How to Refight WW2

Aug 2014
155
New York, USA
#22
Don’t invest your forces to capture Moscow. Didn’t work for Napoleon. In the First World War, the Germans got the Russians to fight them selves. Hitler should have used more of the internal problems of stalins awful rule against him. He should have played himself more of a liberator of the Russian people from communist than trying to make more land for Germany.
Hard to paint yourself as a liberator when you are killing the people en masse and depopulating the land. All he had to do was be better than Stalin...which is a pretty low bar. Hitler managed to be worse than Stalin, causing the people to rally against an existential threat :\
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,571
Stockport Cheshire UK
#23
Hard to paint yourself as a liberator when you are killing the people en masse and depopulating the land. All he had to do was be better than Stalin...which is a pretty low bar. Hitler managed to be worse than Stalin, causing the people to rally against an existential threat :\
It wouldn't make any difference, the invasion was failing within the first few months, before the true genocidal nature of the German invasion had been revealed to the German population
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,414
SoCal
#24
There was a major flaw in his victory, while Britain remained in the war Germany did not have access to certain vital resources, mainly oil. Germany and it's occupied territories were running an oil deficit even with the imports it was getting from Russia.
What about allying with Stalin and liquidating the British Empire together with him?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,414
SoCal
#25
It wouldn't make any difference, the invasion was failing within the first few months, before the true genocidal nature of the German invasion had been revealed to the German population
Recruiting Soviet people into your army en masse would have made it bloodier for the Soviet Union to fight you, though.
 
Oct 2013
13,246
Europix
#26
Recruiting Soviet people into your army en masse would have made it bloodier for the Soviet Union to fight you, though.
Nah.

The Eastern front wasn't that bloody because of some sort of Soviet/Eastern people/military ferociousness. It was that bloody because of how Germany and the German Army was dealing the occupied territories/peoples.

Would have Germany treated the same the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Western Front would have become as bloody as the Eastern Front.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,793
Las Vegas, NV USA
#27
What about allying with Stalin and liquidating the British Empire together with him?
Do you mean before the invasion? He already had a non-aggression pact with Stalin who was supplying oil to Germany. If that were upgraded to a full alliance, I still don't see how they could "liquidate" the British Empire. Both were land powers and lacked the naval power Britain had. Britain still had access to commonwealth allies, colonies and resources around the world. Moreover, Churchill had a good relationship with Roosevelt and the US remained a potential de facto ally.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,414
SoCal
#28
Do you mean before the invasion? He already had a non-aggression pact with Stalin who was supplying oil to Germany. If that were upgraded to a full alliance, I still don't see how they could "liquidate" the British Empire. Both were land powers and lacked the naval power Britain had. Britain still had access to commonwealth allies, colonies and resources around the world. Moreover, Churchill had a good relationship with Roosevelt and the US remained a potential de facto ally.
Britain's empire was located on land and some of it--such as British India and the Middle East--would have probably been very vulnerable had the Nazis and Soviets formally allied and jointly waged war against Britain.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,793
Las Vegas, NV USA
#29
Britain's empire was located on land and some of it--such as British India and the Middle East--would have probably been very vulnerable had the Nazis and Soviets formally allied and jointly waged war against Britain.
Yes, some British possessions were vulnerable but that's not the same as "liquidating" the British Empire. I think the Mideast more than India and we're not factoring in Japanese ambitions. A Russo-German alliance would change the picture drastically for Japan. It would be the end of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis IMO. I just don't see Japan and Russia allied. Because of that, the OP's premises don't hold and it's a much different scenario. Also given the Soviet initial performance in the invasion and in Finland earlier boded well for a would be conquering power. They only got it together when faced with utter annihilation.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,414
SoCal
#30
Yes, some British possessions were vulnerable but that's not the same as "liquidating" the British Empire. I think the Mideast more than India and we're not factoring in Japanese ambitions. A Russo-German alliance would change the picture drastically for Japan. It would be the end of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. I just don't see Japan and Russia allied. Because of that, the OP's premises don't hold and its a much different scenario. Also given the Soviet initial performance in the invasion and in Finland earlier boded well for a would be conquering power. They only got it together when faced with utter annihilation.
Why couldn't Japan and Russia ally? After all, they could negotiate an agreement in regards to their spheres of influence.
 

Similar History Discussions