Why is it considered unlikely for Germany to win WW2 in this forum?

LeX

Look at a map. How big are Germany, Italy, and Japan? How big are America, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and China?

The answer is simple. Don't let "German efficiency" or "Japanese fanaticism" confuse you.
 

SlideAway

There is also the fact that Nazi Germany's goals were basically completely unsustainable. And the nature of Hitler and his regime were megalomaniacal — the idea that he would rationally just "stop" at some point is belied by the regime's actions.

Even if he had succeeding in destroying the Soviet state, it's simply near-impossible to imagine how the Nazis wouldn't ultimately collapse due to the sheer impossibility of subjecting virtually all of Eastern Europe to a slave society. Now, it might have been able to last *longer* than it did OTL, with tragically millions more deaths and the near total elimination of the Eastern European Jewish population. But the idea that the Nazi regime could have won then stuck around for decades is extremely difficult to imagine.
 

Jeb Bush

Because most people here believe if the United States were to face an army of 70 trillion fire breathing, flying, space monkey eating terminators that the United States will still win.

Have you seen what happens should someone dares to post a Sino or Russo wank that there will be 10 naysayers nitpicking every single detail to disprove that another nation can lead the world.

For example If someone said that a poverty stricken nation coming out of 3 decades of non stop fighting with little to no industrial capacity with an army of lightly armed peasants defeat a coalition of 16 nations led by the United States and the United Kingdom, that man and his thread would be escorted to the ASB section with the entire forum discussing his stupidity.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Don said:
Because most people here believe if the United States were to face an army of 70 trillion fire breathing, flying, space monkey eating terminators that the United States will still win.

Have you seen what happens should someone dares to post a Sino or Russo wank that there will be 10 naysayers nitpicking every single detail to disprove that another nation can lead the world.
Click to expand...

How does that have any relevance to a discussion on Nazi Germany's chances of winning WW2?

The USSR, USA, and UK vastly outnumbered and outproduced Germany, Italy, and Japan. That isn't pro-American bias, it's a fact.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Don said:
Because the main point of why it is unattainable is because of the US industrial capacity.
Click to expand...

American industrial capacity is only part of the equation. You also have to take into account Soviet industrial capacity, which was second only to the US, and Soviet manpower, which was greater than that of Italy and Germany put together. The naval superiority of Britain is also important here, as are the millions of troops that the British Empire can bring to the table.
 

Jeb Bush

Don said:
For example If someone said that a poverty stricken nation coming out of 3 decades of non stop fighting with little to no industrial capacity with an army of lightly armed peasants defeat a coalition of 16 nations led by the United States and the United Kingdom armed with nuclear weapons, that man and his thread would be escorted to the ASB section with the entire forum discussing his stupidity.
Click to expand...

Hint: Thats not Vietnam
 

ObssesedNuker

The Mahnovite said:
Stalin was given repeated info that Barbarossa is coming, in OTL. He refused to believe it.
Click to expand...

And the two major reasons for that was because (1) Germany was still at war with Britain and he refused to believe that Britain is out of the war and (2) he was aware that the Red Army was not ready for war. In your proposed timeline, by the time Germany turns around to attack the Russians neither of those will be true. So Stalin will have a lot more reason to believe the intelligence in the first place.

The German attack breaks down inside the Soviet frontier. There is a war of attrition for about another half-year to year as the Soviets use combat experience to work out the final kinks in their forces that the reforms missed, then they steamroll the Germans.
 

ObssesedNuker

CthulhuFhtagn said:
What country is it? I've studied a lot of modern history, but I can't recall reading about a poverty-stricken country defeating a coalition of 16 nations led by the United States and the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

He might be referring to Iraq or Afghanistan, in which case his analogy is pretty stupid because the endgame in those countries are a lot more complicated then a simple "we have won" or "we have lost".
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
ObssesedNuker said:
He might be referring to Iraq or Afghanistan, in which case his analogy is pretty stupid because the endgame in those countries are a lot more complicated then a simple "we have won" or "we have lost".
Click to expand...

I'm 99% sure he's referring to Afghanistan, but I'm waiting for him to say it so we can argue about what constitutes a military defeat.
 

Jeb Bush

CthulhuFhtagn said:
I'm 99% sure he's referring to Afghanistan, but I'm waiting for him to say it so we can argue about what constitutes a military defeat.
Click to expand...

You guys serious? Ok Ill put you out of your misery and the answer is not Afghanistan. Its the Korean War and "Red China".
 

Jeb Bush

CthulhuFhtagn said:
What country is it? I've studied a lot of modern history, but I can't recall reading about a poverty-stricken country defeating a coalition of 16 nations led by the United States and the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

.........................................reverse google 16 nation coalition led by US

EDIT: nvm about reverse googling. Odd, but the UN coalition was 16 nations
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Don said:
You guys serious? Ok Ill put you out of your misery and the answer is not Afghanistan. Its the Korean War and "Red China".
Click to expand...

Well, the way you phrased it seems a bit misleading. Maybe you should have said "a poverty stricken nation with the world's largest army and manpower base fighting western military forces on what basically amounts to its home turf, and ending up holding them to a stalemate and signing a truce partially due to the fact that the US and UK were unwilling to use their nuclear weapons out of fear of retaliation from the USSR". You also neglected to mention the substantial Soviet aid to both the Chinese and North Korean armies.

The way I said it sounds far more plausible, doesn't it?
 

Jeb Bush

CthulhuFhtagn said:
Well, the way you phrased it seems a bit misleading. Maybe you should have said "a poverty stricken nation with the world's largest army and population fighting western military forces on what basically amounts to its home turf, and ending up holding them to a stalemate and signing a truce". You also neglected to mention the substantial Soviet aid to both the Chinese and North Korean armies.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps it should be better phrased as a militia army armed with captured Arisaka rifles crushing a US led coalition of 16 nations to what is now the "longest military retreat in US history" despite the fact the US army had tanks, artillery, attack aircrafts, napalm, helicopters, aircraft carriers, submarines, battleships, bombers, more bombers, and of course the Atomic bomb. Yet despite all of this, despite the fact the USSR held back most of the promised aid, despite the fact the Chinese just finished a 20 year long civil war, the US failed its goal of destroying North Korea. So in a sense the Greatest power in the world along with its allies with a clear technological and industrial advantage lose.

So lets recap, if Civil War China can defeat the US. Why can't Superpower Germany?
 

Alex1guy

Don said:
Hint: Thats not Vietnam
Click to expand...

If that's your assessment you fundamentally don't understand either conflict nor the social, political and industrial realities of involved.

USSR, British Empire, USA. Three narrow minded industrial juggernaughts when shaken into action. All were shaken into action. Germany, one industrial juggernaught. 3 generally beats one.
 

Jeb Bush

Alex1guy said:
If that's your assessment you fundamentally don't understand either conflict nor the social, political and industrial realities of involved.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out even the most ASB of scenarios occurred in reality, therefore a German victory is not achievable.
 

Shaby

The Kiat said:
Depend on what your definition of win is. Take Poland? Sure. Beat France? Why not. Conquer the Soviet Union? Somebody hasn't taken a look at a map. Perhaps if Barbarossa had a limited goal of toppling Stalin's regime, even then it's a maybe. Invade Britain? Not without a navy you aren't!

WWII for Germany was only winnable if Hitler quit while he was still ahead. He suffered from the same problem as Napoleon and conquerors back to Alexander in that regard. He moved too fast. It should have been Austria in 1938, Sudetenland in 1943, Bohemia in 1948... they'd need a new Fuhrer by now since it's debatable that even a non-stressed Hitler would still be alive.... and Poland in 1953. Don't move too fast. Take something, consolodate your hold and let the people of other nations start to forget you're an aggressor before making your next move.
Click to expand...

German economy could not withstand long enough for slower pace of conquests to be possible. In fact the events were dictated by economy and the Germans invaded the countries as their resources were being exhausted.

Besides Hitler could not quit. Even had he wanted, his enemies wouldn't. 'I would like to make peace, but nobody wants to make the peace with me.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top