Could Germany have won ww2? #shorts

[robertm.]

Like Indy Neidell says when it comes to alternative scenarios: " History does NOT happen in a vacuum. "

[AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

Ah yes this and "what if Germany won WWI" are classic HOI4 questions.

[josephjenott]

"Or perhaps Italy could have done better."

That got a chuckle from me.

[Recluse]

I mean, if they had managed to obtain the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail they might have stood a chance. But luckily they were thwarted in obtaining those.

[damonedrington]

It depends on what “Win WW2 means”. If it means “get a deal and not total war” then yea it’s definitely possible. If you mean “totally defeat the powers against them in total war” the answer is just no. They were outmanned, outgunned, and out produced by such an insane level it’s honestly impressive they did what they did

[Edward-komt]

I think an interesting thing to point out is that Germany's economy was not ready for war by 1939, Hjalmar Schact (the economic minister) pointed this out and proposed a long term plan to prepare the economy for 1941, Hitler removed him and Goering established the 4 year plan instead. The Nazis never would have won WW2

[TheDakkaman]

My understanding is that the Reich's strategic and sociopolitical goals were just so out of realistic boundaries that they'd have needed a government of Bismarcks to have a chance even with good luck, and they actively had neither.

[dolmanationable]

"The Nazis would have won if they weren't Nazis" is a pretty good way I've heard it summed up

[andreikovacs]

Notes on Britain surrendering:

Britain prepared itself to keep on fighting while assuming that the expeditionary force in Dunkirk would be lost.

It having been recovered was an unexpected blessing and did not change its decision

[CptApplestrudl]

Considering the development of nukes as the endgame it's rather limited as to how this could have gone anyway.
Had Germany withstood the Russian pushback, it would have been up to the Americans to nuke Berlin or not.

[jullo]

Yeah Italy could’ve done a lot better but I heard that Mussolini told Hitler that his army wasn’t ready until 1942

[ussliberty]

Win a war against the Soviets, absolutely.

Win a war against the Soviets, Western Europe, and American manufacturing at the same time? There's just no way.

[untitleduck]

In a lot of alt history "Axis wins" scenarios, they experience a "happily ever after" where the different powers get along with each other, not accounting for the unsteady relations between the different members. I'd love to see a scenario where they all backstab each other instead cause that's what would likely happen if they had actually won.

[draketurtle]

Love how it comes down to Italy not being prepared and their incompetence.

[dominicadrean]

I cannot wait for your alternate history videos that came out please let them be soon😊

[MajesticDemonLord]

The biggest issue IMO is/was the Royal Navy. Gibraltar effectively sealed off the Med. Then you have to run the Channel or the Western approaches, which even though they did successfully do a couple of times (Royal Air Force caught napping) - it still doesn't mitigate the Naval advantage Britain and the allies had.

[MommyMinty]

Alright guys, we have our new game plan. Italy don't suck as much.

[mikelitorous]

The biggest things that would indicate a German victory would have been. Soviets being invaded by Japan rather than Japan bombing pearl harbour bringing the US into the war. However, the US would have joined later just under different circumstances, therefore they soviets fighting on two fronts that are nearly the otherside of the world from each other stretching them very thin. The British being routed at Dunkirk and the army either surrendering, being wiped out or only a handful of men escaping rather than the huge number we say irl that were nearly impossible due to the circumstances. And third if the oil fields in the Caucasus were captured with the Germans defeating the Soviets at Stalingrad which would have demoralised the Soviets even further than they already were due to the amount of resources and man power that they invested into that one battle.

[BaoHadir]

The anime "The Saga of Tanya the Evil" illustrates the point really well. For context, Tanya used to be a man in 21st century Japan who was murdered by an ex-employee he had fired, via being shoved in front of a train. He's reincarnated in a world just before the start of their version of World War 1. Their version wouldn't be much different from ours, except they have flying mages with magic bullets mostly replace fighter planes. Tanya is one such mage, joining up in the Empire's military at age 10. While in a meeting with one of her superiors, she thinks about the current state of the war effort for the Empire, and compares it to her knowledge of WW1 Germany (essentially, this world is Earth with scientists having figured out how to make magic work). So she mentions the idea of a world war to her commander, the chain of alliances that would cause it, and that in such a massive war the object shouldn't be to win, but to not lose. Get the enemy to step back so you can negotiate. There was no way the Empire could win a war against every major country on the planet, so pushing back the enemy and nailing down a peace treaty should be the goal.

[zerstorer]

There’s also the butterfly effect in that you don’t just change whatever event you’re thinking about. Everything that follows will be different. If Italy doesn’t need help, Rommel doesn’t go down there with the Afrika Korps. If he doesn’t go to North Africa, he doesn’t get the direct experience with fortified positions that shaped his approach to the Atlantikwall defenses.

Change something, and you have to expect that whatever you know about the war after that point is likely not the case and, thus, cannot inform a conclusion about what would follow.