Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 21st, 2017, 05:54 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Europe
Posts: 183
Did Hitler have a chance to win WWII?


Did Adolf Hitler have a chance to conquer the world in 1938 or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
younghistorian is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 21st, 2017, 06:11 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,137

Quote:
Originally Posted by younghistorian View Post
Did Adolf Hitler have a chance to conquer the world in 1938 or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Just the world ? Not the whole universe ?


Probably about 1 chance in a googol
tomar is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 06:19 AM   #3
Citizen
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: united states of america
Posts: 4

I would say a 1 in a million chance

Last edited by Mightyrorschach; June 21st, 2017 at 06:29 AM.
Mightyrorschach is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 01:23 PM   #4

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,085
Blog Entries: 22

The World!? Of course!
Lord Oda Nobunaga is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 01:40 PM   #5
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: Netherlands
Posts: 827

Hitler DID win ww2 before they invaded the Soviet Union.
CPTANT is online now  
Old June 21st, 2017, 01:59 PM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: uk
Posts: 1,607

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTANT View Post
Hitler DID win ww2 before they invaded the Soviet Union.
And declared war on the US. As I've said previously, what is thecpointvin declaring war on a country you can't harm, but who is capable of sending thousands/millions of men and vast quantities of war materials to harm YOU?

Yes, you may say that he got his declaration of war in just before the US declared war on him, but I say that wasn't guaranteed; it may at least have bought him some time.

Remember that the US had just been ambushed by Japan, and whilst Churchill wanted a 'Europe first' policy, Pearl Harbour may have changed all that. I'm sure that most Americans would have wanted to concentrate on giving the Japanese a bloody nose before travelling to the other side of the world to help the Brits.

Perhaps if Hitler had condemned the sneak attack , the US may have concentrated on the Pacific conflict. After all a war on several fronts is not something to be desired, and the American President had to bear in mind the will of his people. Hitler declaring war on the US played right into the hands of Churchill, and after that the 'Europe first' policy became much more likely.
paranoid marvin is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 02:03 PM   #7

motorbike's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Australia
Posts: 651
Blog Entries: 2

Hitler never had any intentions of the conquering the world. He just wanted Lebensraum for the German people in Eastern Europe and to be the dominant power and culture in continental Europe.
motorbike is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 02:13 PM   #8
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Hitler didn't want to conquer the world, he talked pretty specifically about what he wanted and until british started invading neutral countries the germans did not do so. They didn't even invade sweden which would have saved them a great deal of troubles, or switzerland (though this is probably not practical anyway) or spain who kinda betrayed them and would have allowed them to sew up the mediterranean.

He wanted living space especially farmland which is what germany needed to increase its population levels, and he wanted to end communism and kill anyone heavily involved with it and get jews out of europe by any means possible. He mostly did not seem to focus too much on resources except once they started to get low on oil then he really wanted the russian oil.

And my opinion is that he mainly did not go after the mediterranean through spain because he did not really want africa. If he did he could have gotten tangiers from the french for example. There is no way to know exactly why they rejected this idea though, who knows.

I do think that they could have won, though.

If they simply skipped battle of britain and then barbarossa had concentrated on a real blitzkrieg to gain the big objectives as fast as possible in the east like moscow and leningrad they could have forced a quick peace in the east. Simple things like starting a bit earlier and preparing a bit better (ie not wasting resources on BOB) and not making various blundering decisions like Hitler's typical constant switching of objectives, could easily have made the difference.

I doubt soviets would ever give a full surrender but they would probably give up ukraine and poland to germany if they were in such dire straights. The germans basically DID win in the east because they took 90% of their trained troops down and around 50% of their total agricultural and industrial areas down. On its own it was simply doomed in spite of what many fanbois will say.

Fortunately for them they got a huge amount of the most critical supplies through lend lease to keep their infrastructure together and be able to collect much of their harvest. Even so there was widespread starvation. In that sense taking so many captives didn't help Germans at all. They would have been more mouths to feed for soviets and had no equipment left and with moscow and leningrad gone they would have a loooong march in the cold to get to safety.

At that point with ukraine and so on under their sway there is no more world war basically. The only thing to worry about is USA nuking them, but that can be avoided by simply not declaring war on them.

So yes, even with the same basic strategies but fewer mistakes they could have won.

And that doesn't take into account entirely different ideas like conquering the british empire and taking african and middle east resources instead of going east. Or else prepare longer and wait for soviet attack on poland and try to get US and UK support. Or building more submarines and starving out the UK. And on and on.

OTOH you could say they actually got lucky in many ways with things going their way that no one could have been sure they would. Like france which could easily have been a disaster if either side zigged instead of zagging.

Last edited by Bophis; June 21st, 2017 at 02:16 PM.
Bophis is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 02:22 PM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,137

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bophis View Post
Hitler didn't want to conquer the world, he talked pretty specifically about what he wanted and until british started invading neutral countries the germans did not do so. They didn't even invade sweden which would have saved them a great deal of troubles, or switzerland (though this is probably not practical anyway) or spain who kinda betrayed them and would have allowed them to sew up the mediterranean.
What are those neutral countries that the UK invaded ?

And what troubles would have Sweden saved Germany ? It supplied all the iron it could and Germany needed, it allowed transit for german troops going to Finland/Norway and it let its citizens joins the waffen ss...... Really they were more useful without being invaded, and not invading saved Germany the expense and the occupation force
tomar is offline  
Old June 21st, 2017, 04:21 PM   #10
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
What are those neutral countries that the UK invaded ?

And what troubles would have Sweden saved Germany ? It supplied all the iron it could and Germany needed, it allowed transit for german troops going to Finland/Norway and it let its citizens joins the waffen ss...... Really they were more useful without being invaded, and not invading saved Germany the expense and the occupation force
UK invaded iceland (which was pretty ridiculous and unwarranted) and then it tried to occupy norway to cut off iron ore shipments to germany. After that germany kept a force in norway and forced sweden to give german troops a right of way through sweden - though only while unarmed and in small groups.

Sweden and switzerland gave a lot of trouble for Germany because their neutrality made them spy havens for soviets and for allies.

Niel Bohrs, who had learned about nuclear fission from the german chemist who proved it existed, also fled into sweden and then to UK and that is what started the english nuclear program which is what became the manhattan project. So did many other scientists and engineers who went over to the allies.
Bophis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
chance, hitler, win, wwii



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the Germans still have a chance in WWII Bruin European History 16 July 5th, 2017 03:57 PM
Realistically, what WWII German advanced weapons had best chance to be game changing? lodestar War and Military History 147 June 29th, 2017 09:10 PM
Remilitarization of the Rhineland - a chance to stop Hitler? Valens Speculative History 39 June 6th, 2017 04:19 PM
Did Hitler have a chance Against USSR emperor of seleucid War and Military History 527 January 24th, 2013 07:32 PM
What chance did the Axis powers have of winning WWII? Salah War and Military History 104 April 26th, 2012 01:51 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.