To discuss the ways the Germans COULD have won WWII is retarded. There about 1,000 different things that could POSSIBLY have allowed German victory. I know what is not one of those things: a lack of good generals. But I digress.

Also, let us not sully the discussion with talk of "the Axis". It was Germany fighting a war, and Japan fighting a war against the same people. That makes them "the Axis", although the certainly didn't work together, what with the Japs clearly being untermenschen. What comprised the Western "axis"? Germany, and a bunch of other countries Hitler made fight for them. Italy was ok against Ethiopia, but the were out of things by 1940. Not prepared to fight a proper modern war, although they did have decent equipment. Who else? Romania? Vichy France? Bulgaria? Hungary? Give me a break!

Lastly, to the comment about American convoys being under threat of German sub attack. That threat was pretty much nil by 1943-44, also known as the time when the Americans got proper serious about the war in Europe. The glorified wolfpacks of Nazi Germany were no match for the escort carrier-based dive bombers and shore-based B-24s (or whatever the Naval version was called) of the US. The Allies dominated the Atlantic by 43, and by 44 the world's oceans were completely controlled.

if hitler had left russia and followed through with an invasion of england, then there would have been no chance. The only reason the axis lost the war was because they simply couldnt fight the massive numbers. Germany could have eventually taken england and then a full scale attack with all troops on russia would have been successful. they could have taken africa, then helped japan win their war.

|> If you had put it on a 1v1 scale it wouldve been German Victory until they reached the Urals, but they failed due to their many fronts of war, like The austro-hungarian empire in 1914

But it wasn't a "1v1 scale" (whatever that may mean). When they attacked Russia, it was perfectly clear what they were getting into. I'd certainly say that anyone picking a fight they should know they cannot hope to win simply deserves the defeat.

Speaking of their many fronts, here's an interesting quote (from a television show, but common knowledge since ancient times):

|> "Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

I have no idea how many fronts Germany had exactly, but West, East and Africa at the very least and arguably the Winter War front where they were helping Finland.

---

@TexasJohn:
|> It was Germany fighting a war, and Japan fighting a war against the same people. That makes them "the Axis", although the certainly didn't work together, what with the Japs clearly being untermenschen.

That's simply not true; at least one German submarine was sunk while en-route to Japan (to deliver a shipment of Uranium if memory serves). How that matches with their political doctrine I cannot explain (and I have indeed wondered about that before).

I wonder if The US would've left Britian alone, if Germany invaded....

somebody said (i have no idea who): smart people will never win a war, because smart people will never start a war. And in war there are no winners, in the end everybody has lost somebody and everybody is sad :(

guys ... really a most futile discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

What you guys think would have happened if Germany would not have surrendered in May 1945 ?

they would have been beaten and in the end nothing would change. The Americans wouldn`t trow an A-bomb when they are winning. When the germans surrenderd the most of Germany was already taken. If they trew an A-bomb they would have killed most of the soldiers in europe and parts of the population of the lands around Germany.
(sorry for my bad englisch)

To all the "prophets" ;ike texasjohn who want to pick at my post, name some great generals besides Rommel you heard that Nazi Germany had. Chances are you may be able to name two, if you've read your history books. Lets think about this for a second, Heinreich Himmler, a coward , chief of polic, and commisioner for the strengthening of Germandom (pathetic) was put in charge of defending Germanies Jewel in the East, Prussia. Hitler knew Himmler was a politician, not a general and you think hitler put him there for no reason? Yeah thats what you call bad generals . *The other "bad generals " it wasnt due to their thought, I WROTE THE THREAD IN A HURRY, could've been good, but Coporal Hitler who in 25 years was promoted to dictator of the reich MESSED THEM UP.* So I apologize for that part I was in a hurry

But on the page of nuclear bombs, America wouldnt have been even able to drop bombs on Germany because by then Germany would have hundreds of miles of AA and flak that bombs couldnt avoid, and we borrowed the idea of missiles from Germany

@Kar98k

Um. . . We pretty much ignored all that flak when we started bombing the living hell out of everything in 1943. The brits were there two, they can vouch for us. Flak would not have had any affect on the bomb, nor would fighter aircraft or jets starting in late 1944. We had air superiority of pretty much everything.

Just my two cents.

Guderian, Kesselring, von Kleist, Kluge, Manstein, Model, von Rundstedt, Student. The German Wermacht was a very well-trained and well-led fighting force, with the exception of the highest of commands (Hitler, etc). Himmler was given a token command far too late to do any good, and was more an act of desperation by Hitler rather than any rational (as rational as Hitler could be, at least) choice.

I'm sorry, you said the AAA (flak) could have stopped an A-bomb attack on Germany? Because it did SO well against traditional bombs, eh? And let's not delude ourselves with the fact that the A-bombs were a particularly deadly weapon; the firebombing campaigns in Germany and Japan were far more deadly, in terms of numbers killed (particularly in Japan, due to most buildings being built of wood and paper).

I know that Germany occasionally sent submarines to Japan with technical drawings, uranium, etc. But one cannot really say that this was a real alliance, as there was never any actual military help given. They were essentially two separate wars. There was certainly never any coordination between the Japs and the Germans, a la Yalta. Hell, the Japs couldn't even coordinate between the Imperial Army and Navy!

Oh, forgot to reply to Anderson. The situation on the German-Russian border (which was actually somewhere in Poland at the time, due to the joint attack) was very tense. There were very strong indications that the Russkies were in the process of modernizing and increasing the size of their army, and it was really only a matter of time before someone attacked there. And, to be fair, if the Germans had attacked later, say 1942-43, they would have stood less of a chance due to the massive numbers, particularly of the T-34 tanks. The 1941 versions of the T-34 gave the Germans enough trouble, and they lacked radios and decently trained crews.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding from the original poster and his understanding of what the opinion of the Russian population and the war with Nazi Germany.

You will not find that Russians will say that Russia won WW2. You will however find that Russians will say that they won the War for the Motherland, which in turn enabled a win in the WW2 for the allies.

Talking about a war some 70 years later from the view point of reading some history books is all well and good, and depending on the accuracy of the author and which propaganda it is spreading.
You seem to have some view that the Russians were gifted their Victories and it was due to either ally superiority or incompetence on the part of Hitler. Hitler, was not the only crazy dictator involved, Stalin quite easily surpassed Hitler and was responsible for the deaths of 29 million during the war, 20 million civilians.

I had the pleasure of living in Russia for 7 years and in that time was able to understand some parts of the culture and their outlook on many things, including the great war from 1941 to 1945. Maybe take some time and read some of the history books written from the side of Russians and you might come close to having a non-biased opinion.

Any reference to America winning anything has to be voided, since the only official war that was won by an American Army on its own was the American Civil War and that is probably debatable.

It's just a somewhat US-centric view of the war. As Americans, we are force fed the idea that D-Day (the invasion of Normandy, not the dozens of Pacific landings also called D-Day) was "the turning point of the war", when the German army was well on it's way to decline by 1943, after their loss at Kursk.

Why do you assume Hitler could have ignored Russia and invaded England before turning in Russia? I think there is pretty compelling evidence that Russia was preparing an invasion of Gemany in violation of the nonagression pact when Germany hit them. That may also partially explain the timing and lack of winter dress; the Germans were preempting a Russian attack.

@[REGL]min34

I agree.

one question an't we meant to be debating about the Russian armies might instead of Germany might,fronts,or invasion of Britain.
To answer the question how strong were the Russians not very strong the Germans were fighting many front and clearly they had held out against the Russians while fighting other opponents so.
To relate in warlight terms 3v3 match,axis vs allies in the game Germany is
fighting everyone and his winning strongly against Russia then Russia's teammate weaken Germany so germany has to cut back in defending against Russia so to defend his bonuses.

@dkristopherw and the prophet, let me tell you it is easy to deter an a bomb attack when you got miles of flak Ack ack and other AA fire. Look at the stats of the air war in world war 2 in 1944 the Germans nearly wiped out the 8th air force, Americas productivity was not beating its losses to German flak and fighters. No doubt it the Germans beat the russians they couldve made Europe one big fortress with all of the resources and brainwashed ukrains. You guys have little to no knowledge of America and britains air losses in 1944, it was catastrophic, watch any show or look at any reliable website on he air war, and youll find despite our factory ruining sucesses and our fighter killing skills, we didnt win the air war until 1945 when all of that , and every other german factory that we reached was destroyed, then we had free skies. It took 4 years to beat the luftwaffe, and half of it was fighting russia. We lost **9,000 +** bombers( troops inside not planes) in 1944 and the majority trying to get germany. *You two are preferring to the propogandic victories that you see in pictures and on movies that only tell you about our sucesses in 1945 , where the luftwaffe was mainly eliminated. However, had germany had the men and resources assuming they beat germany, our planes wouldnt be able to get past gernany, Im sorry for your guts to post on a thread despite lack of knowledge on the topic .*

1. The Germans would most definitely been nuked if they survived. That was the original focus of the Manhattan project, to create a nuke before Nazi Germany's scientists did. 2. If Russia was expecting the attack by Germany, they would have destroyed them. By the time Russia production had overcome Germany, the course of the war turned around.

Actually The Russian forces at the time of 1941 were mediocre at best.

The russian weapons in 1941 were unreliable, russia hadnt yet mobilized, and they werent really the long-range and open field fighting countries with no Anti tank personnel guns (in the infantry) they were doomed.