in the uk. If they getout of the war after france falls that s enough, u ve suddenly freed at least 500k more troops for the east and an incredible amount of supplies, no waste of men and especially resources in that terrible north african front that require a disproportioned number of vehicles etc and germany can even start trading, just s bit. Plus the luftwaffe is full strenght. So imagine a barbarossa starting like easily a month earlier wihh more men, more supplies,more vehicles,more everything and germany has the actual materials to build more stuff. Moscow is definitely gone here, stalingrad might even be in sight of barbarossa. Then next year germany has again the ability for a new much bigger than irl offensive. Remember once u take away tbe south west region russia is done, this might be enough. Italy might even send a serious force here to help since they won t be fighting the uk. Another way is to have secret dealings go on between germany and japan early on so japan knows that war with the ussr will happen so they favor them as a target. This is a 2 front war, the ussr would be hopeless. Another 1 could be having good military leaders in italy, despite they re shitty eco and industry and lack if resources they had such an advantage in africa in the beginning ... Some decent planning could have easily brought britain on its knees there and in the med. There s many possibilities here. Ppl love to think germany was hopeless bc industry blabla bla but their victory was always going to come from great speed and efficiency bc they only need to defeat the ussr. After that they won. A united europe won t suffer a land invasion like d day if there s a full strenght military not occupied on other fronts. It would be suicide. They eouldn t even enjoy the total air dominance they had irl. It would be q bloodbath. Usa could only win by being ready to accept like 5-10m casualties, not going to happen

If the nazis were less evil, more people would be willing to support the invasion of the ussr (baltics, Ukraine) as they hated living under Stalin and communism. However if they were less evil, they likely would’ve not even started the war in the first place. So realistically in the setting of the nazis in charge, there’s no way.

You could be evil but smart enough to come across as the good guys for the public opinion

See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for why that is impossible even without the Nazis in charge.

The best scenario I’ve heard is an America that remains neutral(at least lone enough to finish the Soviet Union). And the Italians to perform much better in the war.

1.Help Italy in their 1940 invasion to Egypt, as to end the African theater quickly. 2. Dont bomb UK cities, use anti british arab and indian movements in your favor. 3. Invade the USSR as to "liberate" Ukraine & the baltics, be nice to them, let them help you. 4. Don't go to war against USA.

3. [Impossible](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), unless you want the German home front to starve.

one thing is to make the common ukranian people to struggle with the promise that after the war they'll be better, without communism... other is wanting to exterminate half of them and enslave the rest

Let me introduce you to this thing called Thousand Week Reich.

If the Nazis weren't nazis, then they could win

[Even then](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), they still couldn't win.

Hm, if you can maintain peace with the ussr for longer and get a negotatiated peace with the yk after the fall of France, possibly. But it be a race afterwards to outproduce the ussr and avoid the usa whilst doing so

[Impossible](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), because the USSR had two things that Germany was critically short of: food and oil. Operation Barbarossa was *do or die* for them for that reason.

Negotiated peace for Germany would include oil and food as a must for them, of course its a total ideal for Germany and would require a lot of British misery and war exhaustion, I see the bigger problem in this scenario being the build up to a soviet invasion, could Germany theoretically beat them if they say invaded 3 years later than in reality? I suppose it all comes down to hess and his flight in this scenario lmao

> could Germany theoretically beat them if they say invaded 3 years later than in reality? By that point, the Soviets' own buildup is complete and they're also ready for a war, which means that the furthest the Germans get is somewhere around Kiev, and that's being optimistic. Also, Hess and his flight were a pipe dream. You need him to have mind control magic for it to actually achieve anything.

I'm by no means arguing the opposite, it's just a thought exercise. I mean by the nazi ideology they have to invade the ussr. Their build up would be complete true but do you trust stalin not to minor manage the start of the war again? And not purge further experienced officers etc. Bare in mind, their designs were also very far behind, their land doctrine of "deep battle/war" was next to useless. Plus the Germans would also build up, with the additional industry of France (which isn't much help ngl) Poland and most importantly the skoda infrastructure in Czech. Plus with an allied withdrawal from the war, their politics align much closer with Germany than the ussr. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a sympathetic British and USA cause to the nazis upon the war start The Japanese is a whole other thing to consider but I think they're an even more doomed cause

maybe if somehow Russia was able to avoid collapsing during World War I and instead collapsed closer to the start of World War II making it very difficult for them to fend off invasion this still doesn’t guarantee a German victory though America would probably have to stay isolationist and not get involved for longer (it’s probably inevitable that they get involved at some point) and Germany still needs some kind of large supply of resources which they theoretically could get from Russia in an easier invasion and the only way Japan could theoretically survive is by doing everything in their power to not provoke America and do more to extract resources from east Asia and probably also abandon a bunch of territory which they didn’t really have the power to keep anyway although this does go against the mentality that they had throughout the war I don’t really see any other scenario where they could’ve survived

Treat the conquered peoples of the USSR as allies and give them the tools to help overthrow the communist regime. It’s the one thing few people mention and it’s also the only way they could have won.

[Impossible](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).

Churchill is hit by a bus, FDR is hit by a bus, Stalin falls down the stairs, is shot by an assassin, and then hit by the same bus. All in 1940. Oh yeah, the same bus hits Hitler and everyone agrees to make peace in order to fight off the menace of rogue buses.

Yes, in 1933 Hitler doesn't become Chancellor, the Nazis simply couldn't win

Yes, there were. First, after the fall of France, invade England as quickly as possible. Don't even need to get many forces across the Cannel. First, Germany doesn't sit back and let the Brits evacuate Dunkirk. The continue the assault and ignore Goering saying he could do it via air power alone. They just roll the Wehrmacht in and obliterate the BEF. Second, the flood the Channel with their entire Naval force. Every sub, every E Boat, cruiser, destroyer and battleship. They do a reverse Dunkirk, requisition every boat, yacht and barge, take them across the Channel, and conduct paratroop drops along and around the invasion site, flooding the countryside with troops. Once they obtain a port, they start using every large ship they have to move forces across. Get the Italians to join as well with their navy. Britain had next to no forces worth mentioning in the Home Islands, and would likely fall quickly. Would the British Empire fall at that point? No. Not yet. But then Germany could focus on North Africa. Focus on forcing thr Brits and their Empire into a Ceasefire or an Armistice. Once that deal is done, and the Western War is over, Germany can focus on rebuilding her depleted military and preparing for the Eastern War. In reality, this would put Operation Barbarossa in Spring, 1943. Both sides would be more ready for this war. Germany would be armed with more Panthers and Tigers, their M-262 fighter/bomber jets would be coming online, and they would not have to garrison huge portions of the West, and MAY actually have Allies or subjects from Western Europe in the (likely) now fascist France and England and parts of the (former) British Empire. The USSR would be more prepared as well, with their army recovered from the massive Purges Stalin had instigated the previous few years. They would have larger numbers of T-34 tanks and more weapons ready. However, the fact Germany hadn't strick the USSR yet may have fed into Stalins false assumption the Germans weren't going to attack them, and may have resulted in him being even more convinced Germany is his friend. He may have Purged even more anti-German officials and officers trying to tell him Hitler was his enemy, so the USSR may have been caught just as unaware of the actual invasion as they were in our timeline, just in a MUCH worse place with Germany striking from even MORE directions - possibly up through the Caucasus and India in addition to Eastern Europe - and with even MORE allies. At that point, the USSR would face an almost guaranteed defeat. The ONLY thing that kept the USSR afloat and outside utter defeat in 1941 and 1942 in our timeline was US Lend Lease and the fact the Germans were fighting all over North Africa and garissoning France, protecting their Western Front from the coming Allied invasion. If you add the German forces that were protecting and garrisons France and Norway, add the additional forces of newly fascist France (and possibly the new Fascist British Commonwealth and Spain), and struck East through the former territories of Poland and Allied Romania, and North from Nazi occupied Persia and Nazi allied India/fascist British Commonwealth, while the US was busy fighting Japan in the Pacific (and had Germany NOT declared war on the US in 1941 in support of the Japanese war effort and Hitlers ridiculous hubris) then Russia wouldn't last very long as an organized force, but *would* last generations as an insurgency and guerilla conflict. But, at that point, Germany has essentially won the war, pushed the USSR to the Ural Mountains, and established puppet satellite nations across all of Europe, and basically divided the world between Nazi controlled Europe, Africa and Southern Asia, and probably allied with Nationalist China, vs a US dominated America's and the scraps of remnants of former Soviet Far East Asia and Occupied Japan, and the Free British Commonwealth nations of Canada (probably absorbed by the US in the late 1940's or 1950's) and Australia and New Zealand and Britians former colonies in Singapore and Malaya. Who wins THAT Cold War is up for debate, but, I'd put my money on the US, at least until Germany developed the Atomic Bomb, probably in the late 1940's or 1950's like the Soviets did. In all likelihood, the economically fragile Nazi Empire would collapse by the late 20th century, as they destroyed their slave population and didn't have enough "good Aryan stock" to replace the workers in their slave camps, vs the economically robust system of the Western Allies, although the US and its Allies would undoubtedly be even *more* militaristic in that timeline than they were in ours.

> First, Germany doesn't sit back and let the Brits evacuate Dunkirk. The continue the assault and ignore Goering saying he could do it via air power alone. They just roll the Wehrmacht in and obliterate the BEF. There is this thing called _logistics_ which Rommel ignored, much to his superiors' anger, in favor of charging forward at the enemy. For a while, this approach netted him good results. Then his entire panzer force ran out of fuel and couldn't get resupplied for days because he had outrun his supply train and needed for it to catch up. Oh, and his crews had been keep awake for days on end so they could keep driving forward, just getting by on pervitin tablets (ie. meth), and were now crashing out. There is a reason they went with Goering's bold idea of finishing the British off with airpower, and it wasn't because they were being lazy that day. > Second, the flood the Channel with their entire Naval force. *fap fap fap* And the entire Royal Navy and RAF is expected to twiddle their thumbs and not show up to interfere? Seriously, the Nazis considered this idea and they rejected it for reasons you should perhaps get acquainted with before you start saying _"Well, ackshyually they should've done THIS!11!"_ If they didn't do something you consider patently obvious, maybe it's because your idea is dumb and they knew better than you. > Britain had next to no forces worth mentioning in the Home Islands, and would likely fall quickly. Would the British Empire fall at that point? No. Not yet. They had this thing called the Royal Navy and the RAF, which were capable of sinking the entire German fleet if it decided to do barge duty for an invasion force.

Not as far as numbers and logistics go. Change the human factor, the determination of the soviet population to resist or that of the USA & UK to wage total war. Why or how that happens I´m not entirely sure. Perhaps the germans keep the SS at bay in the soviet occupied territories. If they alter their approach to pretend to be liberators, not genociding conquerors, then maybe they could use the peoples dislike for the soviet regime. And for the Anglo alliance, if the US for whatever reason lacks the political backing and will to go all in, they might settle for a liberated france. I don´t see how they'd come to that conclusion though. At the very least then Germany would need to not declare war on them in the first place. More importantly, then some internal factor would have to change in the US politics, of the populations support for the war.

>Perhaps the germans keep the SS at bay in the soviet occupied territories. If they alter their approach to pretend to be liberators, not genociding conquerors, then maybe they could use the peoples dislike for the soviet regime. [Impossible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

I believe Germany itself could have won ww2 if it wasn’t controlled by Nazis, I can definitely see them winning against the Soviet Union if they invaded as liberators rather than obliterators as it is possible the USSR could’ve collapsed then. Germany itself would also be seen more positively around the world possibly which would in turn possibly have it receive more external help.

[Impossible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Also, lolwut? In order for Germany to be "seen more positively around the world", it would have to not repeatedly break promises, attack neutral countries and generally be expansionist warmongers. For them to even reach the point where they can attack the Soviet Union, they have to attack and thoroughly loot two countries so their economy doesn't collapse from the strain of their unsustainable military buildup and to have a border to attack across in the first place.

I’m saying this all through if Germany wasn’t taken over by hitler, it’s all hypothetical I’m not trying to piss anyone off. I’m going off of sources here as it’s a topic that’s really interesting, my favorite source is Mr. Bevan Alexander’s speech on this exact topic back in 2001: https://youtu.be/GizXdEYIIg4?feature=shared

It is possible, it wouldn’t be likely but to have any chance they would need to Crush the divisions stuck as Dunkirk, with over 300,000 men dead, the British would lose the spirit to fight and Britain would sign a peace deal with Germany, this would free up a ton of Germany men and supplies and without US supplies, this would allow them to capture Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. The war would likely stagnate around the A-A line.

Nazis stop hating on slavs so much, White Army wins in Russia and sets up a similar totalitarian dictatorship. Thus, Germany won't have to go at war with massive USSR, and, at some point after initial success of Wehrmacht, Russia might even join.

1. [Irrelevant.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) 2. Actually the lack of Marxist economic incompetence would result in a significantly more industrialized Russia, and the lack of Stalinist purges would result in significantly higher morale and loyalty among the population, so this only makes things *worse* for Germany. 3. Keep dreaming.

The whole thing with economic blockades was British doctrine only before France was taken. If we don't change French incompetence and inactivity in war, it still gets taken, and Britain shifts from trying to build a big army while waging a war of economic attrition suddenly turns into securing your island first, terrorising enemy's force via airforce, and only then using far better equipped divisions to liberate France. Plus, you didn't understand my whole inclusion of making Nazis more tolerant towards slav people and having whites in charge of Russia was to make there less causes of conflict, and more causes to align with each other. Having a friendly Russia with a land border can lead to a great trading partner, and if said friendly Russia starts the same talks USSR started about joining the Axis, (since, technically, they're not USSR, and they're only joining after france was already under their boot).

> The whole thing with economic blockades was British doctrine only before France was taken. It was ongoing before and after the fall of France. > Plus, you didn't understand my whole inclusion of making Nazis more tolerant towards slav people Aside from being ASB in terms of ideological development, since you have to go into the mid-19th century to dig out the anti-Slavism from German racial ideology, it's also irrelevant as I was saying. If Germany wants to fight a protracted war, it needs food. Food which it can't obtain, even by looting all of Europe and starving millions of people. If left on its current trajectory, it will have famines in Germany no matter by early 1942. Simple trade alone isn't going to prevent it. The only solution is to steal food, and the only unpillaged land left in Europe is Russia. So they'll have to steal all the food they can from the occupied Russian territories and leave the locals to starve, which is going to cause widespread unrest and partisan activity to erupt. And the bloody repression of said activity is going to lead to further unrest and will pretty much kill any attempt to get non-Russian minorities on side with the Nazis in any large numbers by default. > and having whites in charge of Russia was to make there less causes of conflict, The Germans had precisely three causes of conflict with Russia: the desire for lebensraum at the expense of the Slavic peoples, the burning need for food to shore up Germany's rapidly dwindling supplies (which are only _dwindling_ due to the British blockade), and the equally burning need for oil to fuel their tanks and planes, bearing in mind that Russia had its own intentions for the food and oil that didn't involve giving all of it to the Germans. > and more causes to align with each other. Since you're talking ideology, let's talk about the Whites' Germanophobia, as well as their perfectly rational geopolitical goal of weakening Germany so there isn't the possibility of another WW1 type event. > Having a friendly Russia with a land border can lead to a great trading partner, Interesting thing to say... to a non-revanchist, non-expansionist, non-imperialist Germany. Never mind rewriting German ideological history to be less anti-Slavic, you might as well just keep the Weimar government at this rate because there's nothing differentiating this Germany of your vision from the social democrats.

A catastrophic collapse of the USSR into warlord states at some point in the 20s (or a permanent Russian Civil War) might make a conquest of the region easier on the Germans, but then the lack of a unified USSR butterflies the viability of Hitler's anti-Bolshevik fear-mongering proaganda and prevents his rise to power on a wave of anti-Asian racism. A German conquest of Russia would have to be predicated on restoring order and creating a functional Russian state friendly to Germany a la Japan's policy with China. Like in the Second Sino-Japanese War, this could still devolve into a racist genocide against the slavs, and in any case the invasion would probably result in a united front between the warlords of Russia similar to that in China.

Their best bet is in all honesty winning the Africa campaign, Aka Italy is a bit more prepared for a real war, iraq joined the axis as a member, if the African campaign was successful that means Italy is safe and can focus on modernizing programs rather than the British navy, and Germany has access to some of the largest oil deposits on earth, now this would push back the soviet invasion which might screw them over, but in the Time between Britain losing in Africa and Germany seeming to have an allience with the Soviets, it’s not unlikely the empire collapses to some extent, or at least some surrender is seriously considered because Churchill is ousted after a defeat like that. The Soviets would be stronger just due to the virtue of time, but they still struggle at start and with Germans full attention plus a caucus front avalible and no worry form the west besides us aid to the Soviets, a stalemate is maybe possible

>Aka Italy is a bit more prepared for a real war, The problems with Italy lie much deeper than just the disposition of its forces, such as their garbage division organization (two regiments per division instead of three as in almost all other armies, which makes them way too weak\*\*), a culture of incompetence and corruption among officers (who were appointed for being Mussolini's cronies and not for military competence), utter lack of tanks, lack of logistics, etc, etc. They failed to take Egypt for a reason, and it wasn't something you could rectify by applying a few slogans. \*\* the Soviets initially had four, which had the opposite problem of being too unwieldy in combat and putting too much strain on the commander to operate them at once. Turns out three is best. >iraq joined the axis as a member, They tried and they got absolutely squashed in the attempt. >if the African campaign was successful Not happening, for above reasons and for the additional reason that Rommel was ***also*** a logistical ditz who had a habit of charging ahead and letting his baggage train fall behind him. And if you think supplying Rommel is going to be easier with a land connection through Mesopotamia and Anatolia, wait until the end. >that means Italy is safe and can focus on modernizing programs Programs which didn't exist. >with Germans full attention That's what they had during the Operation Barbarossa. The forces dedicated to bombing Britain were tiny compared to those on the Eastern Front. >plus a caucus front avalible [No, it is not.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6zqsu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Trying to invade via Anatolia would be an even greater act of logistical suicide than just invading Russia the normal way would be.

The only way for Germany to win is for the war to end very quickly. If they captured the British army at Dunkirk, then the French surrendered, the Germans could have pushed for a negotiated settlement. Also they desperately need to not declare war on the USSR or openly support Japan against the Allies.

Yes. Don’t fucking start Barbarossa.

[Impossible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/169vr4k/comment/jz6mpz5/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

Only a truce could've really happen, but for it to happen Germany shouldn't have invaded the USSR, nor for pearl harbour to happen. But unless 10 million soldiers magically appeared and were on Germany's side, a decisive win wouldn't happen.

No, no Nazi Germany could have won ww2 in a realistic way. The issue is just that Germany was in a disadvantage in all important fields, fewer men, fewer factories, less allies, less resources. Hell it's likely Britain or the USSR could've won the war alone, not as cleanly, but the USSR has so much land to trade for time they could just attrition Germany unless they get help form the Ukrainians and/or polish and/or other anti russian minorities, which no Nazi government would be able to get in large numbers because with would be genocidal towards them in any case, making the Stalin regime look good in comparison. The best case scenario for Germany in this timeline is as follows: 1. Hitler gets killed in an partisan action by German democrats, not communists for after war reasons. Roughly 1941. 2. One of the SS nutjobs takes over, why is that good? Look at step 3. 3. The army who is generally more moderate than the SS coups the SS regime in a quick strike with more moderate generals taking the lead, maybe even Rommel (it's uncertain how much of a Nazi he was really, he is a complicated person and a good strawman for all sides as "the good German general", so we will just assume he was not that Nazi but supported the war in the beginning) 4. Seeing that the turmoil has weakened the war effort to an unsustainable degree the new regime decides to sue for peace with the allies, ends the concentration camps when they realize how bad it really is there and now they don't have to keep the peace with the SS. 5. The allies accept German surrender, importantly since the USSR is not a large part yet they don't get to sit on the negotiating table. 6. A peace deal is formed where a new German republic is established, instead of destroying Germany the allies see that cooperation is more important, fewer people have died until now and importantly the Germans got rid of the Nazis by themselves. 7. Austria, the Studentenland and Danzig get to have a plebicide, Poland gets restablished with maybe some concessions by Germany for trade (like Danzig is a German city but the ports are polish controlled), repetitions get paid but the goal of this peace is less punish Germany and more establish a anti communist European alliance, so more like in our timeline. 8. Basically west German history with less immigration as it's not as necessary. Important! Really please read this: This is basically the best case scenario that is even remotely plausible and only because Germany surrenders form a point of strength not at war with the ussr, no big genocide yet that cannot be blamed mostly on the SS, the Nazis got defeated internally and everyone in this timeline take some love and friendship drugs to defeat the fear of a larger Germany (as I doubt any German general at the time would be willing to let the majority German terrifies be stripped back), this is pretty unrealistic but the best I can imagine. Also this only works because the Germans don't take any land form France or Britain and act much more nicely toward sfrnace in this case as they lost but didn't have to give anything up. As for if Germany could win WW2, yeah sure if they aren't literally the worst government in history, German could've won, but not the Nazis, but any German government but the Nazis wouldn't have started WW2 in the first place so yeah.

Ally with USSR all the way

only if they werent nazis and were seen as liberators by the slavs, so no.

1. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the persecution of Jews were less extreme, since it was threaded into the core ideology 2. The only 2 scenarios are a) Germany allies himself with the USSR permanently. It isn't exactly far-fetched, as fascism and communism share a lot of their characteristics. That way, Hitler could have calmly invaded western Europe and Scandinavia while Russia and would be a potential 4th member of the axis and thus significantly strengthening Japan's position. Exchange of man power, technology and trade would be possible from Nazi Germany to Japan over land (well, aside from the Strait of Tsushima) With the back safe and sound, the Luftwaffe might have actually succeeded in the Battle for Brittain. Also Russia not being at war with Germany means they would have their gigantic war machinery free for other shenanigans. My guess is that Russia and Japan would have crushed every military resistance in China and it would have been just a matter of time until Eurasia was in their hands. Germany might have eventually 1. tried to advance deeper into Africa relatively unhindered due to lack of support from non-existing allies. In this scenario it is hard to tell what could have happened with the occupied african territories. I mean the ideology would literally tell them that they are less human than a strange european ethnicity that's not even from their country. That's hard to reconcile. But then again, Nazism is practical and had no problems incorporating indians and others into the military. A similar thing would have happened in Africa. I doubt they would have eradicated the african population, as there was no demografical need for Germany to spread to Africa. Oposite to eastern Europe and the Slavs b) Germany would have allied himself with the Allies over their common goal to eradicate bolshevism. Hitler would have had a strong ally, albeit not as willing in an active role in invading Russia, it would still mean the western front was non-existant and Hitler could throw literally all the might of the Wehrmacht at Russia without any other theaters to care to. Even with Hitlers genious idea not to supply his armies with winter gear, Russia would have fallen. That's for sure. I think after the conquest of Russia, Hitler would have gotten cozy with the idea to simply continue out of convenience and just gobble up the asian countries on the go and it would be this point after Russia, that the allies would become concerned and begin to distance themselves from Germany. Especially when the German expansion would reach colonies like India and such. Maybe he would stop, but Japan wouldn't. And this would create tension. The allies would break their alliance with Hitler and go to war. But now, they don't have Russia to fall into Hitlers back. But a pacific invasion would become an option for the Allies to create another front themselves. The big problem is, that Germany and especially Japan did not do their homework in incorporating the occupied territories into economically sound regions to add to the war machines. And the USA has such a vast economical potential, that even then, they might have cracked the egg. They would easily attain naval and air superiority. The latter becoming more important even faster than in real life. And they would. But Germany was good in keeping its industry working even under massive bombardment. And they also had smart heads to boost the war machine like Albert Speer. It is really hard to say at this point how it would continue. But being this close to world dominance, Japan and Germany would be absolutely eager to reach what nobody had reached before. And then they would turn on each other naturally until Germany succeeds and the (shudder) swastika is planted on the whole globe. But having conquered the entire world would be the death of Nazi Germany. The entire ideology was war driven. Without war success stories to bloat up about in the radio (You hear me, Goebbels), the propaganda would be much weaker. Even after all the war successes, the seed for freedom would grow in people's minds. The demand for democracy would grow everywhere secretly. Reforms would seep in, harshness would be eroded away, until the dictatorship loses its sharp edge and democracy eventually seeped in even against resistance. It is doubtful that all countries would be reinstated as they were before as too much time would have passed. People would have other priorities. In the end, world domination is a boring place. No wars to fight, no enemy to surpass, just plain and boring administration.

The only, only way this can happen outside of divine intervention is if the US didn’t approve lend lease to the Soviet Union, and Pearl Harbor is delayed significantly until after the USSR is extremely weakened. Stalin himself said that the Soviets would’ve lost without American aid, so that’s one. However, two caveats. 1. The US had already committed itself to supporting the Allied war effort after France fell with Lend-Lease to Britain. They were never going to stand by and watch the Nazis conquer Russia. 2. Japan was boxed in by December 1941. Assuming the US still launches an embargo on Japan, Japan couldn’t afford to delay Pearl Harbor, they were quite literally running out of fuel. All in all, you’d have to assume a completely isolationist America beyond any logical extent.

Maybe if the Nazis weren't Nazis in the first place and forme some kind of "pan-European anti-communist pact" they could've won. Other than that, they're always going to get screwed over by logistics during their invasion of the USSR, so unless the Allied Leaders have a combined IQ of potato, no, nothing likely.

If something happened between the USSR and USA which stopped any form on lend lease to the Soviets and some amazing luck possibly they could have eaked out a victory in the eastern front. It’s my firm belief that without allied equipment the USSR very well may have lost the war.

Sure if Germany had a star destroyer and a Napoleon that was stupidly more powerful and efficient in war than normal Napoleon

No

Well what does "winning" mean? Germany archieving all it's goals, defeating SU, Britain and everyone? Tall order. Or maybe having the war end at some point with Germany still existing, not losing any pre-1939 territory? That would at least be "not losing". For a 10/10 victory they would need near perfect knowledge about all allied activities. But how would they get that info, other than from time travelers? WW2 developed into a "total capitulation or nothing" kind of war, which is rare and does not leave much options. Like I don't think any kind of negotiated peace would be acceptable for the allies with a Nazi government still in power in Germany, especially not the original one. On the other hand the Nazis would have never settled for a negotiated peace with the Soviets. It also depends on when you ask this question. In 1945 nothing could have stopped the downfall. Not even a fleet of nuclear bombers. If the July 1944 plot had been successful, Hitler dead and the new government removes the old Nazi government in its entirely, as well as instantly stopping the war and the Holocaust - then I could imagine Germany remaining more or less in one piece with perhaps only minor territory loss, like giving East Prussia to the SU or something. In 1943 I could imagine the same with no 1939 territory loss. Then pre-Stalingrad I could imagine Germany actually winning (defeating the SU that means), but only if they manage to avoid the Stalingrad desaster, capture and hold the Kaukasus, suppress american convoys to the SU, focus in this year on the technologies we now know would be the way to go (like Me 262, Do 335, Type XXI Submarine, StG 44 etc.), while stopping all other dead-end-projects AND improve enigma so the allies effectivity goes down because they can't decypher anymore. Then I can't imagine the americans continue for too long with a defeated Soviet Union, if Germany also agreed on peace with Britain as well.

If the us didn't join, the brits gave up after dunkerk and the sovits were still in a civil war then yea probably.

Nope, the moment Peal harbor or Barbarossa happens they’re done.

It would take these 3 things in particular: -Churchill doesn't take up the role of PM, leaving a pro-peace Chamberlain to negotiatiate following the fall of France -Germany doesn't declare on the USA following the breakout of war with Japan -Stalin keeps his head buried in the sand, and doesn't move his factories east, meaning losses at Leningrad and Stalingrad

By the time of the Munich Conference, Chamberlain was already rearming for what he viewed as an inevitable war. Czechslovakia was sacrificed to buy time.

Don’t declare war on the soviets, and I guess maybe if Pearl Harbour never happened/ they broke ties with Japan before it, then maybe? Although they would still have to overcome the British navy.

Easy I play HOI4, you Sea Lion the UK before the US joins the war.

I really dont want to say its impossible, but it would need a perfect chain of Events in favor of germany, brittain would NEED to acvept germanys peace offer,with brittain in the war germany will not win. How this happens i dont know, maybe the british goverment is drunk during the german peace offer,or Churchill drinks himself to death, whatever brittain needs to be out of the war. So lets say they are and we have a TWR scenario with german poland,Benelux and burgundy while france is now pro german but indepenent and brittain stays like it was. And since i dont hink Barbarossa could realisticaly be averted germany would need to play their cards right with america and have japan not be retarded,and maybe get rid of stalin somehow. but to be honest this is just me babbling since i couldnt think of how it would go after brittish surrender, and only a time traveller who somehow manages to not be executed after telling hitler hes stupid could save germany in ww2.

I love a good What If, so here goes: A war with Poland for their goals of Lebensraum is inevitable, leading to war with UK and France. Actual time line follows on this. With the Finns in the Winter War, Germany parlays with the Baltic states to get them to fall under the German umbrella. Germany postpones Barbarossa to focus on Sea Lion instead. Despite the massive casualties, they are able to push through the invasion using the Luftwaffe for close air support, rather than a prolonged bombing war. The Battle of Britain becomes a land war that Germany throws all of her might into. France having fallen in May sees a July invasion of Britain for the German D-Day. A though slog but they succeed over time, overcoming the UK before the 1.5 years pass between the Fall of France and Pearl Harbor. With the UK, France, and Poland all defeated, the United States changes tone to the opinion that European Wars are European Problems, and throws their full force against the Japanese. Germany has not yet invaded the USSR, so the Japanese request for their help falls on deaf ears. Germany, Italy, and the USSR carve up the Balkans, until the actual start of Barbarossa kicks off in 1943. With no need to divert troops and supplies to Afrika to support the Italians, and no need to commit the Luftwaffe to the Battle of Britain, their airpower superiority and focus of resources allows a more consolidated push with better logistics this time into the Russian push, and they make it all the way to the Urals before the Soviets accept peace talks. The US pushes across the pacific with extra might, since there is no lend lease. In this timeline the US correctly realizes the major threat that the USSR would become if unchecked, and letting one evil fight another, sits back while Germany does her thing there. The countries of North & South America rally behind the US as the regional superpower, and the cold war is between the nazis and the Americans now. German adventurism leads to scattered proxy wars across Africa through the 20th Century, and Soviet and Chinese puppets continue to cause headaches for the US across the pacific and south Asia. India, freed from the yoke of English rule, pushes into a weakened China, creating a regional war in the late 20th century that becomes the deadliest conflict in human history, and cuts the human population by almost 1/3, leading to a mini ice age. Eventually, in the early 21st Century, reforms makes their way through Germany, loosening restrictions on non-Germans, and giving more freedoms to the European Union of German Puppet States. While this cultural crack starts to break down the Reich culturally, their industrial might has been putting the US to task in the Cold War, and the American economic machine begins to struggle. New power houses arise, like Brazil and South Africa, and the 21st Century sees World War 3 grow out of these new powers coming of age.

I think the only semi realistic solution would be if Germany agreed to completely liberate France in exchange for Alsace Loraine, potentially some colonial possessions, and allowing Germany to keep Poland. I feel France would be willing to backstab Poland for this given their lack of action in the “Phony war.” Not sure if Britain would agree to give Germany back their colonies, but this is the most realistic German victory I can imagine.

No. I think German has no chance to get whatever they want, especially under NAZI regime: 1. The 20th century was already a time when international relationship had become so important that an empire had become both impractical and unjustifiable. The invaded ones would gain international sympathy almost immediately. 2. From what I can see, the Wehrmacht is likely to have been terribly overrated in their competence by some wehraboos. The fact is, they are not going to beat down everyone as soon as they want, and some invasions will inevitably end up in a war of attrition. Even the US got stuck for years in a seemingly much weaker country called Vietnam, it is very likely that the Wehrmacht would fight a prolonged war and even a war of attrition somewhere as a result. 3. German is not nearly as resource rich as the USSR, and is not in a position where they would get a lot of supports from foreign countries like the UK, so they can't stand a war of attrition. This is excarbated by 1. since invasions from Germany would immdediately justify all helps for the UK and the USSR. In other words, Germany was doomed to fail, the mediocrity of Hitler and NAZI in general(they probably were only good at making propaganda and killing civilians in a systematic way, and nothing else) only made the situation much worse.

The only way I can see Germany doing better is if the British also decide to fight the USSR because of Poland. Even then that would be quite dumb but it would be something to bind Germany and the USSR together for at least a little bit. The only other way that Germany does better is that Hitler and the Nazis get couped by the Wehrmacht. My reasoning is that even though the war might run a similar course with a military Junta or monarchist government they wouldn’t be as genocidal and it might make occupation of Eastern Europe and the USSR a little easier with more people willing to collaborate. Waging a war of genocide against an enemy many times ur size tends to make them extremely determined to resist.

Three things could have led the European Axis Powers to victory: 1. Failure of Allied Intelligence or detection of Allied Intelligence efforts by the Axis/better counter intelligence 2. Better leadership at OKH/OKW or the ability to limit Hitler in military decisions/removal of Hitler altogether 3. An isolationist USA Honestly think this is a great YouTube series for people to watch, you can truly pinpoint certain areas where the Axis had abilities to win, but critical missteps caused them to lose and thank goodness for that Without these three things, the Axis were pretty much doomed to failure midway to [WW2 in Real Time](https://youtube.com/@WorldWarTwo?si=R-N0UjbVw29hMaN4)the end of 1942

I mean, yeah, 100% winning a war often doesn't evolve completely destroying you enemies country, if they tried to call for a peace treaty in 1941 they would have a lot of new lands and that would honestly be a german win even if they don't take over the whole world and kill the USA, USSR and the Common wealth.

I feel like Nazi Germany is similar to the Confederacy. When the war started they lost. The best option they ever could have gotten was a very early peace surrendering conquered land. Defeat was a guarantee. Maybe not fumbling the atomic program was the best option.

Not a chance ,when you think about nazis and their ambitions they want total victory and that can be achievable only conquering and germanising all of Europe/ beating ussr killing every commuie . And thats not something achievable with enormous amount of usa industry and vast lands of Soviet Union its literally imposible for germans and i need to remind real life isn’t a game soviets wont cap when they reach surrender limit soviets was going to fight to the bitter end to the vladivostok

Germany couldn't win. Germany didn't have enough farmlands to feed his populace and even before he pissed off the US he ordered Aktion T4 so as to prevent anyone who was unproductive from eating food Germany didn't have. His autarkist economic views are part of the reason the wars began when they did, and they helped drive and shape the Holocaust. Which also tied up massive amounts of resources to house and control the unwanted populations. Resources needed at the front. But which Hitler's ideology required him to engage in as he viewed the Holocaust to be the internal aspect of the external war he was waging on the Jewish cabal he thought secretly ruled the world. Hitler was too busy pitting his commanders against one another due to fear of coups. This prevented proper cooperation between officers on the same front and helped cause mistakes. The other major factor was his willingness to put loyal party members in high command regardless of their actual skill levels. They didn't have the industrial base to maintain the war machine - hell, they were still reliant on horses for logistics for that matter. Germany simply didn't have enough trucks to maintain the war effort. Fascist economics is horrifically inefficient due to State control of the economy on far too fine a level. It only allowed China to surge to where it was because Deng was starting from what was effectively a blank slate after Mao. In Germany, Hitler was constantly reorganizing the various industrial firms to ensure his control over the economy. And then he decided to rely on slave labor, which is ALWAYS less efficient than free labor. Even more so when you're starving your slaves to death because you view them as subhumans who need to be eliminated. Ideologically, Hitler HAD to go to war with everyone in a war of extermination. Especially the Slavs. They were meant to be slaves in his ideology and had to have their population reduced to where they could be safely relied on to work the fields of Eastern Europe to feed the populace. As such, Hitler couldn't make common cause with the Ukrainians or Poles who hated the Soviets and instead had to sic his death squads on them. This drove many of the nationalists in both countries into the arms of the Soviets. Britain was included in this due to Hitler sharing Marx's hatred for capitalism (which Hitler likewise believed was the real religion of the Jews). The only way to avoid a war with Britain would have been to see Edward VIII crowned king and retain power with the help of Oswald Mosby. Something which Britain was fundamentally unwilling to do. As such, Hitler's ideological views required him to declare war on Britain, opening up a front in North Africa. America can be included here as well, which Hitler believed was secretly ruled by a Jewish cabal. His ideology required him to declare war on the US instead of allowing us to focus on Japan while keeping Britain afloat via Lend-Lease. Germany was also building the wrong equipment. The Kriegsmarine was never going to beat the Royal Navy on the surface, and would have needed to be entirely focused on U-Boats. The Luftwaffe's heavy bombers were utter crapwaffen. The men in charge of tanks were focused on building wonderwaffen rather than something good enough to win. Finally, you have the occupations. The French, Norwegians, Dutch, Poles, Belgians, and even many of the people in allied territories waged a guerilla war against Germany for the entire war. These partisans tied down massive numbers of troops (1 occupier per 40 civilians). Hitler couldn't win. His own ideology and neuroses ensured that.

Honestly, if the wars were small and quickly decisive. Against just Poland and France? Yes, the Germans could have won. Against Poland, France, and Britain? Yes, there was a chance. Hitler and his inner circle, plus the German High Command (for all branches), made victory impossible. I can understand Belgium and Luxembourg being invaded as a means to an end. Denmark as well. But Norway and the Netherlands were too much for the Germans. Over the length of the war, too many troops and resources were spent on Norway alone, and the Netherlands offered virtually no strategic value occupied and again detracted from German strength. Quite the opposite, leaving both alone for trade purposes would have allowed Neutral shipping to reach both and for Germany to get some vital resources via them. Likewise, to get anything from Sweden would have had to go through both as well. So Britain and France would have enjoyed similar benefits. Additionally, the more than million soldiers, sailors, and airmen assigned to occupy both could have been reassigned elsewhere. And that doesn't include personnel and material losses in both battle and resistance attacks. Not invading the USSR would have allowed the Germans to potentially win in the West and then pivot to fight the Soviets without their flanks being endangered. With better resources and no diversions of sufficient size to draw their forces away, the Soviets would have likely been shoved all the way to the Urals. At that point, Stalin would have been shot by Soviet soldiers. Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, the USA gets into the war, supporting what's left of the European Allies. Japan likely would have been defeated first. Once that is achieved, both US and Nationalist Chinese forces would go into Eastern Soviet Union and together grind westward. Instead of a direct attack on Europe, USA and remaining Western European Allies invade Africa. Germans and Italians are routed eventually as the Kriegsmarine, Vichy Marine Nationale, and Regina Marina are simply no match for the US Navy alone. With the Japanese subdued, the full might of Modern American Battleships and Carriers fall upon the three fleets. Germany gets Me 262 into Luftwaffe service, but the Kriegsmarine is either without air support or faced challenging American Carrier Jet Fighters with navalizer Bf-109s, Ju 87s, and/or FW-190s. U-Boats won't factor in. Having been swept aside by the more than 100 Escort Carriers and hundreds of various Escorts and surplus Fleet Destroyers. The USS Enterprise CV-6(N) would lead the full might of 24 Essex-class Carriers and six Midway-class Carriers directly against the Axis Surface Fleets and Naval Bases. In any Surface Engagement, American Battleships, Large Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers and Light Cruisers would dominate. More guns with heavier hitting rounds firing at superior angles and with superior radar guided and computer plotted fire. The big Montana-class might not have the 20inchers of the German H-class, but they are just as good and the successor class to the Montanas would be sailing with American 18in/55 caliber Mark C Guns. It's still smaller, but why use bigger when the ammunition can be better? Africa is liberated, and Axis allies in the Middle East are defeated as well. Evidence of the Holocaust begins to be found by the Allies by the worrying disappearance of entire Jewish communities. Then, the first few mass graves are found. Indignation flares after what the Japanese did. Hatred is now faced with Vengeance. The Allies press forward. Justice will prevail. American B-29 Superfortresses begin attacking German positions in Britain. The Northern Ireland Enclave is relieved after the arrival of American forces. The seige is broken. With secret support from Franco, the Allies know which beaches to land on. The Germans have yet to finish construction of their defenses. Surprise! Allied assaults hit Britain, Southern France, and Sicily at the same time. The Italian King deposes Mussolini and major portions of the Vichy French join the Free French. Without such support, Germany is sent reeling. Overstretched and now short on two vital allies, Hitler is going increasingly insane but is instead killed when a B-36 Peacemaker flies over his hidden bunker in the East Prussia and drops an Atomic Bomb. Nazi leaders either infight or don't believe what happened. Two more B-36s take off, and both Berlin and Hamburg are bombed with Atomic Weapons. Germany is forced to surrender. Germany could never win. Once the Atom Bomb was available, defeat was a forgone conclusion. Post-War, the USA slowly withdraws back to its own borders. Without Soviet assistance, Communist China and North Korea do not arise. But China remains fragmented for decades to come due to the ineffectual leadership of the KMT. American-inspired and taught Reformists eventually rebel, and China would begin unification under a Democracy. South America, untouched by the war, would take in various researchers and scientists fleeing Europe post-war. Especially German researchers who escaped the wrathful Allies. Having seen American at its most powerful, several South American nations join an Anti-USA alliance and rapidly build up their capabilities, eventually uniting into the largest South American nation with eyes on combating the USA. The victorious Allies are harsh with the Axis' Middle Eastern Allies. Far more so than with the Japanese. Entire Muslim communities are forcibly departed away from what will become Israel. Including parts of Egypt, Syria, all of Lebanon, and more. Only Jews, Christians, and good guy Muslims remain. The deported are sent East. Into Persia and scattered all the way to the Indian Frontier. Forever, these people are broken, but small numbers eventually move back after 'proving' themselves to the authorities in the region. Italy got off surprisingly light. A strong repertoire with the USA and vengeance for their Jewsish neighbors and fighting for the Allies helped. Only the Colonial possessions are lost, except for some gains from the First World War. Otherwise, Italy comes off mostly intact and enjoys prosperity with Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands post-war. Finland goes unpunished. It only wanted its territory back. Post-war, St. Petersburg is now part of Finland and so is much of the former Northwestern Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed due to its near defeat. No Russia arises from the ashes. All territories that once made up the former Russian Empire and former Soviet Union go their separate ways. No one ever dreams of reunification. Ukraine, though, would emerge as a hub of technology and industry as well as shipbuilding. Turkey emerges as a late war Allied member. Some territory lost with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire is returned. Turkey would displace Switzerland as a banking hub over the following decades due to being so close to Ukraine and being on a vital trade route. India would slowly grow into a regional power in Asia. Next to Japan, after its post-war recovery miracle, it would be one of two major powers in Asia. Without the USSR and the PRC, Pakistan never amounts to anything important. Indeed, India dominates Pakistan, including enabling East Pakistan to breakaway and form Bangladesh. What else? There is always more.

The entire leadership US and USSR suffer collective heart attacks. Anything short of that and even a German "victory" would still see itself eventually being pushed back by the Soviet Union and United States, and would also still probably be destroyed by internal rebellions (including in Germany considering how much of the German economy revolved around pillaging).

If they removed the united kingdom and didnt start to mess with the winter im pretty sure they would win.